homeopathy
This study describes the use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) among older adults who report being hampered in daily activities due to musculoskeletal pain. The characteristics of older adults with debilitating musculoskeletal pain who report SCAM use is also examined. For this purpose, the cross-sectional European Social Survey Round 7 from 21 countries was employed. It examined participants aged 55 years and older, who reported musculoskeletal pain that hampered daily activities in the past 12 months.
Of the 4950 older adult participants, the majority (63.5%) were from the West of Europe, reported secondary education or less (78.2%), and reported at least one other health-related problem (74.6%). In total, 1657 (33.5%) reported using at least one SCAM treatment in the previous year.
The most commonly used SCAMs were:
- manual body-based therapies (MBBTs) including massage therapy (17.9%),
- osteopathy (7.0%),
- homeopathy (6.5%)
- herbal treatments (5.3%).
SCAM use was positively associated with:
- younger age,
- physiotherapy use,
- female gender,
- higher levels of education,
- being in employment,
- living in West Europe,
- multiple health problems.
(Many years ago, I have summarized the most consistent determinants of SCAM use with the acronym ‘FAME‘ [female, affluent, middle-aged, educated])
The authors concluded that a third of older Europeans with musculoskeletal pain report SCAM use in the previous 12 months. Certain subgroups with higher rates of SCAM use could be identified. Clinicians should comprehensively and routinely assess SCAM use among older adults with musculoskeletal pain.
I often mutter about the plethora of SCAM surveys that report nothing meaningful. This one is better than most. Yet, much of what it shows has been demonstrated before.
I think what this survey confirms foremost is the fact that the popularity of a particular SCAM and the evidence that it is effective are two factors that are largely unrelated. In my view, this means that more, much more, needs to be done to inform the public responsibly. This would entail making it much clearer:
- which forms of SCAM are effective for which condition or symptom,
- which are not effective,
- which are dangerous,
- and which treatment (SCAM or conventional) has the best risk/benefit balance.
Such information could help prevent unnecessary suffering (the use of ineffective SCAMs must inevitably lead to fewer symptoms being optimally treated) as well as reduce the evidently huge waste of money spent on useless SCAMs.
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated whether homeopathic Hypericum leads to a reduction in postoperative pain and a decrease in pain medication compared with placebo. Inpatients undergoing lumbar sequestrectomy surgery were given the homeopathic treatment Hypericum C200 or a placebo in addition to usual pain management. The primary endpoint was pain relief measured with a visual analog scale. Secondary endpoints were the reduction of inpatient postoperative analgesic medication and change in sensory and affective pain perception.
The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Pain perception between baseline and day 3 did not significantly differ between the study arms. With respect to pain medication, total morphine equivalent doses did not differ significantly. However, a statistical trend and a moderate effect (d = 0.432) in the decrease of pain medication consumption in favor of the Hypericum group was observed.
The authors concluded that this is the first trial of homeopathy that evaluated the efficacy of Hypericum C200 after lumbar monosegmental spinal sequestrectomy. Although no significant differences between the groups could be shown, we found that patients who took potentiated Hypericum in addition to usual pain management showed lower consumption of analgesics. Further investigations, especially with regard to pain medication, should follow to better classify the described analgesic reduction.
I applaud the authors from the Institute of Integrative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Herdecke, Germany (not an institution known for its objectivity in SCAM) to have published this negative study in a journal that is so clearly pro-SCAM that it very rarely contains anything in its pages that is not positive about SCAM. Yet, I am baffled by two things:
- The plant Hypericum is used in SCAM as a painkiller. According to the ‘like cures like’ axiom of homeopathy, it should thus INCREASE the pain of post-op patients.
- The researchers used a C 200 potency. I ask myself, how can anyone assume that such a dilution has any effect at all? C200 means that the plant tincture is diluted at a ratio of 1: 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000. Less than one molecule of the plant per several universes!
To believe that such a dilution might work, one really needs to be a convinced disciple of Hahnemann. Yet, to disregard the ‘like cures like’ axiom, one needs to be what he called ‘a traitor’ to his true art of healing.
I think this press release might interest you:
Science advocates have filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against Boiron, Inc., one of the largest manufacturers of homeopathic products in the world, for deceiving vulnerable consumers with useless products dressed up to look like real medicine. The Center for Inquiry (CFI), which fights on behalf of consumers against pseudoscience, says Boiron routinely made false claims about what its products will treat and heal, misleading the public about the absurd pseudoscientific basis for Boiron products, and even lying about the ingredients their products contain.
