Anti-vaxxers are asking people to stop calling them ‘anti-vaxxers’ because they think the term is offensive.
Just to clarify, anti-vaxxers are the people who refuse to give their children vaccines for fear they could lead to other health problems.
In reality, their claims about the dangers of vaccines are unfounded and their refusal of the preventative treatment causes more harm than good, as it leaves their children exposed to diseases such as measles and, in turn, encourages the spread of diseases.
The World Health Organisation explains:
Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever.
More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed.
The anti-vaxxer movement has been widely condemned but still those involved refuse to change their minds. They’re literally anti-vaccination – it’s not a nickname, just a fact.
However, some anti-vaxxers are now requesting ‘the media’ stop using the phrase, asking instead to be referred to as ‘Vaccine Risk Aware’.
Taking to Twitter, one anti-vaxxer wrote:
Dear Media,
Please retire the use of the term “Anti-vaxxer.” It is derogatory, inflammatory, and marginalizes [sic] both women and their experiences. It is dismissivemy [sic] simplistic, highly offensive and largely false.
We politely request that you refer to us as the Vaccine Risk Aware.
It’s unclear why the poster believes the phrase ‘marginalizes [sic] women and their experiences’ – anti-vaxxers can be male, too, but while they may have some unexplained arguments to support that point, some aspects of the post are undeniably false.
Describing the term as ‘highly offensive and largely false’, for example, is nonsensical. As I mentioned earlier, the term is literally descriptive of people who refuse vaccines.
Dozens of Twitter users quickly stepped in to voice their opinions, with many pointing out the term ‘Vaccine Risk Aware’ would actually be a much less accurate name for the group as they are basing their concerns on largely unfounded claims.
One person responded:
The answer is: NO
You are not “Vaccine Risk Aware”, you are “Dangerously uninformed and insisting that public health experts indulge your fantasies”.
Another person tweeted:
By definition, you are not vaccine risk aware. You are misguided at best, and actively child endangering at worst. If it offends you, tough – folks like you actively contributing to a massive rise in child deaths offends me.
As a result of people refusing vaccinations, the US has experienced the greatest number of measles cases reported since 1992, with the majority of those being among people who were not vaccinated against the disease.
According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from January 1 to November 7, 2019, 1,261 individual cases of measles were confirmed in the US. In comparison, there were just 86 cases reported in 2016; 120 cases in 2017, and 372 cases in 2018.
The CDC stresses the importance of vaccinations, explaining the more people who are vaccinated, the fewer opportunities a disease has to spread.
Anti-vaxxers must face the fact they are just that – anti-vaccination. Their choice to refuse vaccinations is risky and dangerous not only to their own families but to the wider world.
If you have a story you want to tell, send it to UNILAD via story@unilad.com.
Emily Brown first began delivering important news stories aged just 13, when she launched her career with a paper round. She graduated with a BA Hons in English Language in the Media from Lancaster University, and went on to become a freelance writer and blogger. Emily contributed to The Sunday Times Travel Magazine and Student Problems before becoming a journalist at UNILAD, where she works on breaking news as well as longer form features.