How public-health rituals became the secular “holy water” of Western societies.
When the priest put on a white coat
At some point in recent history, the old altar candles were replaced by fluorescent tubes, and the priest quietly traded his cassock for a white coat. The building changed from cathedral to clinic — but the emotional script stayed strangely familiar.
Modern vaccination campaigns are officially about risk reduction: preventable disease, hospital capacity, and population-level protection. And to be clear from the outset: vaccines have strong empirical support for reducing the burden of many infectious diseases, and major medical bodies still view them as one of the most effective public-health tools we have.
But if you listen to people who have lost trust in the system, the story sounds different. They don’t describe vaccines as a technical intervention but as a ritual — a civic sacrament that one must not question, enforced by social pressure as much as policy. And when they raise concerns or personal experiences, the response often feels less like a scientific debate and more like a church defending its doctrine.
So how did we get here?
Scientism, trust, and the new “church of science”
Philosophers have long had a word for this phenomenon: scientism — the belief that science is not only the best way to understand reality, but the only way, and that its authority extends into morality, identity, and political truth.
When “science” becomes a total worldview, it begins to behave like a religion:
- it has a priesthood (experts, advisory panels, regulatory authorities),
- dogmas that may not be challenged (“trust the science”, “safe and effective”),
- and heretics who risk exile if they dissent.
At the same time, the public’s relationship with authority is fraying. Surveys like the Edelman Trust Barometer show that while people still respect scientists, they increasingly believe that scientific institutions are too close to political and financial power, and too distant from ordinary concerns. They want two things that often collide:
- evidence-based policy, and
- personal agency over their own bodies.
Vaccines sit directly at this intersection — a physical intervention that requires both trust and consent. That makes them the perfect focal point for a broader cultural battle over who has the right to define truth.
Medicine’s original promise — and its drift
It’s worth recalling what evidence-based medicine originally promised. David Sackett’s classic 1996 definition described EBM as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” — a balance between research evidence, clinical expertise, and the patient’s own situation and preferences.
That is very far from dogma.
But over time, vaccine policy in many countries has been shaped by school mandates and collective benefit. In the United States, compulsory smallpox vaccination dates back to the 19th century; by the 1970s, measles outbreaks led states to tighten school requirements after data showed clear differences in case rates between states with mandates and those without.
The ethical logic was simple:
“Protect children, protect the community — even if some individuals object.”
Then came COVID-19: emergency authorization, accelerated development, contradictory government messaging, and unprecedented political pressure. In that environment, public-health communication shifted toward top-down crisis management. Messaging was polished, simplified, and often rigid — and transparency was sacrificed for perceived stability.
The result: for many, vaccination no longer feels like medicine but like orthodoxy.
Why vaccines feel like “holy water”
Several factors make vaccines uniquely symbolic in modern society:
1. Childhood initiation
Most people receive their first injections within hours of birth and continue through a structured childhood schedule. These vaccines are tied to school entry, sports participation, and even certain professions.
This looks and feels like initiation: a formal acceptance into civic life.
2. Gatekeeping and sacrament
Vaccine passports, school requirements, and workplace mandates function as social gates. Individuals are not always invited into open discussion about risks or benefits — they are told, in slogan form, that the products are “safe and effective,” and dissent is framed as irresponsibility.
At that point, vaccination takes on the role of a sacrament: a ritual that signals loyalty to the system.
3. Priesthood and dogma
Science thrives on open debate. But during the pandemic, many saw algorithmic suppression, oversimplified messages, and reactive censorship. The controversy around withheld communications — such as EU–Pfizer text messages — became symbolic because it looked like doctrine being protected rather than evidence being shared.
When processes appear opaque, institutions start to resemble clergy guarding a secret text.
4. Cognitive dissonance everywhere
- For professionals who have built their identity on defending public health, it is psychologically difficult to admit communication mistakes or underestimated risks.
- For critics, every inconsistency becomes proof of a deeper plot, intensifying counter-narratives until all official data seems tainted.
Both see each other as heretics, not conversation partners.
