How distrust, misinformation fuel Lagosians’ rejection of Measles–Rubella vaccine

Even as the Lagos State Government rolled out a 10-day campaign to protect children from deadly measles and rubella, not all families welcomed the initiative.

In some communities, vaccinators were met with suspicion, fear, and outright refusal—a reflection of the growing influence of rumours, mistrust, and socio-economic concerns on public health programmes.

The campaign, which ran from January 27 to February 5, 2026, targeted children aged 9 months to 14 years and formed part of efforts by the state government to curb preventable diseases and strengthen child health.

While many families embraced the initiative, field observations showed that distrust, misinformation, and economic hardship significantly affected vaccine acceptance across Lagos.

One of the most common reasons given by parents for refusing the vaccine was fear driven by rumours and conspiracy theories. In many areas, residents claimed they had heard that the vaccination programme was linked to a “population reduction agenda.”

Read also: Akwa Ibom introduces Measles Rubella vaccine into routine immunisation campaign

Others alleged that those who received the vaccine could die, claims observers described as false and dangerous.

Distrust in government intentions also surfaced repeatedly. Some parents openly questioned why government would prioritise vaccines at a time when many families were struggling with hunger and rising living costs.

For them, the vaccination campaign was viewed through the lens of economic hardship rather than public health protection.

According to a field observer who monitored the exercise across communities, the resistance often reflected deeper frustrations beyond the vaccine itself.

“Popular among the reasons why some parents refused to receive the vaccine is the ongoing propaganda about population reduction,” said Ihe Chimezie Samuel, WHO Local Government Area Facilitator (LGAF).

“We also have the issue of lack of confidence in government, where parents ask questions like, ‘Government no give us food, na vaccine them wan give us?’ While others may be due to past ugly vaccination experience.”

Beyond misinformation and distrust, ignorance about the purpose of immunisation also played a role. Some parents insisted their children were healthy and did not “need” the vaccine, not realising that vaccination is preventive and meant to protect children from diseases they may not yet have encountered.

Another factor observed in some communities was the perception attached to free services. Residents questioned the value of a vaccine offered at no cost, suggesting that if it were truly important, it would not be free. This sentiment arose from the perception in Nigeria that political leaders corner everything for themselves and are not known to give out anything freely to the masses. This belief, health observers noted, reflects a deep-rooted misconception that equates price with importance.

There were also concerns about awareness. Although publicity for the campaign was carried out through various channels, some residents claimed they only became aware of the exercise when vaccinators arrived in their neighbourhoods. This has highlighted the need for broader, earlier, and more consistent sensitisation ahead of public health programmes.

Offering suggestions for future interventions, Samuel emphasised the importance of sustained community engagement.

“I think the first thing that should be done is to engage in constant aggressive sensitization of citizens while trying to disabuse their minds of all negative narratives,” he said.

The experiences from the MR vaccination campaign in Lagos underline a critical lesson for public health initiatives: providing vaccines alone is not enough. Building trust, correcting false information, and ensuring that accurate messages reach every household remain essential steps in protecting children from preventable diseases.