Virusocracy: How anti-vax became a political platform

Доступно на русском языке

Refusal to vaccinate as a new trend

In September, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said at a press conference in Tampa that he plans to end mandatory vaccination in the state: “Mandatory vaccination is steeped in contempt and the spirit of slavery. Who am I, as a public official or as a person standing before you here and now, to tell you what to do with your body?”

Before this, Florida had fairly strict vaccination rules. Schoolchildren were required to receive vaccines against polio, diphtheria, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, tetanus and other infections. Those without the required shots were barred from attending public schools. These rules were part of the guidelines issued by the state’s Department of Health.

Following Ladapo’s statements, the department clarified that the end of mandatory vaccination will apply to shots against hepatitis B, chickenpox, haemophilus infection, and pneumococcal disease. The new policy will take effect in early December. Florida lawmakers still have the option to expand this list to such diseases as measles, polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and others.

In February 2025, Donald Trump established the interagency federal commission MAHA (Make America Healthy Again), linking healthcare to the political agenda of the Republican administration. MAHA’s stated goal is to develop a strategy to combat chronic issues like obesity, diabetes, allergies, and overmedication. The body does not have the authority to change state laws — it can only issue recommendations — but on those lines, in September 2025 MAHA released a strategy report containing around 130 proposals to revise federal policy on healthcare, research, and public-private partnerships.

Florida Surgeon General Ladapo and the state’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis use MAHA’s rhetoric but distort the meaning, as The Guardian notes. In their rhetoric, vaccination is equated with forced treatment. Yet these two things are not the same: vaccine mandates are based on epidemiological data and are intended to ensure Americans’ safety, not restrict their freedoms.

In 2025, authorities in Texas and Arizona broadened the criteria that allow parents to refuse vaccines for personal and religious reasons. The consequences followed immediately: local outbreaks of measles and pertussis began, and pediatricians issued warnings about “clusters of the unvaccinated” — the emergence of schools and neighborhoods with critically low immunization coverage.

Return of defeated infections

The disease statistics are stark: in states with low vaccination coverage, outbreaks consistently rise, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For example, in early 2025, Texas recorded a measles outbreak. Low herd immunity failed to contain the virus, and the disease quickly spread to neighboring states.

“From January 1 to April 17, 2025, the United States reported 800 measles cases — the second-highest annual total in the past 25 years. Eighty-two percent of cases were linked to an ongoing outbreak in close-knit communities with low vaccination coverage in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Eighty-five people (11%) were hospitalized, and three died,” the CDC’s report of April 24 stated.

In just the first months of 2025, the incidence of measles was 180 percent higher than the total figures for all of calendar year 2024, when 285 cases were recorded. Such outbreaks place heavy pressure on the pediatric healthcare system. They also force schools and kindergartens to close, quarantines to be declared, and hospitals to become overcrowded with patients.

There is little doubt that the outbreak is linked to declining immunization levels. According to recent CDC data, MMR vaccination coverage in the U.S. has been falling while cases continue to rise.

Is there a solution to the worsening problem? Experts around the globe are proposing their own approaches.

“Public health efforts must also address the cultural, religious, and political influences behind vaccine hesitancy,” writes Indian molecular biologist Priyanjana Pramanik. “Successful campaigns must consider community beliefs, as shown by an effective faith-led vaccination drive in India. This approach can inform local outreach efforts, such as those in Gaines County, Florida, where religious communities have low vaccination rates. Without more decisive local and global action, communities remain vulnerable to measles and other preventable diseases, raising concerns about the possible return of endemic measles in the United States.”

India’s example shows that trust in vaccination is built not on fear and pressure but on understanding cultural context. This may be one key to containing outbreaks like the one in Texas.

The cost of anti-vaccine sentiment

Rising infection rates lead to direct budget losses. From January to April 2019, Clark County in Washington State recorded 72 confirmed measles cases. CDC experts calculated the cost to the government by identifying three categories of spending:

• the healthcare system’s response (labor, supplies, and contractor services needed to contain the outbreak);
• direct medical expenses (payments by third parties or patients themselves);
• lost productivity (costs associated with temporary disability from illness, home isolation, quarantine, or caring for sick people).