“The facts could not be more clear. Boiron profits massively by deceiving consumers in their time of need,” said CFI Vice President and Legal Counsel Nick Little. “Boiron knows its products are worthless junk, so they do everything they can to obscure the truth in order to offload their snake oil upon the unwitting, the ill-informed, and the vulnerable. They can’t be allowed to get away with it any longer.”
Adherents of homeopathy claim, without evidence, that a substance which causes harm to a healthy person will cure anyone else suffering the same type of harm. In homeopathic products, the “active” ingredients are highly diluted mixtures of the so-called cures; the ingredient ends up so diluted, often literally no trace of the original substance remains. Manufacturers like Boiron then sell miniscule amounts of the already incredibly diluted ingredients and promise astounding results.
In its lawsuit, brought under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, CFI alleges that Boiron sold a plethora of materially identical products, each made up of sugar pills and powders. Despite no scientifically detectable active ingredient, Boiron falsely promised consumers that each item would treat and cure a particular illness, injury, or health condition.
“Boiron sells little pills of sugar with grandiose claims. It’s hard to believe anyone would try to pass off such junk as a surefire way to treat painful skin problems, heal mental health issues, and even to counteract menopause,” said CFI Staff Attorney Aaron D. Green. “But Boiroin has been doing just that by tricking consumers into risking their health and throwing away their money on its fancy faux ‘medicines.’ It’s time for Boiron and all homeopathy hucksters to be held accountable.”
In its complaint, CFI notes that Boiron sells Saccharum officinale as a treatment for “nervous agitation in children after overindulgence.”
“Most parents would rightfully be skeptical of this product if Boiron told them what Saccharum officinale actually is,” said Green. “Table sugar.”
According to recent industry accounts, 85 percent of consumers who purchased homeopathic products did not realize they were homeopathic, and nine out of ten consumers did not even know what the term homeopathic meant.
Apart from selling products they know are useless, Boiron also misrepresented the products’ ingredients. Four Boiron products were analyzed by an independent lab, and, not only were no traces of the supposed active ingredient found, even one of the inactive ingredients could not be scientifically detected.
The Center for Inquiry is currently engaged in other lawsuits regarding homeopathy, including consumer protection cases against megaretailers CVS and Walmart for their sale and marketing of homeopathic products, the matter recently heard by the DC Court of Appeals. CFI is also engaged in an active Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that demands the Department of Health and Human Services grant the public access to the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS), the “bible of homeopathy” upon which federal regulation of homeopathy is based and to which the industry restricts access but for those willing to pay thousands of dollars for the privilege.
_________________________
All I can add to this is: good luck to the CFI and let’s hope reason will prevail!
THE END?
No, it is the start of the ‘HOMEOPATHY AWARENESS WEEK 2022′!
But, running a quick search for new evidence, I came across an abstract that seems like signaling the end of homeopathy. Here it is in its full beauty:
Acne is estimated to affect 9.4% of the global population, making it the 8th most prevalent disease worldwide. Acne vulgaris (AV) is among the diseases that directly affect quality of life. This trial evaluated the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHM) against placebo in AV.
Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at the National Institute of Homoeopathy, India, 126 patients suffering from AV were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either IHM (verum) in centesimal potencies or identical-looking placebo (control). The primary outcome measure was the Global Acne Grading System score; secondary outcomes were the Cardiff Acne Disability Index and Dermatology Life Quality Index questionnaires – all measured at baseline and 3 months after the intervention. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample.
Results: Overall, improvements were greater in the IHM group than placebo, with small to medium effect sizes after 3 months of intervention; however, the inter-group differences were statistically non-significant. Sulphur (17.5%), Natrum muriaticum (15.1%), Calcarea phosphorica (14.3%), Pulsatilla nigricans (10.3%), and Antimonium crudum (7.1%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines; Pulsatilla nigricans, Tuberculinum bovinum and Natrum muriaticum were the most effective of those used. No harms, unintended effects, homeopathic aggravations or any serious adverse events were reported from either group.
Conclusion: There was non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy against placebo in the treatment of AV. 
And why do I suggest that this signals the end of anything?
