Shaylie Williams

October 25, 2017

English 1010

Rhetorical Analysis

The anti-vaccine movement has gained great attention and sparked great controversy over

the past 15 years. In February of 2017, Peter Hotez published the article How the Anti-Vaxxers

are Winning, in the New York Times newspaper. Throughout this article, he makes a strong

argument, asserting that that now is the time for Americans to take a stand for our childrens

health, making the emotional claim that if we allow the anti-vaccine movement to continue, this

may be the year we introduce measles back into the United States.

In his article, Hotez sets the stage by reminding the reader of a time before the measles

were eradicated in the U.S., when nearly four million Americans were affected by the virus each

year. He continues by discussing some of the main ways the anti-vaccine movement has gained

ground, such as previous support from President Trump, and scientific studies that some thought

to show a correlation between vaccinations and autism in children. Hotez reminds the reader that

these studies have since proven unreliable, and invalid. He closes with a plea for Americans to

educate themselves, and vaccinate their children.

Early on, Hotez makes a strong appeal to kairos, by assuring readers that it is not too late

to make a difference, but that the time is now. He warns, Its looking as if 2017 could become

the year when the anti-vaccination movement gains ascendancy in the United States and we

begin to see a reversal of several decades in steady public health gains. For the reader, this gives

us reason to act, and to act quickly. The author treats this as a pressing issue, and by doing so, is

very effective in creating desire to do something about this issue, before it gets worse.
 By posing this as a timely issue, a sort of credibility is established for this essay.

However, Hotez gives us many more reasons to trust his reasoning, and support what hes

saying. In reference to his credentials, he cites As a scientist leading global efforts to develop

vaccines for neglected poverty-related diseases like schistosomiasis and Chagas diseaseIm

worried that our nations health will soon be threatened This simple sentence makes all the

difference for a reader, proving that he knows his facts, has worked in the field, and is qualified

to make these claims regarding vaccines. The reader can feel a sense of trust in Hotezs words,

and will value his opinion and intellect on the topic, likely above their own. The New York

Times also mentions his experience and qualifications, in order to give a sense of credibility to

their newspaper, and their columnists.

With a sense of credibility and importance established, Hotez goes on to appeal to logic.

With false claims tying vaccinations to autism running rampant, he quickly puts those myths to

rest by citing the extensive research that has disproved any correlation between vaccines and

learning disabilities. He follows up disproving incorrect statistics, by drawing the readers

attention to the statistics that matter: as soon as the number of children receiving immunizations

falls below 90-95%, we will begin to see outbreaks of the measles here in the U.S. He shows the

reader the magnitude of the problem thus far, by stating, As of last fall [in Texas], more than

45,000 children have received nonmedical exemptions for their school vaccinations. From the

immense amounts of information provided, the reader may see the risks posed by the country

continuing down its current anti-vaccination path.

Lastly, Hotez makes a strong appeal to the empathy and emotions of the reader. He tells

stories of what it will be like when mothers have to fear taking their children to the grocery store,

due to a risk of infecting them with these diseases. He reminds the reader that he is the father of
an autistic child, the very disorder we worry is linked to receiving immunizations. If even he

agrees that children should be vaccinated, then shouldnt the reader, too? This appeal is a very

powerful one, and well done by the author. While it may slightly weaken his credibility by

showing an emotional bias, the imagery he creates in the mind of the reader is powerful and hard

to ignore.

Overall, Hotez writes a very convincing and well-supported article. Making a topic

personal to yourself can sometimes come across as biased, but Hotez managed to maintain his

credibility while reaching out to the reader emotionally. With each of the rhetorical appeals

thoughtfully applied to this writing, the result was a very well-balanced essay. Hotez

successfully implored the reader to take this issue further than just the article, to apply the

knowledge that theyve gained, and to be a part of the solution.

Works Cited:

Hotez, P. J. (2017, February 08). Opinion | How the Anti-Vaxxers Are Winning. Retrieved

October 15, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/how-the-anti-vaxxers-are-

winning.html