• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Hum Vaccin Immunother . Poison, lies, war: A mixed methods content analysis of posts about COVID-19 vaccination on Gab Social

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Hum Vaccin Immunother


. 2025 Dec;21(1):2443999.
doi: 10.1080/21645515.2024.2443999. Epub 2025 Jan 3. Poison, lies, war: A mixed methods content analysis of posts about COVID-19 vaccination on Gab Social

Alice Marianne Fritz[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Andrea M Smith[SUP] 2 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Free article Abstract

Recent surges in COVID-19 cases demonstrate the unabated transmissibility of this disease. Despite the ongoing threat of contagion, however, uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines, especially as booster doses, remains suboptimal among eligible adults and children in the United States, as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO). Public attitudes toward these vaccines remain balkanized, with some groups harboring ambivalence or even opposition to receiving inoculation. Given the challenges for public health posed by the current, and potentially, future pandemics, it is crucial to understand more about how laypersons discuss and frame the vaccination debate in informal, non- or minimally monitored spaces. Following their development, virtual groups were created to share stories about negative reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Using a mixed methods approach, the present study analyzed a census of 368 posts on Gab Social that articulate users' attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Our approach focused on the framing and themes reflected in the posts, along with specific concerns expressed by users. Key findings include the observation that Gab users frequently frame the COVID-19 vaccination decision as one of whether the vaccines do more harm than good (i.e. helping vs. hurting frame) and that adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are not being truthfully reported on by mainstream media. Moreover, posts often display an antagonistic "Us vs. Them" perspective that pits vaccine skeptics against adherents. Overall, Gab users expressed strong resistance to the vaccines and distrusted government-issued recommendations to vaccinate, yet valorized medical professionals who advocated for more research on the vaccines' safety. Through these investigations, we hope to derive insights that may inform COVID-19 vaccine promotion; accordingly, practical recommendations are suggested based on our findings.

Keywords: COVID-19; framing; gab social; personal testimonies; social media; vaccine hesitancy; vaccines.

 
Back
Top Bottom