Two reasons:
- It is a negative study of homeopathy from India, and by Jove, there are not many of those (mind you, the authors did try their best to squeeze in a glimpse of positivity, but I shall ignore this for their benefit [I particularly liked the sentence: “Pulsatilla nigricans, Tuberculinum bovinum and Natrum muriaticum were the most effective of those used” which is remarkable considering that the inter-group results – the only ones that matter in a controlled trial – were negative).
- It was published in the journal ‘HOMEOPATHY‘, the flagship publication of homeopathy.
I reckon that, if this journal (remember, its editor, the late Peter Fisher, fired me from the ed-board because of my criticism of the history of homeopathy) runs out of positive papers and starts publishing negative trials, it must be close to the end.
A press release informs us that the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Government of India recently signed an agreement to establish the ‘WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine’. This global knowledge centre for traditional medicine, supported by an investment of USD 250 million from the Government of India, aims to harness the potential of traditional medicine from across the world through modern science and technology to improve the health of people and the planet.
“For many millions of people around the world, traditional medicine is the first port of call to treat many diseases,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “Ensuring all people have access to safe and effective treatment is an essential part of WHO’s mission, and this new center will help to harness the power of science to strengthen the evidence base for traditional medicine. I’m grateful to the Government of India for its support, and we look forward to making it a success.”
The term traditional medicine describes the total sum of the knowledge, skills and practices indigenous and different cultures have used over time to maintain health and prevent, diagnose and treat physical and mental illness. Its reach encompasses ancient practices such as acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine and herbal mixtures as well as modern medicines.
“It is heartening to learn about the signing of the Host Country Agreement for the establishment of Global Centre for Traditional Medicine (GCTM). The agreement between Ministry of Ayush and World Health Organization (WHO) to establish the WHO-GCTM at Jamnagar, Gujarat, is a commendable initiative,” said Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India. “Through various initiatives, our government has been tireless in its endeavour to make preventive and curative healthcare, affordable and accessible to all. May the global centre at Jamnagar help in providing the best healthcare solutions to the world.”
The new WHO centre will concentrate on building a solid evidence base for policies and standards on traditional medicine practices and products and help countries integrate it as appropriate into their health systems and regulate its quality and safety for optimal and sustainable impact.
The new centre focuses on four main strategic areas: evidence and learning; data and analytics; sustainability and equity; and innovation and technology to optimize the contribution of traditional medicine to global health and sustainable development.
The onsite launch of the new WHO global centre for traditional medicine in Jamnagar, Gujarat, India will take place on April 21, 2022.
__________________________
Of course, one must wait and see who will direct the unit and what work the new centre produces. But I cannot help feeling a little anxious. The press release is full of hot air and platitudes and the track record of the Indian Ministry of Ayush is quite frankly abominable. Here are a few of my previous posts that, I think, justify this statement:
- Mucormycosis (black fungus): is the Indian AYUSH ministry trying to decimate the population?
- The ‘AYUSH COVID-19 Helpline’: have they gone bonkers?
- Individualized Homeopathic Medicines for Cutaneous Warts – the dishonesty of homeopaths continues
- Ever wondered what a homeopathic egg on the face looks like?
- An RCT on the efficacy of ayurvedic treatment on asymptomatic COVID-19 patients
- Has homeopathy caused the dramatic decline of COVID-19 cases in India?
- Eight new products aimed at mitigating COVID-19. But do they really work?
- Siddha doctors have joined those claiming to have found a cure for COVID-19
- COVID-19: homeopathy gone berserk in Mumbai
- Brazil and India collaborate in the promotion of quackery
- Hard to believe: dangerous GOVERNMENTAL advice regarding SCAM for the corona virus pandemic
WATCH THIS SPACE!
This randomized, double-blind, two-armed, parallel, single-center, placebo-controlled study investigated the effectiveness and safety of the homeopathic medicine, Natrum muriaticum LM2, for mild cases of COVID-19.
Participants aged > 18 years, with influenza-like symptoms and a positive COVID test were recruited and randomized (1:1) into two groups that received different treatments during a period of at-home isolation. One group received the homeopathic medicine Natrum muriaticum, prepared with the second degree of the fifty-millesimal dynamization (LM2; Natrum muriaticum LM2), while the other group received a placebo.
