You must log in or register to comment.

PHealthy OP t1_j4r5tv6 wrote


The directionality between vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine side-effects has not been hitherto examined. We hypothesized a nocebo effect, whereby vaccine hesitancy towards the second Pfizer vaccination dose predicts subsequent side-effects for a booster dose, beyond other effects. We expected these nocebo effects to be driven by (mis)information in males and prior experience in females.

A representative sample of older adults (n = 756, mean age = 68.9 ± 3.43) were questioned in a typical cross-lagged design (wave 1 following a second Pfizer dose, wave 2 after their booster). As hypothesized, earlier vaccine hesitancy predicted subsequent booster side-effects for females (β = 0.10 p = 0.025, f 2 = 0.02) and males (β = 0.34, p < 0.001, f 2 = 0.16); effects were stronger in males (χ2Δ (1) = 4.34, p = 0.03). The (W1-to-W2) side-effect autoregression was stronger in females (β = .34, p < 0.001; males β = 0.18, p < 0.001), χ2Δ (1) = 26.86, p < 0.001.

Results show that a quantifiable and meaningful portion of COVID-19 vaccine side-effects is predicted by vaccine hesitancy, demonstrating that side-effects comprise a psychosomatic nocebo component in vaccinated individuals. The data reveal distinct risk levels for future side-effects, suggesting the need to tailor public health messaging.


_pharmadillo_ t1_j4sfnvw wrote

I may have missed it; I didn’t see any discussion about side effects experienced after the first dose.

If patients had previously experienced negative side effects after the first dose, it seems this would prime them for hesitancy leading up to their second Pfizer vaccination dose (which is when the hesitancy was measured).
e: to clarify, patients who experienced negative effects after the first dose would be more likely to have negative symptoms after subsequent doses and would be primed with hesitancy and so that could produce the results above. If I missed something though happy to be corrected.

Aside from that issue, though, this seems to have big implications for the public reporting databases as well - eg VAERS may overestimate vaccine side effects because many patients are actually experiencing Nocebo effects instead due to the prevalence of misinformation.


Ravingraven21 t1_j4sfa7b wrote

Confirmation bias is so very strong.


PeriodicAdamSchiff t1_j4tqe1j wrote

Likely explains the majority of (non-celiac) gluten sensitivity and MSG side effects


AutoModerator t1_j4r5rpc wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


atremblein t1_j52tm5s wrote

There is no logical link between these two correlations... "Results show that a quantifiable and meaningful portion of COVID-19 vaccine side-effects is predicted by vaccine hesitancy, demonstrating that side-effects comprise a psychosomatic nocebo component in vaccinated individuals. " My friend went to the hospital after her vaccine and she thought vaccines were good and would help her!

Obviously, if something happens and there is a statistical relation then that doesn't necessarily cause such an outcome. That this is even being published shows how biased science has become...obviously things have side effects and those have an effect. You can't blame everything on a psychosomatic nocebo effect just because side effects exist. A logical conclusion would be that maybe their genes or immune systems functions differently and that causes side effects, but blaming a person for their response and using that to justify how information is given to the public makes no sense.