When it comes to spreading disinformation about climate change or the risks of smoking, I can clearly see how it protects economic interests (e.g. the value of the assets of the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry). I therefore understand that these lies are (have been) regularly pushed by people who do not necessarily believe in them.
But what are the strategic considerations behind the active spread of anti-vax theories? Who gains from this? Is it just an effective topic to rile up a political base? Because it hits people right in the feels? Is it just a way to bring people together on one topic, in order to use that political base for other purposes?
Or is anti-vax disinformation really only pushed by people who believe it?
It has popped up organically my whole life, presumably from a lack of trust of pharmaceutical companies and government health agencies. Some risks of certain vaccines have been overvalued by the population and spread. Then there is the inorganic spread which has value on an intranational level. “If my rival is largely antivax I’m at an advantage” etc