The role and influence of perceived experts in an anti-vaccine misinformation community

Abstract

The role of perceived experts (i.e., medical professionals and biomedical scientists) as potential anti-vaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of anti-vaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the anti-vaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence within the anti-vaccine community and shared academic sources at higher rates compared to others in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central anti-vaccine nodes and bridges between the anti- and pro-vaccine communities. Perceived experts received significantly more engagements than other individuals within the anti- and pro-vaccine communities and there was no significant difference in the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Interventions designed to reduce the impact of perceived experts in spreading anti-vaccine misinformation may be warranted.

Vaccine disinformation from medical professionals—a case for action from regulatory bodies?

“…With medico‐scientific professionals viewed as highly credible sources, 4,17 their pronouncements on vaccination (both positive and negative) garner significantly more attention online than those of other individuals, 4,18 and there is increasing awareness from both the public and medical bodies that false assertions from doctors do disproportionate harm to public understanding 19 . In the 1990s, for example, the South African government of Thabo Mbeki embraced AIDS denialism, citing unorthodox opinions of scientist Peter Duesberg, resulting in an estimated 343,000 avoidable deaths before the policy was reversed 20 …”