Trust breaks where transparency is weakest
One of the most striking findings from recent research on public-health communication is this: transparent messaging lowers short-term compliance but increases long-term trust.
A study published in PNAS on COVID-19 communication showed that when people are informed honestly about uncertainties and side-effects, some become more cautious — but trust in institutions increases.
This is precisely the tradeoff political systems often avoid:
- Short-term transparency risks lower uptake.
- Long-term transparency is the only sustainable basis for evidence-based policy.
When authorities choose narrative control instead of openness, vaccines become — unintentionally — a test of obedience, not a matter of medical judgment.
At that point, the conflict is not about immunology but about power.
Beyond pro-vax vs anti-vax
The cultural debate is not binary. In practice, there are at least four camps:
- Pragmatic technicians
“Vaccines work. Improve surveillance and communication. No myths, no sanctity.” - Scientism believers
“Science is always right. Questions undermine trust, therefore questions are dangerous.” - Full rejectionists
“The system is corrupt. Nothing official can be trusted.” - Skeptical loyalists
“I support vaccination, but I expect transparency. Do not lie to me.”
Current policy — especially where censorship and mandates overlap — tends to collapse these distinctions and push people toward the extremes.
In some U.S. states, political movements are now attempting to dismantle long-standing school vaccination laws entirely. Public-health experts warn that this could reverse a century of progress; supporters argue it is the predictable result of institutional overreach.
Either way, it shows how fragile trust has become.
Drop the incense, keep the evidence
If vaccines are to be reclaimed not as sacraments but as ordinary technologies governed by data, several shifts are needed:
1. Separate science from PR
The primary asset of scientific institutions is not their perfection but their ability to correct themselves. If something was underestimated, say so. A day of criticism is worth years of credibility.
2. Restore evidence-based medicine to its roots
“Best available evidence” does not mean only large industry-funded trials. It means using the data that exist, acknowledging limitations, and updating conclusions when better evidence emerges.
3. Allow limited heresy
There is a difference between:
- raising legitimate questions about risk, surveillance, or policy,
- and spreading outright falsehoods.
The first keeps science alive. The second destroys it. Good policy distinguishes between them instead of flattening both into “misinformation.”
4. Recognize the ritual — and dismantle it consciously
Vaccine passports, mandates, and school requirements are not just medical tools; they are political and symbolic choices. Policymakers should be honest about this and ensure that these tools remain proportionate, not sacred.
Conclusion: A healthier relationship with truth
Vaccines did not become “holy water” because of their pharmacology. They became symbolic because modern societies replaced religious authority with scientific authority without replacing religious psychology with scientific psychology.
People still long for certainty, ritual, belonging, and moral clarity. When science tries to fill that void by mimicking the emotional structure of religion, it loses the one thing that made it valuable in the first place: fallibility.
The path back is simple, though difficult:
- less incense,
- more evidence,
- more honesty about uncertainty,
- and more respect for the autonomy of individuals trying to navigate complex information.
If we can do that, vaccines can return to their rightful place: not sacraments, not symbols, not battlegrounds — but medical tools, evaluated with the same clarity and humility we expect from every other field of science.
📚 Sources
Below are all referenced themes, research areas, and institutions in this editorial, linked to authoritative or context-relevant information.
- Edelman Trust Barometer – Public trust in science & institutions
https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer - Discussion of scientism and cultural authority of science
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientism/ - Evidence-Based Medicine – Sackett’s original 1996 definition
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC161874/ - U.S. history of school vaccination mandates
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.html - WHO risk communication principles
https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication - PNAS research on transparency and trust during COVID
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2206795119 - EU–Pfizer text message transparency case
https://www.politico.eu/article/pfizer-von-der-leyen-text-messages-sms-ombudsman-eu-vaccine-deal/ - Debate on U.S. state-level bills limiting vaccine mandates
https://www.kff.org/vaccine-monitor/press-release/as-states-debate-vaccine-mandates-public-opinion-remains-split/
(No medical claims are being made; all links point to institutional, journalistic, or philosophical sources relevant to the editorial’s sociological argument.)