Andrew Wakefield banned - Page 2

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Originally Posted by mbhf

I have honestly never heard of this guy, so he obviously had no bearing on my decision to not vaccinate my children. I am very secure in my decision and I don't think there is anything that would make me question it.

Mine decision was based on personal experience with my dd and my gut feelings on vax.

[maurice]

I am surprised that so many people on here "researched vaccines a lot" and "had never heard of Wakefield". I researched vaccines very little and had heard of him...for that matter, I would think his name/study is just part of general knowledge for most people. Perhaps so much hasn't been publised about his flawed study in other countries? I am in the US and has been in the news much over the years.

[lach]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

we could if that truth wasn't fabricated His "study" wasn't as clean as it should have been. Not even remotely. No one can duplicate his results either, because he made sure the results would show what he wanted.

I feel the same about anyone who does what he did. he lost his credibility and I personally think he did more harm to the anti-vax movement then good because its been proved that he lied.

Even if what he says is true, the way he got there was dihonest and that means there is no credibility to it.

It looks like two threads were merged so my post is waaay down from yours right now, but if I had read this post before mine I would have it. Well said.

Also count me in as surprised that so many people have never heard of him. He's been in the news for years now.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by MyFillingQuiver

We don't vax, and our decision has little to do with the MMR/autism link. It has more to do with the loads of research we've done which revealed copious amounts of real study and information on chemicals, death and other immediate, short term and long term injury, auto-immune and neurological disorders, along with the flaw we see in the entire argument behind the effectiveness. Additionally, I am suspect of ANYTHING the gov't pushes so hard for while getting large dollars for their efforts.

With that said, I have minimally heard of Wakefield. I think it's TERRIBLY shameful that he is banned. Without knowing much about him, it seems he had plenty of peer reviewed information to make his cause worthwhile in taking a further look at...meaning, most research in the US begins with peer reviews of very small samples. With that correlation, he'd be qualified to at least ask questions before congress and the AMA/AAP!

I edited to add that I totally agree with the pp lach, that he could make for a very good red herring, and she makes excellent points! I also tire of the "Don't you know the autism link has been debunked" question, as if that has anything to do with our decisions! GEEZ!
He goes against the grain, though...which is ALWAYS what big gov't does when they are worried about someone speaking out-silence them! I'm all for free speech, and free and open research.

Have you ever actually looked at the study you're talking about? His study involved 12 children. I'd call that a pretty small sample.

Why would the autism question bother you? It was undoubtedly the loudest cry from anti-vaxxers for the longest amount of time. It stands to reason that it would stick in people's minds. Of course over time the loudest cry has changed. Mercury. Aluminum. Etc. Nobody is debating that there has been scores of other concerns all along. But arguably the one that got the most attention was the claim of vaccines causing autism. Why would anyone with only a passing knowledge of the controversy think any differently?

[Juvysen]

I had heard of his study, but autism wasn't my main concern in researching vaccines, so I didn't focus on that angle at all. So, I had heard of him, but it had no bearing on my decision-making process.

So, I'm thinking it's a little ridiculous that all these pro-vax ppl think that discrediting one guy will convince so many people to start vaxing. Maybe more people focused on autism than I would have thought, but I'd gotten the impression that those worried about autism *started* looking there, but probably branched out to other angles. Maybe that's naive.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Juvysen

I had heard of his study, but autism wasn't my main concern in researching vaccines, so I didn't focus on that angle at all. So, I had heard of him, but it had no bearing on my decision-making process.

So, I'm thinking it's a little ridiculous that all these pro-vax ppl think that discrediting one guy will convince so many people to start vaxing. Maybe more people focused on autism than I would have thought, but I'd gotten the impression that those worried about autism *started* looking there, but probably branched out to other angles. Maybe that's naive.

I agree. No one doctor or study should be an end-all for any issue. And I think your impression was correct. I just think that people who haven't looked into vaccines aren't aware of that.

[ammiga]

I'd heard of him, but he had nothing to do with our decision not to vaccinate. Autism was also quite low on our risk of fears. When I started researching vaccines, my initial research didn't lead me down the path of autism, so that had very little to do with our decision. I found the other information I came across to be logical and compelling. That is probably why I know very little about Wakefield and his work. It is also why I still feel confident in our decision not to vaccinate.

I would never base a decision off of one doctor's opinions, so my beliefs would not come crashing down or leave me feeling betrayed or wrong if one doctor's conclusions were called into question.

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by Suka

I wonder whats going threw the mind of non-vax mammas on here? Do you feel betrayed? Do you still stand by your decisions?

Considering that autism has nothing to do with why I'm no vax, this doesn't change a thing for me. I don't feel betrayed because I don't even know who the guy is, so I'm not invested in his opinions. There are many reasons people are no vax, one person does not make or break a decision like this.

[MyFillingQuiver]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Have you ever actually looked at the study you're talking about? His study involved 12 children. I'd call that a pretty small sample.

