Use of the words "war" and "insurgency" and "unwitting crowds" are terrific headspins. Accuse your victim of the crime you do; their desperacy to deny it will give you more and more ammunition. In my circles, vaccine skeptics are constantly under fire by the "unwitting" majority, while this paper gives the impression that skeptics are counting down to the 5th of November, rather than making a simple personal health choice, and speaking out against a heavily controlled narrative. Furthermore, I notice skeptics are far less likely to attack people's character or intelligence, and are generally more likely to provide personal anecdotes and compelling, diversely sourced research than the herds of pincushion people.

I only skimmed the paper, but it's crow calling kettle black. The fact they sort of say "Not that narrative, but this narrative" suggests that the desired baseline is not truth, but a narrative. I also didn't see in the paper any supposition about the reason for the rise in vax-skepticism this year - it was because of the centralized, broadcasted push over the spring and summer to terrify people into a corner where they will give up their body autonomy to make the fear go away. It's a reactionary movement to a heavy-handed policy pattern.