Total expenses for the county amounted to $3.4 million (an average of $47,500 per case). Most of the spending — around $2.3 million — went toward containment measures, while lost productivity accounted for $1 million and direct medical costs totaled $76,000.

Using this methodology, the measles outbreak in Texas can be roughly estimated to have cost $38 million — and that figure does not include expenses associated with school closures.

In 2019, most of the bill fell on local and federal health departments. By 2025, insurers note that the financial burden of lost productivity and medical expenses will fall directly on employers. The public sector pays for quarantines and epidemic control, while businesses cover sick leave and lost work hours. Private insurance companies remain on the sidelines.

At the same time, the U.S. is seeing rapid growth in the market for “natural immunity” and “shot-free telemedicine,” which further undermines public trust in vaccination and contributes to outbreaks. Misleading slogans and the marketing of non-medical supplements push people to question clinical guidelines and forgo vaccines.

In June 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved an order banning the advertising of supplements as medicines without sufficient evidence. And yet, their popularity only continues to rise.

Helping anti-vaccine activists: social media algorithms and doctor-influencers

With the rise of social media, the audience for proponents of “alternative medicine,” who promise cures for all illnesses by “natural” means, has grown significantly. Researchers confirm that “information environments strongly influence health-related beliefs, behaviors, and decisions.” The emergence of doctor-influencers on social platforms has noticeably polarized society, dividing populations between supporters of naturopathy and advocates of conventional medicine.

“Our analysis shows that users tend to consume information that confirms their existing views, forming homogeneous clusters — or ‘echo chambers’ — where misinformation and biased narratives circulate without external correction. Such structural segregation reinforces polarization and reduces the likelihood of encountering alternative viewpoints,” a study published in the respected U.S. journal PNAS asserted.

Influencers have gained influence not only on social media. “Opposition doctor” Joseph Ladapo now directly shapes Florida’s health policy, a development that has drawn criticism from experts.

“I have never seen a state health agency use misinformation to justify ending the use of a vaccine that has already saved so many lives,” David Gorski, a professor of surgery and science blogger, told The Washington Post in 2024.

There are also cases of people switching “from one camp to another.” One example is Robert Malone, who was once a professional scientist working on mRNA vaccine research. During the pandemic, however, he became an anti-vaccine media influencer.

Twitter blocked Malone’s account due to its spread of COVID misinformation, but he found other platforms to share his views — among them Joe Rogan’s podcast, which draws tens of millions of listeners every month.

Russia saw a similar pattern during the COVID years. Despite the pro-vaccine position of the state and mainstream medicine, “anti-vaccination flare-ups” kept emerging. For instance, in 2021–2022, some members of the informal trade union Alliance of Doctors criticized the government’s vaccination policy and restrictions, describing them as coercive. Online media outlets published interviews claiming that most doctors secretly opposed COVID-19 vaccination but did not speak out due to fear of their supervisors. At the same time, Telegram saw the rising influence of “medical bloggers” and nutritionists who, under the banner of “natural immunity,” promoted dietary supplements and online “detox” courses.

The experiences of Russia and the United States show that emotional content with simple explanations and an appeal to authority is more effective than any official campaign.

The Insider guide: how to distinguish a truly scientific article from a promotional, propagandist, or simply pseudoscientific one

· Peer review. A real article undergoes independent expert evaluation. Fake ones are published without review, often on company websites.

· Publication details. Every scientific paper has publication identifiers – DOI (Digital Object Identifier), ISSN, and the journal volume. The absence of these identifiers is a sign of a non-academic publication.

· Methods and materials. An article must include a Materials & Methods section and appendices with raw data. If instead there are charts without numbers and phrases like “according to our center’s data,” it is not science.

· Statistics. P-values, confidence intervals, and the analytical model must be indicated. Their absence signals a promotional report.

· Conflict of interest. Academic journals require disclosure of funding sources and author affiliations.

· Tone and language. Scientific writing is neutral. Words such as “revolutionary,” “unique,” and “guaranteed effect” are markers of PR material.

· Platform. Check the domain: reputable journals are hosted on PubMed, Nature, Elsevier, and Wiley. A PDF on a corporate website is a press release, not an article.

