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

Numerous qualitative studies and a few quantitative studies have linked vaccine hesitancy or refusal with the belief in the efficacy of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Yet, large-scale data on this topic are scarce. In this study, the French researchers investigated the factors associated with the coverage rates of seven childhood vaccines or vaccine groups in the ninety-six metropolitan French departments. One of the factors investigated was the local interest in SCAM. In order to assess this interest, they built an Alternative Medicine Index based on departmental internet searches regarding SCAM—internet searches being a reliable indicator of the public’s actual interest in a given topic. They then conducted multiple regression analyses, which showed that this Index is a significant explanatory factor for the departmental variance in vaccination coverage rates, exceeding in importance the effect of other relevant local sociodemographic factors.

A further recent study from France adds to the picture. It presents the results of a survey conducted in July 2021 among a representative sample of the French mainland adult population (n = 3087). Using cluster analysis, the researchers identified five profiles of SCAM attitudes and found that even among the most pro-SCAM group, very few respondents disagreed with the idea that SCAM should only be used as a complement to conventional medicine. They then compared these SCAM attitudes to vaccine attitudes. Attitudes to SCAM had a distinct impact as well as a combined effect on attitudes to different vaccines and vaccines in general. They found that:

  • attitudes to SCAM provide a very limited explanation of vaccine hesitancy;
  • among the hesitant, pro-SCAM attitudes are often combined with other traits associated with vaccine hesitancy such as distrust of health agencies, radical political preferences, and low income.

Both SCAM endorsement and vaccine hesitancy are more prevalent among the socially disadvantaged. Drawing on these results, the researchers argue that, to better understand the relationship between SCAM and vaccine hesitancy, it is necessary to look at how both can reflect a lack of access and recourse to mainstream medicine and distrust of public institutions.

The fact that the enthusiasm for SCAM is associated with vaccine hesitancy has been discussed on this blog many times before, e.g.:

What seems fairly clear to me is that a cross-correlation exists: an attitude against modern medicine and the ‘scientific establishment’ determines both the enthusiasm for SCAM and the aversion to vaccination. What is, however, far from clear to me is what we could do about it.

Yes, better education seems important – and that’s precisely what I aim at achieving with this blog. Sadly, judging from some of the comments we receive, it does not seem crowned with much success.

Any other ideas?

9 Responses to Interest in so-called alternative medicine is linked to vaccination coverage

  • We not ask them?
    They reply because of xyz, and you answer why xyz is flawed etc.

  • Edzard, you and other commentators often describe non-vax enthusiasts as being HESITANT (sorry to shout!). Here are your words: “attitudes to SCAM provide a very limited explanation of vaccine hesitancy.”
    The word ‘hesitant’ is used frequently to describe millions of folks around the world who have chosen NOT to be impregnated with a cocktail of synthetic chemicals that have not been subjected to long term safety and efficacy trials.
    The word hesitant is associated with people who cannot make rational decisions, they dither and are not capable of being decisive.
    Instead, I have always used the phrase ‘Vaccine Cautious’ to describe myself and many others who didn’t blindly agree to get jabbed without first conducting due diligence in order to arrive at an informed opinion. I trust you don’t object to any lay person conducting due diligence before undertaking a new and untested medical procedure?

    p.s. – your obsession with homeopathy is very strange.

    • Is it strange or rather unethical to offer patients miraculous so-called paramedicine and to withhold or talk them out of effective effective therapies?

      Is it your obsession to justify this action?

    • @Mike Grant
      Interesting:

      I have always used the phrase ‘Vaccine Cautious’ to describe myself and many others who didn’t blindly agree to get jabbed without first conducting due diligence in order to arrive at an informed opinion.

      No-one who is properly informed about vaccines would use this wording:

      millions of folks around the world who have chosen NOT to be impregnated with a cocktail of synthetic chemicals that have not been subjected to long term safety and efficacy trials.

      So no, your opinion is quite clearly is NOT informed – or rather, it is very likely ‘informed’ by people who are clueless about vaccines. And must have lived under a rock for the past 3 years, as literally billions of vaccine doses have been administered without significant drawbacks or problems to speak of.

    • @MIke Grant

      I would describe you and other anti-vax loons as “unfortunate victims of misinformation who cannot manage of dig themselves out of rabbit-hole they have fallen into”.

    • The word hesitant is associated with people who cannot make rational decisions, they dither and are not capable of being decisive.

      I agree that “hesitant” is inappropriate. Antivaxxers are generally people who cannot make rational decisions but have made up their minds anyway.

      • Mojo on Friday 02 June 2023 at 11:25 said:
        “…Antivaxxers are generally people who cannot make rational decisions but have made up their minds anyway.”

        That definition is rootless e.g. it could equally well be:
        “…Vaxxers are generally people who cannot make rational decisions but have made up their minds anyway.”

        • Old Bob says
          “That definition is rootless e.g. it could equally well be:
          “…Vaxxers are generally people who cannot make rational decisions but have made up their minds anyway.””

          Similarly, Gandhi and Hitler are equally well respected historical figures.

  • Dear Mike,
    On the other hand, is it a rational decision to trust ineffective “principles of therapy” such as homeopathy?

    It may be that homeopathy has no adverse effects, but not “MMS”, chiropractic, or infections from neural therapy and ozone therapy.

    And last but not least, “users” of homeopathy are discouraged from using life-saving therapies.

    The latter should not only be an occasion in Spain to urgently discuss how homeopathy could be regulated.

    https://www.elespanol.com/ciencia/salud/20181016/muertes-cancer-causa-homeopatia-alternativas/345715745_0.html

    🙈 🙉 🙊
    It is a “free decision” of each patient to choose this path.
    However, it is unethical for doctors to make money from it. 👆

    Researchers at Yale University that using alternative therapies when you have cancer could double your chances of dying.

    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/110/1/121/4064136?login=false

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

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