Source: Davies P, Chapman S, Leask J. Antivaccination activists on the world wide web. Arch Dis Child. 2002;87:22–25.In the US, 55% of adults with internet access utilize it to obtain health information.1 Recognizing the internet’s potential for disseminating information to a vast audience, the authors from the University of Sydney, Australia evaluated the internet as an information source on immunization. They accessed 7 search engines and entered the search terms “vaccination” and “immunisation OR immunization.” (The 7 included Google, Netscape, Altavista, GoTo, HotBot, Lycos, and Yahoo.) The first 10 hits on each were examined to determine whether they promoted or opposed vaccination. The authors then performed another search on Google, using the term “vaccination,” which returned 845 sites; of these, 44 were antivaccination. These 44 antivaccination sites included links to an additional 56 sites, making up a group of 100 sites with antivaccination messages. The authors analyzed these 100 sites for their explicit messages and for the tone in which they were conveyed.In the first portion of the study, 43% of the 70 hits from the 7 search engines conveyed antivaccination messages. Searching with “vaccination” was more likely to return an antivaccination site than searching with “immunisation OR immunization.” Thus, anyone utilizing the internet for information about vaccinations is highly likely to encounter antivaccination sites and messages.In the second portion of the study, the authors analyzed the 100 antivaccination sites identified using Google. The authors noted and categorized the explicit claims and rhetorical appeals on each site. Most antivaccination sites presented themselves as legitimate authorities with scientific credibility. Sites that promoted themselves as “unbiased” and presenting “both sides” of the vaccination “debate” rarely offered links to pro-vaccination sites (such as www.aap.org). Emotional appeals using “horror stories” about babies allegedly damaged by vaccination were commonly presented. Some sites made explicit claims about the dangers of vaccination either without any references or with reference to self-published work, television interviews, letters to the editors of newspapers, or other indiscriminate sources. In some cases, reference to medical journal articles included conclusions that differed from those of the authors. Conspiracies were often asserted or implied, and webmasters occasionally claimed to have privileged information suggesting that the medical profession is not telling the truth or is not aware of the truth about vaccinations.2The authors conclude that anyone searching the internet for information on vaccination will be readily exposed to a strong antivaccination message. The authors suggest several methods of counteracting this bias.This article contains a very useful summary of the various rhetorical appeals — “scientific,” emotional, conspiratorial — and explicit claims of antivaccination sites. The authors suggest an interesting approach to counteracting the disinformation about vaccination on the internet. In essence, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. For example, since emotional appeals hold great sway, images and stories of children damaged by vaccine-preventable illness might be effective.3 This may be troubling to some since it involves using a tactic many find repugnant.All of us are seeing better-informed parents in our practices. However, some are misinformed. We must keep our cool and help parents evaluate the information they download. Parents must be helped to understand not only the matters of fact at issue, but also the manner by which information is conveyed and how that might influence their understanding.An antivaccine movement followed close upon the heels of Jenner’s seminal 1798 publication and has been a constant, albeit unwelcome, companion to public health immunization in one or another form for 200 years. So it is here to stay. What is new is that the experience of many vaccine-preventable diseases such as diphtheria, polio and even measles is no longer part of the cultural consciousness of most parents in developed nations; that there now is potential for substantial financial rewards for successful litigation related to alleged adverse events; and that any group or individual can gain inexpensive, instantaneous worldwide access via the internet. To counter the above, the Immunization Action Coalition regularly publishes stories of children affected by vaccine-preventable diseases. In addition, websites offering scientifically credible vaccine information include cdc.gov/nip nip, aap.org, immunize.org, vaccine.chop.edu edu, vaccinesafety.edu, and immunizationinfo.org. The CDC also offers a useful guide to assessing immunization information on the web: cdc.gov/od/nvpo/people.htm. In the past it was Caveat Emptor, today Caveat Webtor.