MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

In a recently published study, the willingness to be vaccinated of parents of underage children and persons without underage children was examined. The study was based on a random sample (telephone survey, n = 2014, survey between 12.11.2020 and 10.12.2020).
The results revealed that parents consistently show a lower propensity to vaccinate with a COVID-19 vaccine than respondents without minor children (54.1% vs. 71.1%). Fathers showed a more pronounced own willingness to vaccinate than mothers. Furthermore, men were more willing than women to have their own child vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine.
The overall sample also showed that a rejection of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) was associated with a significantly higher willingness to be vaccinated. There was also a significant correlation between the attitude towards homeopathy and one’s own willingness to be vaccinated. If homeopathy was supported, the willingness to vaccinate was lower. This correlation between the attitude towards homeopathy and willingness to vaccinate was also evident in the sub-sample of parents. Among the parents, it was again the women who significantly more often had a positive attitude towards homeopathy than men, who more often do not think anything of it.

This new evidence ties in neatly with many of my previous posts on the subject of SCAM and vaccination, for instance:

Collectively, this evidence tells us that:

  • the effect has been shown in many different ways,
  • it can therefore be assumed to be real,
  • it is not confined to COVID vaccinations,
  • it is not confined to one particular branch of SCAM,
  • it even affects MDs (who surely should know better) dabbling in SCAM,
  • it has a long history,
  • it is prevalent in many, if not most countries,
  • it does real harm.

So, the next time someone tells you that SCAM and SCAM practitioners have a positive influence on public health, tell them to think again.

 

9 Responses to The rejection of so-called alternative medicine is associated with a higher willingness to get vaccinated

  • The acronym SCAM is in itself a negative word being applied to those who practice alternative medicine and therefore is full of bias.( I don’t trust chiropractors to walk on my back and would never visit one, however am cautious enough to realize that different forms of Medical practitioners exist and people use them for medical care.) Given how our traditional doctors have thrown out the Hippocratic oath since they became employees of large organizations and have failed miserably by allowing Medicine to be co-opted by media, by no longer allowing discussion or investigation in journal groups or meetings and not even looking at the options offered by early Tx, I think the author’s conclusion is unwarranted. Is the pot calling the kettle black?

    • Lots of assertions, no actual evidence. Yawn. If you wish to challenge Prof Ernst’s conclusion, please do so by presenting more and better evidence than he has. Parading your bruised feels doesn’t count.

    • – doctors have thrown out the Hippocratic oath
      – they became employees of large organizations
      – have failed miserably by allowing Medicine to be co-opted by media
      – they no longer allow discussion or investigation in journal groups or meetings
      – they do not even look at the options offered by early Tx
      5 claims full of BS and devoid of evidence.
      In any case, this is a blog about SCAM and I do not intend to defend conventional medicine which I know is far from perfect.

    • A lot of handwaving but no substantial arguments.

      FYI, the so-called “Oath of Hippocrates” has been obsolete since 1948 due to medical progress and has been substituted by the “Declaration of Geneva”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva

    • SCAM is in itself a negative word

      What is a negative word?

      The word negative is used scientifically to refer to the inverse of something (e.g. negative feedback, i.e. feeding the output of a system back into its input, which is used by control systems such as central heating thermostats to maintain a constant state; this is also a widespread mechanism in the body to maintain homeostatis).

      It is also used by doctors to refer to the absence of something:
      “Your biopsy was negative”
      though I prefer to be more specific when I am explaining results.

      Many people use the word negative to refer to anything they don’t like, but this vague and ambiguous usage has no place in any serious discussion.

  • Vax-lovers like EE who premise their understanding of what they deem to be Anti-vaxers, come from a bellief that [All] vaccines are safe and effective [for Everyone, All the time]. When Vax-lovers develop a more nuanced understanding of the various risk profiles for various groups of people for all the various vaccines, which is what the people who have actually studied vaccines have, then we can all meet somewhere in the middle and discuss this issue rationally. Until then its just name calling and accusations.

    • pure proctophasia! [https://edzardernst.com/2021/11/proctophasia-a-nasty-affliction-of-many-proponents-of-so-called-alternative-medicine/]
      only a nutter like you would conceive such idiocy: “[All] vaccines are safe and effective [for Everyone, All the time]”

    • @Roger

      [All] vaccines are safe and effective [for Everyone, All the time].

      Apart from some rare exceptions(*), all vaccines are indeed safe for everyone, all of the time. Effectiveness varies between vaccines and age groups.

      … a more nuanced understanding of the various risk profiles for various groups of people for all the various vaccines,

      For 99.9% of people, vaccines have no risks to speak of. So anyone can get vaccinated, unless they know that they have immune problems or serious allergies.

      … the people who have actually studied vaccines …

      … tell us that the risks are negligible for the vast majority of people, and advise everyone to get vaccinated against Covid-19.

      *: Mostly immune-compromised people and people with allergies for one of the vaccine ingredients.

    • @Roger: “come from a bellief that [All] vaccines are safe and effective [for Everyone, All the time].”

      Shock! Horror! Lying Liar Lies! Lock up your daughters and clutch your pearls! News at 11.

      Meanwhile, back here on Earth, everyone who knows anything openly acknowledges that stuff is complicated and hard and muddy and nothing is perfect no matter how much we wish it would be, so what matters is whether or not the benefits outweigh the harms. And when that choice is between, say, a vaccine that might cause a handful of deaths† and a disease that has already killed many millions, only a malignant fraud or a absolute nutjob would assert “bUt BoTh SiDeS!!!!!!!1!1!!”

      Congratulations, Roger. You genuinely are a truly exceptional human‡.

      † Most vaccines prove to be much safer than that, btw. (And when screwups happen or rare problems detected, they are recognized and addressed to reduce that chance that they could happen again.) Meanwhile those same vaccines can prevent thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of deaths per year. But okay, Roger‡, you festering disease pervert, none of those people was you so none of them truly count.

      ‡ When measured on a scale of 1 to up-yourself-asswipe.

      “in nonsense is strength” ― Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

Leave a Reply to Richard Rasker Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories