ReviewJournal of public health policy2025
Alternative theories of COVID-19: social dimensions and information sources.
Review in Journal of public health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While scientific understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic increased, conspiracy theories undermined the foundations of public health policy, making it significantly more difficult both to discuss and to implement. Popular alternative narratives include the claim that government was using restrictions to control people's behavior, and that the pandemic was caused by 5G cellular technology. We examine the extent to which alternative beliefs were associated with sociodemographic characteristics and the sources through which people acquired information during the pandemic. Our analysis uses a demographically balanced online survey of 10,022 participants from 50 US states, collected during August of 2021. Results indicate that those holding alternative theories tended to be right leaning, religious, young, male, and unvaccinated individuals. Sources of information were also strong predictors of such beliefs, specifically the extent to which social media were considered reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.