Why Are Celebrity Deaths and Illnesses Blamed on Vaccines?

Cotton Bro/Pexels

From Damar Hamlin to Jamie Foxx to Bronny James, it has become inevitable that every time a celebrity falls ill or dies, someone on social media will blame it on vaccines. In this interview the Poynter Institute's Politifact site conducted with me,¹ I explained why this has become so commonplace.

Have you noticed this trend where conspiracy theory-type claims about COVID-19 vaccines emerge following every celebrity/high-profile cardiac incident or collapse? If yes, what appears to be driving this trend?

Yes, there’s no question this has become “a thing” in the COVID-era. Claims about the role of vaccines in Bronny James’ collapse are just the latest in a long line of similar claims involving Damar Hamlin, Bob Saget, Tina Turner, Betty White, Lance Reddick, Ray Liotta, and Jamie Foxx.

The phenomenon is symptomatic of the rising influence of the anti-vaccine movement that we’ve seen over the past several years, as well as the removal of any kind of brakes on misinformation on social media sites like X (formerly known as Twitter). There’s also a significant political angle, with the COVID vaccine mandates amplifying pre-existing vaccine hesitancy, especially among those for whom “freedom” means not having to do what government tells them to do. This attitude is often equated with conservative politics, but is more emblematic of libertarianism, populism, and what was been described by political scientists as “anti-establishment sentiment.”² It was illustrated all too well in the exchange between Tucker Carlson and Ice Cube earlier in July, where both claimed to have refused the COVID vaccine while heralding “standing up for one’s convictions” over acting out of lawfulness or altruism as evidence of heroism.

Are these types of incidents (cardiac emergencies and collapsing on sports fields, etc.) ripe for conspiracy theories? If so, can you explain why?

Among the many psychological traits associated with conspiracy theory belief are needs for certainty, control, and closure—what I call the “3 C’s.” Events that make us feel uncertain and frightened, like the unexpected deaths of public figures like JFK or Princess Diana, therefore “invite” conspiracy theories as explanations that provide a kind of certainty and control. The COVID pandemic invited conspiracy theory beliefs in much the same way.

Claims that the COVID-19 vaccines are linked to high numbers of athlete deaths and other side effects are regularly and repeatedly debunked by news outlets, but the misinformation persists anyway. Why do these claims persist? Why are people susceptible to them, and what do they get out of believing them?

Another way of understanding the phenomenon is that conspiracy theory belief often arises when mistrust of authoritative sources of information leaves us vulnerable to misinformation that’s out there in the world. Damar Hamlin’s dramatic on-field collapse is a good example. People watching felt horrified and no doubt wondered why a young man in top physical shape would suddenly succumb to a cardiac arrest. Rather than accept the medical explanation—that it was a textbook case of commotio cordis—some instead discounted that explanation in favor of claims that it was related to vaccines. Where did such claims come from? They came from the “flea market of opinion” exemplified by Twitter, where misinformation travels faster and farther that factual information and often represents deliberate disinformation that serves some other purpose, whether generating revenue within a click-based economy, amassing political power by appealing to anti-establishment sentiments, or just stoking the flames of discord and political division.

In that sense, there’s often a real conspiracy behind the conspiracy theory. Those who believe in conspiracy theories often tell us to “follow the money,” but they often fail to “look in the mirror” and do that with the misinformation that fuels conspiracy theories. Indeed, there are many actors behind the scenes pumping “dark money” into the anti-vaccine movement and we now have a Presidential candidate whose main claim to fame relates to his long history of campaigning against vaccines. There's little doubt that some fraction of the claims about Bronny James are coming from sources with such vested interests.

Another psychological phenomenon that’s relevant here is the “illusory truth effect” embodied in the quotation, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” The illusory truth effect is a reality, and it can often occur due to catchy, attention-grabbing headlines regardless of an article’s content. With repeated exposure, just seeing or hearing that people are claiming that vaccines might have caused Bronny James’ collapse is enough to increase the perception that it’s true. This is especially true—as with Damar Hamlin, Jamie Foxx, or Bronny James—when official answers, whether due to uncertainty or privacy, are slow in coming.

Elon Musk’s tweet—which has since been deleted—implicating myocarditis as a cause of Bronny James’ cardiac arrest provides an additional layer of understanding how misinformation often spreads. In addition to the illusory truth effect, there’s something called the “innuendo effect” whereby even the suggestion that something might be true lends to its credibility. Much like Trump did as president, when he prefaced unsubstantiated rumors with statements like, “I’ve heard people say such-and-such is true,” Musk’s use of innuendo no doubt fueled belief in misinformation. No matter that myocarditis and cardiac arrest are two separate conditions or that the risk of myocarditis appears much greater with COVID than with vaccinations³—a day later, his tweet had been viewed by 4.3M people, liked 24.5K times, and retweeted 4,655 times!

So, in summary, claims persist because some people profit from them, some people find them appealing, and hearing them often enough leads people to believe that they’re true even when they’re unsubstantiated or patently false. Meanwhile, efforts to counter misinformation tend to be much more effective when they come in the form of “prebunking” or “inoculation strategies” that beat misinformation to the punch, rather than being reactive. When we’re being reactive to misinformation, it often means we’re too late.