The instrumentalization of science in the discussion about vaccines on Twitter in Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20318/recs.2026.9702Keywords:
Twitter, vaccines, instrumentalization of science, COVID-19, health disinformationAbstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated a context marked by uncertainties and widespread health-related misinformation. Objectives: In this context, we analyze the use of science in discussions about vaccines on X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil during the period of the pandemic’s highest crisis. Methodology: To achieve this, we searched for descriptors related to vaccination and scientific research on this platform. From this, we found 1,354 tweets that addressed the issue of vaccines and cited articles and/or preprints in this discussion, published between January 2020 and December 2021. The research findings were systematized into three main categories that map the possible uses, instrumentalization, and distortion of science in the discussion about vaccines on this platform. Results: From the analysis, we observed that the vast majority of scientific publications brought to the debate were favorable or neutral regarding the vaccine. Nevertheless, some of them were instrumentalized and/or subtly distorted to criticize vaccines and to exalt medications considered a panacea or alternative to immunization. Conclusion: These data indicate that misinformation about vaccines in contemporary times operates at a more complex level than assumed, and may be associated with disputes over the meaning of science.
Downloads
References
Amaral, A., Jung, A., Braun, L., & Blanco, B. (2022). Narratives of Anti-Vaccination Movements in the German and Brazilian Twittersphere: A Grounded Theory Approach. Media and Communication, 10(2), 144-156. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i2.5037
Berriche, M. (2021). En quête de sources: Preuves et mises à l’épreuve des internautes dans la controverse vaccinale sur Facebook. Politiques de communication, N° 16(1), 115–154. https://doi.org/10.3917/pdc.016.0115
Castelfranchi, Y., Mendes, I. M., Fagundes, V., Massarani, L., Moreira, I. de C., & Polino, C. (2025). As vacinas no Brasil da pandemia: Um estudo de percepção pública. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 30, e16802023. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232025304.16802023
Cesarino, L. (2021). Pós-verdade e a crise do sistema de peritos: Uma explicação cibernética. Ilha Revista de Antropologia, 23(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8034.2021.e75630
Davis, S. (2023). When Right-Wing Populism Becomes Distorted Public Health Communication: Tracing the Roots of Jair Bolsonaro’s Epidemiological Denialism. International Journal of Communication, 17, 1818–1836.
Farhart, C. E., Douglas-Durham, E., Lunz Trujillo, K., & Vitriol, J. A. (2022). Vax attacks: How conspiracy theory belief undermines vaccine support. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, 188(1), 135–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.11.001
Ferrari, I. W., Grisotti, M., Amorim, L. de C. de, Rodrigues, L. Z., Ribas, M. T., & Silva, C. U. da. (2022). “Tratamento precoce”, antivacinação e negacionismo: Quem são os Médicos pela Vida no contexto da pandemia de COVID-19 no Brasil? Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 27, 4213–4213. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320222711.09282022
Fleerackers, A., Riedlinger, M., Moorhead, L., Ahmed, R., & Alperin, J. P. (2022). Communicating Scientific Uncertainty in an Age of COVID-19: An Investigation into the Use of Preprints by Digital Media Outlets. Health Communication, 37(6), 726–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892
Fonseca, P. F. C., Ribeiro, B. E., & Nascimento, L. F. (2022). Demarcating Patriotic Science on Digital Platforms: Covid-19, Chloroquine and the Institutionalisation of Ignorance in Brazil. Science as Culture, 31(4), 530–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2105691
Furlan, L., & Caramelli, B. (2021). The regrettable story of the “Covid Kit” and the “Early Treatment of Covid-19” in Brazil. The Lancet Regional Health - Americas, 4, 100089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2021.100089
Galhardi, C. P., Freire, N. P., Fagundes, M. C. M., Minayo, M. C. S., & Cunha, I. C. K. O. (2022). Fake News and vaccine hesitancy in the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Ciência & saude coletiva, 27(5), 1849–1858. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232022275.24092021
