Patients are increasingly using and requesting so-called alternative medicine Medicine (SCAM), especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it remains unclear whether they use SCAMs in conjunction with conventional medicine or to replace vaccination or other approaches and whether they discuss them with their physicians as part of shared decision-making. This study aimed to evaluate the use and initiation of SCAM during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the association between SCAM-use and COVID-19 vaccination status.
It was a part of the longitudinal cohort of the CoviCare program, which follows all outpatients tested for COVID-19 at the Geneva University Hospitals. Outpatients tested for COVID-19 were contacted 12 months after their positive or negative test between April and December 2021. Participants were asked about their vaccination status and if they had used SCAM in the past 12 months. SCAM-use was defined based on a list of specific therapies from which participants could choose the options they had used. Logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, education, profession, severe acute respiratory system coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and pre-existing conditions were used to evaluate the association between being unvaccinated and complementary medicine use. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was evaluated for effect modification in the association between being unvaccinated and complementary medicine use.
This study enrolled 12,246 individuals (participation proportion = 17.7%). Their mean age was 42.8 years, 59.4% were women, and 63.7% used SCAM. SCAM-use was higher in women, the middle-aged, and those with a higher education level, a SARS-CoV-2 infection, or pre-existing co-morbidities. A third of cases initiated SCAM as prevention against COVID-19. Being unvaccinated was associated with higher levels of SCAM-use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.22 [1.09–1.37]). SCAMs were frequently used for COVID-19 prevention (aOR 1.61 [1.22–2.12]). Being unvaccinated was associated with the use of several specific SCAMs:
- zinc (OR 2.25 [1.98–2.55]),
- vitamin D (OR 1.45 [1.30–1.62]),
- vitamin C (OR 1.59 [1.42–1.78]).
Only 4% of participants discussed using SCAM with their primary care physicians.
The authors concluded that, while SCAM is increasingly used, it is rarely discussed with primary care physicians. SCAM-use, especially for COVID-19 prevention, is associated with COVID-19 vaccination status. Communication between physicians, patients, and SCAM therapists is encouraged to facilitate a truly holistic approach to making a shared decision based on the best available information.
This survey confirmed the findings of several previous investigations. It also shows that the terminologies often employed are inadequate:
- alternative medicine: as it does not work, it cannot be an alternative;
- complementary medicine: many patients do not use it to complement real medicine.
As I have explained many times, I thus find SCAM a much more appropriate term.
The last sentence of the authors conclusion is puzzeling. What can SCAM pratitioners contribute to a ‘truly holistic approach’ to decisions about vaccinations? I feel this sentence should be changed into something like the following:
Communication between physicians and patients should be encouraged. To facilitate an effective approach to making shared decisions on vaccinations, SCAM practitioners should be excluded until they are able to convincingly demonstrate that their advice is based on sound evidence.
21 Responses to Use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and its association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
[Quote from the above]
“…Being unvaccinated was associated with higher levels of SCAM-use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.22 [1.09–1.37]). SCAMs were frequently used for COVID-19 prevention (aOR 1.61 [1.22–2.12]). Being unvaccinated was associated with the use of several specific SCAMs:
zinc (OR 2.25 [1.98–2.55]),
vitamin D (OR 1.45 [1.30–1.62]),
vitamin C (OR 1.59 [1.42–1.78]).”
[end of quote]
Add mainly whole, organic vegetables and fruit, no added salt and plenty of sunshine, without sunscreen and that would be my own SCAM – works for me.
“Add mainly whole, organic vegetables and fruit, no added salt and plenty of sunshine, without sunscreen and that would be my own SCAM” as some more non-evidence-based advice.
You are right, we need a double-blind, randomized controlled trial for organic whole food otherwise there is no evidence that it is safe.
foremost, we need you to stop bullshitting
Old Bob
Are we to assume that foods grown with chemicals (containing chemicals) are any less healthy than food grown without chemicals ?
You are correct, we can assume no more or less. We need an RCT
NOT !
Who will pay for it ?
so, you think that nature does not consist of chemicals; try some hemlock and you will find out that some of them are not so healthy.
Some of the essential volatile compounds in apples:
• 1-butanal
• 1-butanol
• 1-propyl butyrate
• 2-methyl-1-butanol
• 2-methylbutanal
• 2-methylbutyl acetate
• 3-methylbutanal
• 3-methylbutyl acetate
• acetaldehyde
• amyl acetate (fun fact: amyl acetate is a solvent for paints, lacquers, and liquid bandages; and a flavorant. It also fuels the Hefner lamp and fermentative productions of penicillin.)
• ethanol
• ethyl acetate
• ethyl 2-methyl butyrate
• ethyl 2-methylpropionate
• ethyl butyrate
• ethyl hexanoate
• ethyl pentanoate
• ethyl propionate
• hexanal
• hexanol
• trans-2-hexenal
Flath. Volatiles in Gravenstein apple essence identified by GC-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 7:508 (1967)
Flath. Identification and organoleptic evaluation of compounds in Delcious apple essence. J. Agr. Food Chem. 15:29 (1969)
In total, an apple contains circa 300 chemical substances; irrespective of whether or not it is an organic apple.
Enjoy !
