After Andrew Wakefield, the physician who claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, was discredited and disbarred, he spent almost a decade in relative obscurity before trying to clear his name and provide a concrete foundation for his pseudoscientific crusade. The method he picked to accomplish that was to publish a movie in 2016, meant to illustrate the supposed dangers of vaccination and the purported concealment of that fact by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and assorted pharmaceutical corporations. This film, Vaxxed, failed – it was barred from the Tribeca Film Festival, and opened to a crowd of a few dozen. Nonetheless, it is an immensely useful work in understanding both antivaccination ideologies and tactics, as it represents a summation of all their ideas and rhetorical strategies in a single vector. Over the course of this rhetorical analysis, I consider the strategies used by Wakefield and his associates, and find that they focus on anecdotal evidence, a conspiracy narrative, and the manufacturing of doubt, fear and scientific controversy wherever possible. I then discuss the impact of this film, both its reception and its effects as propaganda, and the reasons why it appears to have been such a dramatic failure, when previously, Wakefield’s paper drawing connections between the MMR vaccine and autism stirred such controversy and was so successful. Finally, I offer a few suggestions regarding recommendations for individuals seeking to debate or rebut antivaccination rhetoric, as well as a general perspective on the continuance, such as it is, of the antivaccination movement.

The study of the rhetoric of science reveals the means of persuasion scientists use when communicating their ideas. In the mid-twentieth century, when the controversial oral contraceptive pill was being developed, rhetoric surrounding its biology and morality was cautious and conservative. Some scientists discussed only the revolutionary science behind the pill and others condemned it as socially and scientifically unacceptable, but few walked the middle ground between biology and morality. In his publication “Control of Reproduction in Mammals,” however, Doctor Gregory Pincus integrates science and morality. This rhetorical analysis discusses the techniques Pincus used to communicate his ideas and determine whether or not they successfully persuaded his audience. His diction, figurative language, and argumentative appeals are analyzed and compared to contemporary documents. In assessing his choices, recent studies of the rhetoric of sexuality and medicine are consulted. I find that, while Pincus’ methods may have been unintentional, he successfully communicated to a divided public through contrasting language, varied arguments, and polysemy. This research is valuable because studies of the rhetoric surrounding issues at the intersection of science, politics, and sexuality are surprisingly limited. As medical technology and society progress, it is crucial to learn more about the role of rhetoric in the communication of science in order to preserve scientific integrity, freedom of accurate information, and reproductive rights.