The right to bodily autonomy versus the public good

The question of whether vaccination should be voluntary has long been at the center of a heated debate. The main advisory body of the World Health Organization, SAGE, insists that measles vaccination for children must be mandatory worldwide:

“All countries should include two doses of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) in the routine schedule; MCV2 should be added to the routine immunization schedule in all countries regardless of MCV1 coverage.”

Bioethics experts from Harvard Law School emphasize that personal autonomy when it comes to vaccination decisions is important but not absolute. When such autonomy threatens other people’s safety, the state can and should intervene. The key issue is determining the point at which one person’s freedom creates risk for the many.

Oxford University philosophers Julian Savulescu and Alberto Giubilini compare vaccination to wearing a seat belt: both measures limit personal freedom in order to protect life. “Coercive measures can be morally justified if they protect society from a real threat,” they explained in an authoritative 2019 article.

The desire or refusal to get vaccinated can be compared to smoking in public places. A person’s wish to smoke directly harms people around them, who are forced to inhale tobacco smoke. In the same way, a personal refusal to get vaccinated creates a risk for those who cannot be vaccinated — for example, due to medical reasons that put them at higher risk than the rest of the population.

It is important to note that, even before the recent changes, vaccination in Florida was not “absolute” — people could still opt out for medical or religious reasons. These freedoms are guaranteed, though they are carefully regulated in order to avoid abuse.

European countries approach vaccination coverage and information control differently. For example, Germany has introduced mandatory vaccinations, while France penalizes those who spread disinformation.

In Germany, since March 1, 2020, a law has required measles vaccination for all children and staff in educational and healthcare institutions. Access to such facilities is denied in the absence of proof of immunity to measles. Complaints were filed, but the Constitutional Court rejected them, recognizing the law as a “necessary and proportionate” measure to protect public health. Measles incidence in Germany has remained low since 2020, demonstrating the effectiveness of such policies.

In France, since May 2024, promoting refusal of medical care or dangerous “wellness” practices has been criminalized. Such actions carry penalties of up to three years in prison and fines of up to €45,000.

Russia and the United States: mirrored patterns

In Russia, vaccine skepticism has grown noticeably since the pandemic: only 45% of the population views vaccines positively, while social media has seen a boom in advertising for naturopathy and alternative immunity-boosting methods.

This has predictably led to outbreaks. “In 2023, Russia recorded rates of certain infections exceeding the multi-year average: Haemophilus infections by 13.4 times, measles by 11 times, rubella by 6 times, and pertussis by 4.5 times,” reports federal oversight agency Rospotrebnadzor.

The rollout of the Sputnik V vaccine played a role in this. Despite the high quality of the vaccine itself, authorities failed to present it adequately to the public and even took steps that undermined trust in vaccines in general. The main reason was a lack of transparency during Sputnik’s development and trials. Official data about the vaccine were sometimes contradictory, leaving the public unsure whom to trust, while PR specialists “adopted a defensive-aggressive stance, emphasizing the shortcomings of other vaccines and making unequivocal claims of 97% efficacy for Sputnik,” as noted in 2021 by Ilya Yasny, head of scientific expertise at Inbio Ventures.

The United States mirrors this pattern. Instead of the unjustified secrecy that surrounded Sputnik in Russia, the main negative factors in America are partisan ideology and active promotion of naturopathy. In both cases, however, the outcome is the same: undermined public trust in vaccination, rising infection rates, increased economic burdens on healthcare and the state, and, most importantly, a rise in preventable deaths.

What’s next: who can restore rationality

Ultimately, all paths back to rationality in epidemiology run through effective communication. The starting point should be those directly responsible for vaccination — doctors.

The Harvard Health Literacy Studies initiative focuses on training physicians and students to explain medical information clearly. Medical professionals themselves must become a new media anchor, capable of restoring public trust in vaccination without flashy slogans.

Journalism, in turn, must be more transparent, as is evident from the Russian example. Media should publish not only news but also protocols, methodologies, and the context of scientific research. Transparent data can help the press act as an intermediary in building trust rather than spreading rumors.

Finally, vaccination must reclaim its original purpose: protecting health. It should be seen not as an act of loyalty to any political agenda but as a necessary precaution essential for the survival of both individuals and society as a whole.