Garcia, M., Evangelista Cunha, S., & Oliveira, T. (2021). Regimes de verdade na pandemia de Covid-19: Discursos científicos e desinformativos em disputa no Youtube. Fronteiras - estudos midiáticos, 23(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.4013/fem.2021.232.08
Gramacho, W., Turgeon, M., Santos Mundim, P., & Pereira, I. (2024). Why did Brazil fail to vaccinate children against COVID-19 during the pandemic? An assessment of attitudinal and behavioral determinants. Vaccine, 42(2), 315–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.11.064
Harris, M. J., Murtfeldt, R., Wang, S., Mordecai, E. A., & West, J. D. (2024). Perceived experts are prevalent and influential within an antivaccine community on Twitter. PNAS Nexus, 3(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae007
Hughes, B., Miller-Idriss, C., Piltch-Loeb, R., Goldberg, B., White, K., Criezis, M., & Savoia, E. (2021). Development of a Codebook of Online Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric to Manage COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7556. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147556
Kata, A. (2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28(7), 1709–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022
Kata, A. (2012). Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30(25), 3778–3789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
Koltai, K. S., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2017). Questioning science with science: The evolution of the vaccine safety movement. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401026
Maciuszek, J., Polak, M., Stasiuk, K., & Doliński, D. (2021). Active pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups: Their group identities and attitudes toward science. PLOS ONE, 16(12), e0261648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261648
Herculano Maia, L. R., Massarani, L., Oliveira, T., dos Santos Júnior, M. A., & Silva Maia, F. J. (2025). The Instrumentalization of Science in Anti-Vaccine Groups on WhatsApp in Brazil. Canadian Journal of Communication, 55(3), 392-421.
Maciel, E., Fernandez, M., Calife, K., Garrett, D., Domingues, C., Kerr, L., & Dalcolmo, M. (2022). A campanha de vacinação contra o SARS-CoV-2 no Brasil e a invisibilidade das evidências científicas. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 27(3), 951–956. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232022273.21822021
Massarani, L. M., Leal, T., Waltz, I., & Medeiros, A. (2021). Infodemia, desinformação e vacinas: A circulação de conteúdos em redes sociais antes e depois da COVID-19. Liinc em Revista, 17(1), e5689. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v17i1.5689
Massarani, L. et al (2022). Confiança na Ciência no Brasil em Tempos de Pandemia - Resumo executivo. [S. l.]: Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Comunicação Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT-CPCT). Disponível em: https://www.inct-cpct.ufpa.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Resumo_executivo_Confianca_Ciencia_VF_Ascom_5-1.pdf.
Ministério da Saúde. (s. d.). Influenza 2025—Ocorrência. Estratégia de Vacinação Contra a Influenza nas Regiões Nordeste, Centro-Oeste, Sul e Sudeste - 2025 - Ocorrência. Recuperado 16 de junho de 2025, de https://infoms.saude.gov.br/extensions/SEIDIGI_DEMAS_INFLUENZA_2025_OCORRENCIA/SEIDIGI_DEMAS_INFLUENZA_2025_OCORRENCIA.html
Monaci, S., & Persico, S. (2022). The COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign and Disinformation on Twitter: The Role of Opinion Leaders and Political Social Media Influencers in the Italian Debate on Green Pass. International Journal of Communication, 16.
Monari, A. C. P., Araújo, K. M. de, Souza, M. R. de, & Sacramento, I. (2021). Legitimando um populismo anticiência: Análise dos argumentos de Bolsonaro sobre a vacinação contra Covid-19 no Twitter. Liinc em Revista, 17(1), Artigo 1. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v17i1.5707
Moran, M. B., Lucas, M., Everhart, K., Morgan, A., & Prickett, E. (2016). What makes anti-vaccine websites persuasive? A content analysis of techniques used by anti-vaccine websites to engender anti-vaccine sentiment. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 9(3), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2016.1235531
Morejón-Llamas, N. (2023). Características y ejes discursivos de la desinformación y el proceso de fact-checking sobre las vacunas COVID-19 en Latinoamérica. Revista Española De Comunicación En Salud, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.20318/recs.2023.7005
Neuendorf, K. A. (2018). Content analysis and thematic analysis. Em Advanced research methods for applied psychology (p. 211–223). Routledge.
