[injidup]

You are claiming the study is claiming something it doesn't and then claiming it is bogus because they can't claim what you claim they are claiming.

> A new study has found that US dog owners who harbor mistrust in the safety and efficacy of childhood and adult vaccines are also more likely to hold negative views about vaccinating their four-legged friends.

They didn't claim that 37% are not vaccinating due to mistrust. They claimed that people hold negative views about vaccines with regards to pets. It was a study about beliefs not about actions.

The abstract states clearly.

> Canine vaccine hesitancy (CVH) can be thought about as dog owners’ skepticism about the safety and efficacy of administering routine vaccinations to their dogs. CVH is problematic not only because it may inspire vaccine refusal

It is certainly important for public policy to understand the trajectory of anti-scientific thinking in the community ( not withstanding that this thinking is now running the USA ) If today a large percentage of people are expressing vaccine hesitancy then next week maybe they stop vaccinating. This is a worthwhile attempt to understand what is going on. Calling it bogus is just wrong. They are also aware of their own limitations.

> Limitations & discussion. We view this work as an important first step in understanding canine vaccine hesitancy and its public health consequences. We recognize, of course, that some measures employed in this study are imperfect. For example, our measure of canine rabies vaccine uptake is self-reported, and therefore may be subject to inaccurate and/or biased recall. Correspondingly, we see future efforts to clinically validate self-reported vaccine uptake measures (as is often done with human vaccines; see [2] as an

But you just did a drive by "It's bogus" without even trying to understand the context.