You missed two of the most poisonous: Na and Cl in NaCl
“You missed two of the most poisonous: Na and Cl in NaCl”
Neither of which would appear in a list of volatile COMPOUNDS. Furthermore:
And, it is the dose, not the substance per se, that makes the poison.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
You seem to revel in flaunting your stupidity.
My old chemistry master had a way of fixing information in the minds of the stupid like this, “Sodium and Chlorine, two of the most poisonous substances on Earth combine to make the salt that is essential to Life on Earth.”
Which is why I recall it to this day. It is beautiful.
In contrast, the dry Wikipedia entry you quote above, I daresay, would not stay in the minds of the stupid for 60 years or 6 minutes.
A good reaction (from ignorance) to the chemistry master, would be, “Why?” – and therein lies the “secret” of chemistry! And of course, electronics 🙂
Your old chemistry master was quite evidently a complete failure to have left you so clueless.
There is a ton of both RCT and non-RCT evidence that organic food is unsafe. Will you stop eating it? Or continue to bullshit about it? Mind you, literal bullshit is one of the contaminants in organically grown vegetables. And that is the organic fact of the day!
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/organic-vegetables-could-give-you-food-poisoning-experts-warn-152606676.html
https://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2023/natures-promise-organic-raspberries-recalled-for-mold/
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/04/spanish-study-finds-organic-produce-contamination/
https://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2023/365-whole-foods-organic-asian-chopped-salad-recalled/
https://www.foodpoisoningnews.com/hepatitis-a-outbreak-linked-to-frozen-organic-strawberries-sweeps-across-three-states/
that is a laughable reply. All those same issues cited that occurred with “organic” produce could have occurred with non-organic produce also.
That is no evidence.
Bravo! Johnny Boy! You grasped my point, on first try. Now tell that to Old Bob.
There’s no need to be sad, be happy! And eat ze bugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPXXSDmfbD8
I remember a study of the so called organic fruits and vegetables, and the only difference researchers found was price. As to the sunshine, if you have found a sunscreen that works 100%, there is no need to spend more in the sunshine than necessary, if not, one can never now, whether his/her decision was correct until he/she gets skin cancer. Of course, genetics play some role, but scientists have started the subject only recently, and anyway, there is no way to check the random mutations, acquired during lifetime in each cell. And there is no way to prevent them.
I don’t like: “works for me”, especially in case of Covid-19, that can have very mild form and nevertheless damage heart and lungs, and remember a study of the so called organic fruits and vegetables, and the only difference researchers found was price. As to the sunshine, if you have found a sunscreen that works 100%, there is no need to spend more in the sunshine than necessary, if not, one can never now, whether his/her decision was correct until he/she gets skin cancer. Of course, genetics play some role, but scientists have started the subject only recently, and anyway, there is no way to check the random mutations, acquired during lifetime in each cell. And there is no way to prevent them.
Dear Ieva Zagante,
Evidently, you have never had a “works for me”, because if you did you would be as happy as I am thanks to holding metastatic cancer steady (7th year now) and curing my little annoying allergies as a side effect that had been with me the previous 30 years or so.
Dem’s words have a lot of meaning there, for me, not for you.
Also I don’t get colds or rather I might be getting colds now and again but I eliminate the symptoms by doubling my ascorbic intake to bowel-tolerance.
Since this dietary change, I have refused all further vaccinations e.g. the flu I used to have annually, and started that in 2018, hence never had a covid shot.
My wife took one in February 2021 and still suffers “ants crawling under her skin” to this day, after being confined to bed with balance problems, 9 days after her jab, for a week.
Cancer is a metabolic disease. The genetic collapse is a consequence, not the cause (this is obvious if you think about it). Sunshine is uniquely necessary to keep D levels elevated to *prevent* skin cancer. Sunscreens have the opposite effect intended by limiting D.
Keep well, and eat only organic whole food. Get out into the sun more and discover what “works for me” means.
Love, Old Bob
I applaud the amended last sentence.
The existing version reminds me of the satirical cartoon showing a TV current affairs presenter saying “On this topic, we will be interviewing a very highly qualified Professor with decades of experience working in this field. And in the interests of balance, we will also talk to an idiot”.
Old Bob, allow me to do the passing social media thing. Ernst might endorse some of this, since it would be a great pseudo-skeptic alternative hypothesis.
Please have your local quack check out Mrs. Bob for B12 deficiency.
Formication (with an M!!!), “ants crawling” sensation is a symptom. Often but not exclusively on scalp or hands. Also, increasing weakness. Sometimes discernible paleness.
Not generally correctable by supplementation, since most often it is a malabsorption problem (“intrinsic factor” and all that – quite fascinating). Although if the other half is a vegetarian, that could be at the root of things. So to speak.. In which case, easily addressed by a little red meat and a temporary suspension of principles.
No harm in having B12 status checked, mind. And it can develop into a serious, lethal condition, pernicious anaemia.
Although, it is indeed well known (except on this blog, which is firmly in denial) that the formerly untested, experimental gene therapies redefined as “vaccines”, do have serious side effects, some neurological.
Formality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10157009/
[Cheers, Ernst old chap.]
Will on Monday 29 January 2024 at 18:23 said:
[quote]
“…Please have your local quack check out Mrs. Bob for B12 deficiency…
[end of quote]
Thanks for thoughtful info’ – it’s something new to try.