The primary endpoint was time until recovery from COVID-19 influenza-like symptoms. Secondary measures included a survival analysis of the number and severity of COVID-19 symptoms (influenza-like symptoms plus anosmia and ageusia) from a symptom grading scale that was informed by the participant, hospital admissions, and adverse events. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate time-to-event (survival) measures.
Data from 86 participants were analyzed (homeopathy, n = 42; placebo, n = 44). There was no difference in time to recovery between the two groups (homeopathy, n = 41; placebo, n = 41; P = 0.56), nor in a sub-group that had at least 5 moderate to severe influenza-like symptoms at the beginning of monitoring (homeopathy, n = 15; placebo, n = 17; P = 0.06). Secondary outcomes indicated that a 50% reduction in symptom score was achieved significantly earlier in the homeopathy group (homeopathy, n = 24; placebo, n = 25; P = 0.04), among the participants with a basal symptom score ≥ 5. Moreover, values of restricted mean survival time indicated that patients receiving homeopathy might have improved 0.9 days faster during the first five days of follow-up (P = 0.022). Hospitalization rates were 2.4% in the homeopathy group and 6.8% in the placebo group (P = 0.62). Participants reported 3 adverse events in the homeopathy group and 6 in the placebo group.
The authors concluded that the results showed that Natrum muriaticum LM2 was safe to use for COVID-19, but there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoints of Natrum muriaticum LM2 and placebo for mild COVID-19 cases. Although some secondary measures do not support the null hypothesis, the wide confidence intervals suggest that further studies with larger sample sizes and more symptomatic participants are needed to test the effectiveness of homeopathic Natrum muriaticum LM2 for COVID-19.
Homeopaths will probably claim that the trial was negative because homeopathic treatments must be individualized (true only for one school of homeopathy). More rational thinkers might point out that the study was woefully underpowered and therefore the positive trends seen in some of the subgroups are nothing other than background noise. Others again might notice that, due to the small sample size, the randomization was not successful in generating comparable groups: the placebo group was older, had more pre-existing conditions, and took more conventional medication than the homeopathy group. And they might point out that these differences could easily explain some of the findings.
Whichever way we turn it, the bottom line is simple:
Homeopathy is ineffective for COVID infections.
Homeopathy was born in Germany about 200 years ago. Now we are witnessing its slow demise due to a lack of convincing evidence.
It is only a small announcement by, but it sends out a big signal: Bremen’s doctors’ parliament has decided to cancel all homeopathy contracts.
Opponents and supporters of homeopathy agree on one thing: the latest decision of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance (KV) Bremen is an important nail in the coffin for alternative medicine. The KV representative assembly has just decided to terminate all selective contracts concerning the reimbursement of homeopathic services.
Some are rejoicing: “In Bremen it’s over” tweeted Dr. Hans-Werner Bertelsen, for example. The “sugar-sugar affine clientele” will have a harder time in the future, he stated. And: “The financing of woo must be stopped politically.”
Oliver Borrmann, a general practitioner and homeopath from Bremen, on the other hand, is outraged. He speaks of discrimination, of a conflagration, and of being the “whipping boy for everything”. “They are watching alternative medicine die right now,” he professes. It is considered chic to rise above homeopathy, he claims, and anyone who defends it is put down.
In Bremen, three contracts existed with several companies and health insurance funds which extended the range of paid services to include homeopathy for their patients. Both the KV Bremen and the homeopath Borrmann speak of a group of insured persons that is not particularly large – in Borrmann’s practice there are about 30 patients – but of a political signal that emanates from the decision.
It is the reason for the termination that makes him concerned and take notice, says Borrmann. It states: “As long as not all treatments whose benefits have already been scientifically proven can be fully financed in the statutory health insurance system, there will be no funds left for procedures for whose concrete benefits there is no evidence.”
This phraseology which quotes the KV board members Bernhard Rochell and Peter Kurt Josenhans sounds unwieldy – but it contains a clear message: homeopathy is considered useless by the KV.
——————————————-
One does not need to be a clairvoyant to predict that other parts of Germany will follow Bremen’s example. Effective lobbying and financial interests have protected German homeopathy for decades, but the eventual victory of reason, science, and evidence was inevitable.
The new German secretary of health, Prof Lauterbach, tweeted in connection with the news from Bremen:
“Mit der Wissenschaft werden Pandemien bekämpft und Krankheiten geheilt. Wir brauchen mehr Wissenschaft in der Behandlung, nicht weniger. Die Homöopathie hat keinen Platz in der modernen Medizin.”
