In spite of the safety and efficiency of the COVID-19 vaccines and the many promotion efforts of political and expert authorities, a fair portion of the population remained hesitant if not opposed to vaccination. Public debate and the available literature point to the possible role of people’s attitudes towards medical institutions as well as their preference for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) on their motivations and intentions to be vaccinated. Other potential ideological factors are beliefs about environmental laissez-faire and divine providence insofar as they encourage people to let the pandemic unfold without human interference.
In three cross-sectional samples (total N = 8214), collected at successive moments during the Belgian vaccination campaign, the present research examines the distal role of these psychological and ideological factors on vaccination intentions via motivational processes.
- Study 1 gauges the relation between trust in medical institutions and preference for SCAM on intentions to get vaccinated via motivations.
- Study 2 examines the role of beliefs in the desirability of letting nature take its course (‘environmental laissez-faire beliefs’) on vaccination intention via motivations.
- Study 3 tests whether people’s adherence to environmental laissez-faire and beliefs about divine providence are linked to their motivations for vaccination via trust in the medical institutions and SCAM.
The results show that adherence to SCAM has a deleterious effect on vaccination intentions, whereas trust in medical institutions has a positive effect. Both ideological factors pertaining to external control are only moderately related, with environmental laissez-faire beliefs having stronger effects on SCAM, medical trust and vaccination motivations.
The evidence of an association between SCAM and willingness to get vaccinated is undeniable. On this blog, we have discussed it repeatedly, e.g.:
- Use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and its association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status
- Intelligence, Religiosity, SCAM, Vaccination Hesitancy – are there links?
- Andrew Wakefield, Donald Trump, SCAM, and the anti-vaccination cult
- Measles are back – not least thanks to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), I fear
- Reasons for parental hesitancy or refusal of childhood vaccination
- Endorsement of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and vaccine hesitancy among physicians
- Are people who oppose COVID-19 vaccinations intellectually challenged?
- So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and vaccine hesitancy among physicians: findings from Germany, Finland, Portugal, and France
- Interest in so-called alternative medicine is linked to vaccination coverage
- Misinformation and conspiratorial thinking are at the heart of so-called alternative medicine(SCAM)
- Vaccination rates of Canadian healthcare professionals: those of chiropractors and naturopaths are at the lowest
- Echo chambers of vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- Preference of so-called alternative medicine predicts negative attitudes to vaccination
- What are the reasons for opposing COVID vaccinations?
- Anti-vax arguments used by proponents of SCAM are stupid, or wrong, or both
But what exactly is the nature of this association?
- Does SCAM-use predispose to vaccination hesitancy?
- Does Vaccination hesitancy predispose to SCAM use?
- Is both true?
After reading all this research that has emerged on the subject, I get the impression that we are mostly dealing here with a cross-correlation where a certain mind-set of being
- prone to conspiracy theories,
- anti-establishment,
- anti-science,
- irrational,
- of low intelligence,
- unable of critical thinking,
- etc., etc,
determines both the SCAM-use and the vaccination hesitancy.
14 Responses to Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
quote
“Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?”
end-of-quote
No, but reality *does* influence people’s vaccination intentions.
Dr Clair Craig gives the evidence on this video yesterday:
https://drclarecraig.substack.com/p/reflection-on-the-last-four-years
That is not “Dr Clair Craig”, it is:
Dr Clare E H Craig FRCPath
Co-Chair of the HART Group
The truth of the matter is:
Why Are So Many Anti-Vaxxers in Educated, Affluent Areas?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-are-the-educated-more-likely-to-be-against-vaccines
“Studies show that affluent urban areas with high education rates can have large pockets of people against vaccines”
You will all love this paragraph from this article:
“But according to Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, especially in urban areas, anti-vaxxers tend to be more affluent. They also come from regions of the country with the highest education rates, like college and tech towns. These anti-vaxxers have better access to the internet and more time to visit websites and chatrooms that already align with their belief system. Online and in books, they can find plenty of fuel to feed their fire. Amazon and Facebook, says Hotez, are some of the biggest providers of false information and anti-vaccination books.”
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, once considered the world’s preeminent independent medical research organization. Gøtzsche has published more than 97 papers in the “big five” medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine).
And yet, THIS esteemed physician/scientist was black-listed on social media, and here, he reports about a highly respected Harvard professor who was fired because he questioned the narrative on the Covid vaccine.
Here’s Peter’s recent article:
https://brownstone.org/articles/harvards-latest-act-of-shame
BTW, The Brownstone Institute was founded by professors at Oxford, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford.
“BTW, The Brownstone Institute was founded by professors at Oxford, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Tucker
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=%22Jeffrey+Tucker%22
@Dana Ullman
Looks to me like science in optima forma: no matter your credentials, no matter your alma mater, if you start spouting pseudoscientific nonsense (like Kulldorff did), you will be criticized by your peers, and eventually ousted from your position as a scientist.
Indeed he did, Dana. And if you’re holding the Cochrane in such esteem, you should mention that he was later thrown out from the organisation for an “ongoing, consistent pattern of disruptive and inappropriate behaviours …, taking place over a number of years, which undermined this culture and were detrimental to the charity’s work, reputation and members.”
Once-esteemed, Dana. Once-esteemed. He is now seen as the crank he is and is, like you, ignored.
It is telling that DUllman repeatedly omits unpleasant details or dangerous missteps from his so-called key witnesses because they do not fit into his pseudo-medical/pseudo-scientific world view. In the case of Peter Gøtzsche, there is also the fact that he spreads misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peter-gotzsche-teams-with-an-antivaxxer-to-exaggerate-the-harms-of-covid-19-vaccines/
It is SO classic that you, Lenny, portray HALF-KNOWLEDGE. Let’s see what Wikipedia says about this:
“Gøtzsche, critical of the pharmaceutical industry and what he sees as its influence on medicine, expressed concern about “growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model” at Cochrane that “threaten the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization.”[32] He stated that “Cochrane no longer lives up to its core values of collaboration, openness, transparency, accountability, democracy and keeping the drug industry at arm’s length.”[34] After the expulsion, four members of the Board resigned and two had to leave to restore a balance between appointed and elected members, throwing the organization into turmoil.[33]
So, getting kicked out of the Cochrane is a badge of honor because Peter is too pro-science and too critical of those people who brown-nose Big Pharma, like you, Lenny.
That’s Wikipedia quoting Gøtzsche, Dana. Nothing more.
Strange how you suddenly seem to be so keen on citing Wikipedia. Aren’t you banned from editing entries on it? You obviously now like Wikipedia. Shall we see what it says about homeopathy? Which bits do you want me to paste in?
glad to hear that you value the Cochrane Collaboration.
in this case, you’ll be interested to hear what Cochrane reviews say about homeopathy:
“The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20402610/
Dear Dana, this is wonderful a wonderful example of “argumentum ab auctoritate”. How is it that a smart guy like you falls into this trap with his eyes open? 😉
So is his appeal to “affluent urban areas with high education rates”.
The Brownstain Institute was founded by foaming libertarian antivax loon Jeffrey A. Tucker, Dana. He is not an academic in any sense of the word. So that’s you being demonstrably and provably wrong. Again.