McMaster study takes aims to tackle ‘double standard’ of vaccine hesitancy

Each morning, countless Canadians open up their medicine cabinets, fill a glass of water and take medication prescribed to them by their doctor.

Patients have been briefed on the potential side effects, but in turn they understand the benefits of taking the medication, which outweigh the risks.

A new research paper from McMaster University's DeGroote School of Business is taking aim to address that double standard" when it comes to vaccine hesitancy around safety.

We wanted to show from real-world data how vaccines are much safer compared to medicines we take every day without even thinking," said lead author Tuhin Maity, a health management doctoral student at DeGroote.

In their study, which was published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, Mac researchers compared reported severe reactions - ranging from hospitalization to death - that have occurred with five most common medications prescribed in Canada to reactions reported from common vaccines.

Those medications included those used to treat high blood pressure (ACE inhibitors), high cholesterol (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) and ulcers (proton pump inhibitors) while the vaccines included influenza, MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), pneumonia and shingles.

Most of the patients I work with have been prescribed a number of these medications," said Dr. Ahmad von Schlegell, who is a geriatrician at Trillium Health Partners and PhD candidate at DeGroote. They don't have the same degree of hesitancy as what's going on in general with vaccines."

Maity said for their research, the team combed through public Health Canada data relating to adverse reactions that have been collected from doctors, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

Analyzing the data, von Schlegell said they found that the risk of serious adverse reactions to the five common medications is approximately 100 times greater than that of the common vaccines.

That is astounding in terms of the difference we would see," said von Schlegell.

Maity said the research, which began early last year, did not include the COVID-19 vaccine as the rollout had just begun.

But with more data now available, a recent comparison showed the numbers were comparable to the vaccine reaction rates that were published in the paper, added Maity.

While von Schlegell admits that he's unsure the research will ultimately convince someone who is vaccine hesitant, he believes the results of their research need to be a part of the conversation when it comes to safety and risks.

von Schlegell noted that vaccine hesitancy isn't a new issue and can be deeply rooted for many people, even if myths they once believed have since been disproven. Maity said people who are vaccine hesitant also tend to lack trust in medical officials, meaning the evidence they've collected may not translate as well."

There are people that are genuinely concerned, and we want to show them there is not much concern here. Just look at the difference," he said.

von Schlegell said the risk of increased gaps in health outcomes for those who are vaccine hesitant compared to non-vaccine hesitant people also underlines the importance of the paper's message.

I hope that we can shed some light on comparative risks," said von Schlegell. And dispel some of the myths associated with vaccines."

Fallon Hewitt is a reporter at The Spectator. fhewitt@thespec.com