(Science is used to fight pandemics and cure diseases. We need more science in treatment, not less. Homeopathy has no place in modern medicine.)
This review assessed the magnitude of reporting bias in trials assessing homeopathic treatments and its impact on evidence syntheses.
A cross-sectional study and meta-analysis. Two persons independently searched Clinicaltrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to April 2019 to identify registered homeopathy trials. To determine whether registered trials were published and to detect published but unregistered trials, two persons independently searched PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Embase and Google Scholar up to April 2021. For meta-analyses, the authors used random effects models to determine the impact of unregistered studies on meta-analytic results.
The investigators reported the proportion of registered but unpublished trials and the proportion of published but unregistered trials. They also assessed whether primary outcomes were consistent between registration and publication
Since 2002, almost 38% of registered homeopathy trials have remained unpublished, and 53% of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been registered. Retrospective registration was more common than prospective registration. Furthermore, 25% of primary outcomes were altered or changed compared with the registry. Although we could detect a statistically significant trend toward an increase of registrations of homeopathy trials (p=0.001), almost 30% of RCTs published during the past 5 years had not been registered.
A meta-analysis stratified by registration status of RCTs revealed substantially larger treatment effects of unregistered RCTs (SMD: −0.53, 95% CI −0.87 to −0.20) than registered RCTs (SMD: −0.14, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.07).
The authors concluded that registration of published trials was infrequent, many registered trials were not published and primary outcomes were often altered or changed. This likely affects the validity of the body of evidence of homeopathic literature and may overestimate the true treatment effect of homeopathic remedies.
An obvious investigation to do (why did I not have this idea?)!
And a finding that will surprise few (except fans of homeopathy who will, of course, dispute it).
The authors also mention that reporting biases are likely to have a substantial impact on the estimated treatment effect of homeopathy. Using data from a highly cited meta-analysis of homeopathy RCTs, our example showed that unregistered trials yielded substantially larger treatment effects than registered trials. They also caution that, because of the reporting biases identified in their analysis, effect estimates of meta-analyses of homeopathy trials might substantially overestimate the true treatment effect of homeopathic remedies and need to be interpreted cautiously.
In other words, the few reviews suggesting that homeopathy works beyond placebo (and are thus celebrated by homeopaths) are most likely false-positive. And the many reviews showing that homeopathy does not work would demonstrate this fact even clearer if the reporting bias had been accounted for.
Or, to put it bluntly:
The body of evidence on homeopathy is rotten to the core and therefore not reliable.
Plantar fasciitis (PF) is a chronic degenerative condition causing marked thickening and fibrosis of the plantar fascia, and collagen necrosis, chondroid metaplasia and calcification. There is little convincing evidence in support of various approaches, including homeopathy, for treating PF. This study was undertaken to examine the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) compared with placebo in the treatment of PF.
This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the outpatient departments of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal, India. Patients were randomized to receive either IHMs or identical-looking placebo in the mutual context of conservative non-medicinal management. The Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaire, as an outcome measure, was administered at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Group differences (unpaired t-tests) and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated on an intention-to-treat sample. The sample was analyzed statistically after adjusting for baseline differences.
The target sample size was 128; however, only 75 could be enrolled (IHMs: 37; Placebo: 38). Attrition rate was 9.3% (IHMs: 4, Placebo: 3). Differences between groups in total FFI% score favored IHMs against placebo at all the time points, with large effect sizes: month 1 (mean difference, -10.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -15.7 to -4.2; p = 0.001; d = 0.8); month 2 (mean difference, -14.3; 95% CI, -20.4 to -8.2; p <0.001; d = 1.1); and month 3 (mean difference, -23.3; 95% CI, -30.5 to -16.2; p <0.001; d = 1.5). Similar significant results were also observed on three FFI sub-scales (pain%, disability%, and activity limitation%). Natrum muriaticum (n = 14; 18.7%) and Rhus toxicodendron and Ruta graveolens (n = 11 each; 14.7%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, serious adverse events, or intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups.
The authors concluded that IHMs acted significantly better than placebo in the treatment of PF; however, the trial being underpowered, the results should be interpreted as preliminary only. Independent replications are warranted.