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andı, S., & Nielsen, R. (2020). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andı, S., Robertson, C. T., & Nielsen, R. K. (2021). The Reuters Institute digital news report 2021. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://doi.org/10.60625/RISJ-7KHR-ZJ06
Oliveira, T. (2021). Desinformação científica em tempos de crise epistêmica: Circulação de teorias da conspiração nas plataformas de mídias sociais. Fronteiras - estudos midiáticos, 22(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.4013/fem.2020.221.03
Oliveira, T., Araujo, R. F., Cerqueira, R. C., & Pedri, P. (2021). Politização de controvérsias científicas pela mídia brasileira em tempos de pandemia: A circulação de preprints sobre Covid-19 e seus reflexos. Revista Brasileira de História da Mídia, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.26664/issn.2238-5126.101202111810
Oliveira, T., Evangelista, S., Alves, M., & Quinan, R. (2021). “Those on the right take chloroquine”: The illiberal instrumentalisation of scientific debates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brasil. Javnost-The Public, 28(2), 165–184.
Piaia, V., Almeida, S., Dourado, T., Canavarro, M., Dienstbach, D., Cordeiro, M. S., da Silva, L. R., & Carvalho, D. (2023). Science For All? Relating Actors, Links, and Discourses with (Fake) Scientific Claims About COVID-19 on Twitter. Canadian Journal of Communication, 48(3), 581–608. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjc-2022-0060
Popper, K. R. (2004). A lógica da pesquisa científica. Editora Cultrix.
Recuero, R., & Soares, F. (2022). #VACHINA: How Politicians Help to Spread Disinformation About COVID-19 Vaccines. Journal of Digital Social Research, 73–97. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v4i1.112
Recuero, R., Soares, F., & Zago, G. (2021). Polarização, Hiperpartidarismo e Câmaras de Eco: Como circula a Desinformação sobre Covid-19 no Twitter. Revista Contracampo, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.22409/contracampo.v40i1.45611
Rodriguez, N. J. (2016). Vaccine-Hesitant Justifications: “Too Many, Too Soon,” Narrative Persuasion, and the Conflation of Expertise. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 3, 2333393616663304.
Santana Carlos, G., Herculano Maia, L. R., Massarani, L., Oliveira, T., & Silva Maia, F. J. (2025). Autoridade médica em grupos antivacina no WhatsApp no Brasil. Cuadernos.info, 60, 143–167. https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.60.82122
Secom. (2023, dezembro 20). Brasil reverte tendência de queda nas coberturas vacinais e oito imunizantes do calendário infantil registram alta em 2023. Secretaria de Comunicação Social. https://www.gov.br/secom/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2023/12/brasil-reverte-tendencia-de-queda-nas-coberturas-vacinais-e-oito-imunizantes-do-calendario-infantil-registram-alta-em-2023
StatCounter. (s. d.). Social Media Stats Brazil. StatCounter Global Stats. Recuperado 7 de abril de 2025, de https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/brazil
Statista. (2024). Most popular social media platforms in Brazil as of 3rd quarter 2023, by usage reach. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1307747/social-networks-penetration-brazil/
Van Schalkwyk, F. (2019). The amplification of uncertainty: The use of science in the social media by the anti-vaccination movement. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3557216
Verjovsky, M., Barreto, M. P., Carmo, I., Coutinho, B., Thomer, L., Lifschitz, S., & Jurberg, C. (2023). Political quarrel overshadows vaccination advocacy: How the vaccine debate on Brazilian Twitter was framed by anti-vaxxers during Bolsonaro administration. Vaccine, 41(39), 5715–5721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.07.075
Wardle, C.; Derakhshan, H (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. [S. l.]: Council of Europe Strasbourg, 27.
WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. (s. d.). Recuperado 3 de maio de 2023, de https://covid19.who.int
Downloads
Published
-
Abstract41
-
PDF 43
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lídia Raquel Herculano Maia, Luisa Massarani, Thaiane Oliveira, Marcelo Alves dos Santos Júnior
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
All articles published in this journal –unless otherwise stated- are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerives (CC-BY-ND 3.0 ES) Spain 3.0 License, which allows others to copy, distribute and transmit in a public way as long as they credit the author(s), journal and institution that publish these articles, and provided that they are not altered or modified. The complete license can be consulted in: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/deed/.es
The copyright belongs to the manuscript’s author just on the basis of creating this work:
- Moral rights are undeniable and inalienable.
- Economic or exploitation rights can be transferred to third parties, as it occurs when articles are published and authors partially or totally transfer their exploitation rights to publishers
Authors can archive their own articles in an institutional repository as long as their publications are cited in this journal.