It is nice to see homeopaths stress the importance of independent replication. It is less nice, however, to note their main conclusion:
IHMs acted significantly better than placebo.
This essentially is what will stick in the minds of the pro-homeopathy reader, and this is the information that will enter into future meta-analyses and systematic reviews of homeopathy. But this is also untrue! The qualifier that follows is but a lame excuse for drawing a wrong conclusion. In my view, a correct conclusion would read something like this:
Our study failed to recruit a sufficient number of patients. Therefore, no conclusions about the efficacy of IHM can be drawn from it.
The associations between so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and negative attitudes to vaccinations are, as discussed repeatedly on this blog, strong and undeniable. A new paper sheds more light on these issues.
By far the most common strategy used in the attempt to modify negative attitudes toward vaccination is to appeal to evidence-based reasoning. However, focusing on science comprehension is inconsistent with one of the key facts of cognitive psychology: Humans are biased information processors and often engage in motivated reasoning. On this basis, it is hypothesized that negative attitudes can be explained primarily by factors unrelated to the empirical evidence for vaccination; including some shared attitudes that also attract people to SCAM.
This study tested psychosocial factors associated with SCAM endorsement in past research; including aspects of spirituality, intuitive (vs analytic) thinking styles, and the personality trait of openness to experience. These relationships were tested in a cross-sectional, stratified CATI survey (N = 1256, 624 Females).
Questions regarding SCAM were derived from a previously validated instrument, designed to standardize the measurement of SCAM utilization, and distinguish between those that use a particular SCAM from those that do not. Each SCAM item provided an indication of whether the respondent had utilized each of the following therapeutic or self-treatment activities within the last 12 months:
- herbal and homeopathic remedies,
- energy-based and body therapies (including therapeutic massage),
- vitamins, yoga, meditation, prayer, body therapies, hypnosis, spiritual healing,
- and chiropractic or osteopathic treatments.
The results show that educational level and thinking style did not predict vaccination rejection. Psychosocial factors such as
- preferring SCAM to conventional medicine (OR .49, 95% CI .36-.66),
- endorsement of spirituality as a source of knowledge (OR .83, 95% CI .71-.96),
- openness (OR .86, 95% CI .74-.99),
all predicted negative attitudes to vaccination. Furthermore, for 9 of the 12 SCAMs surveyed, utilisation in the last 12 months was associated with lower levels of vaccination endorsement. Additionally, the rank-order correlation between the number of different alternative therapies used in the last 12 months and vaccination attitude score was significant. Finally, analytical thinking style was negatively related to all forms of CAM, with this relationship significant in three cases:
- herbal remedies ρ = −.08, p = .0014,
- homeopathy, ρ = −.06, p = .0236,
- prayer for the purpose of healing, ρ = −.15, p < .0001.
The authors concluded that vaccination scepticism appears to be the outcome of a particular cultural and psychological orientation leading to unwillingness to engage with the scientific evidence. Vaccination compliance might be increased either by building general confidence and understanding of evidence-based medicine, or by appealing to features usually associated with SCAM, e.g. ‘strengthening your natural resistance to disease’.
In the discussion section of their paper, the authors argue that these results describe a vaccine sceptic as viewing themselves as anti-authoritarian and unconventional, with a preference for unorthodox treatments with spiritual or ‘life-affirming’ features. The significant effect for personality, but not for cognitive style, is congruent with the notion that it is a reluctance to engage with the evidence, rather than a lack of capacity to appropriately process the evidence, that predicts vaccination scepticism…
SCAM endorsement and vaccination scepticism are components of a common attitudinal stance, with some shared psychosocial determinants. The results of the present study indicate that vaccination rejection is related to psychosocial factors: a general preference for complementary over conventional medicines, valuing diverse and unconventional alternatives, and a spiritual orientation to attitude formation. The null findings with regard to cognitive style and educational level suggest that factors unrelated to the actual empirical evidence for vaccination – i.e. a particular personality and attitudinal mindset are most instrumental in determining vaccination attitudes. Efforts to counter vaccination concerns should be mindful that negative vaccination views appear to form part of a broader attitudinal system that does not necessarily trust empirical or positivist evidence from authoritative sources. Vaccination promotion efforts may benefit from targeting groups associated with SCAM and building general confidence in scientific medicine, rather than targeting specific misunderstandings regarding vaccination.