Why would the autism question bother you? It was undoubtedly the loudest cry from anti-vaxxers for the longest amount of time. It stands to reason that it would stick in people's minds. Of course over time the loudest cry has changed. Mercury. Aluminum. Etc. Nobody is debating that there has been scores of other concerns all along. But arguably the one that got the most attention was the claim of vaccines causing autism. Why would anyone with only a passing knowledge of the controversy think any differently?

No, I haven't read the study. I've only read some information dispersed by media saying that his study was flawed, and the other information citing it as well peer reviewed. Besides, I was one of the people who said he didn't factor into my choices, as we were no-vax long before I had heard of him. He's not my BFF, and I don't know much about him, but I believe that he has a right to be concerned and conduct research, and others, including licensing boards, can decide if his research is up to their standards. I'm not a physician or a researcher, but I'm thankful for anyone who cares and at least has some desire to pursue the non-lucrative path of going against pharma.

The question bothers me, because it makes it seem as if people who don't vaccinate (and I've got this from ped's, who "assume" this, as well) are choosing this out of some "trendy bandwagon-yet totally medically disproved" issue, rather than having done research on the whole host of other issues involved in our no-vax choices.

Besides, if I wanted to avoid vaccines because I thought that (insert any theory here) then I should have the right, unquestioned..I'm still the parent and I still have the right to decide. It's the same as the "Oh, you don't vax..is that because of the campaign by Jenny McCarthy?" Uh, no..it's not..but I AM thankful for her, if she had at least one person take a hard look at vaccines and their history.

[thtr4me]

I will admit that hearing about his research way back when, was what triggered me to take a deeper look into vaccines. I am sad to hear that he has been banned, as I believe that people like him, who question the norm, can really help open people's eyes. I know I would not have questioned vaccines if it had not been for hearing about this, and wondering what else I didn't know about vaccines.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by maurice

I am surprised that so many people on here "researched vaccines a lot" and "had never heard of Wakefield". I researched vaccines very little and had heard of him...for that matter, I would think his name/study is just part of general knowledge for most people. Perhaps so much hasn't been publised about his flawed study in other countries? I am in the US and has been in the news much over the years.

I'd agree, if the children were born after roughly 1997. It's kind of hard to miss him over the last decade, but it's possible that some people's choices not to vaccinate predate the Lancet 12.

[sapientia]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I'd agree, if the children were born after roughly 1997. It's kind of hard to miss him over the last decade, but it's possible that some people's choices not to vaccinate predate the Lancet 12.

I'm not terribly familiar with him (just read about him in passing) but our first child was born in 1994 and I had already decided before that not to vaccinate.

[CrazyCatLady]

I wonder whats going threw the mind of non-vax mammas on here? Do you feel betrayed? Do you still stand by your decisions?

This is not the first time an anti-vax doctor has been in trouble. Seems a lot of them end up losing their licenses, or being ridiculed, or disproven, etc. It appears to be very hard/impossible for doctors in this country to have an anti-vax stance and be taken seriously. Personally, this doctor and his study had nothing to do with my reasons for not vaccinating. Autism was probably the least of my worries when it comes to vaccines and my kids. Nothing in my life is changing over this and my kid will remain vaccine free.

If this is all it takes to get an "anti-vax" person vaxing, then they did not do enough research one way or the other to begin with.

[MyFillingQuiver]

Originally Posted by Melaya

This is not the first time an anti-vax doctor has been in trouble. Seems a lot of them end up losing their licenses, or being ridiculed, or disproven, etc. It appears to be very hard/impossible for doctors in this country to have an anti-vax stance and be taken seriously. Personally, this doctor and his study had nothing to do with my reasons for not vaccinating. Autism was probably the least of my worries when it comes to vaccines and my kids. Nothing in my life is changing over this and my kid will remain vaccine free.

If this is all it takes to get an "anti-vax" person vaxing, then they did not do enough research one way or the other to begin with.

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

we could if that truth wasn't fabricated His "study" wasn't as clean as it should have been. Not even remotely. No one can duplicate his results either, because he made sure the results would show what he wanted.

Yes, they have
http://www.la-press.com/article.php?article_id=1816

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Jugs

Yes, they have
http://www.la-press.com/article.php?article_id=1816

To play devil's advocate, Krigsman is a colleague, this paper isn't indexed for pubmed, so it will be considered not scholarly since it's not peer reviewed.

[Jadzia]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Have you ever actually looked at the study you're talking about? His study involved 12 children. I'd call that a pretty small sample.

Have you actually ever read it? It was a case series about a novel form of bowel disease. It actually had very little to do with vaccines. It never said that vaccines cause autism. It only noted that many of the parents reported onset of symptoms after MMR and suggested that there be more study.

Case studies do not typically have a large "sample size" as they are only looking at the persons affected.

[JessicaS]

I did read his study it was just not the basis for my decisions.

I do find it unfortunate that the study was fraught with misinformation and manipulation but it doesn't have anything to do with my family.

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

To play devil's advocate, Krigsman is a colleague, this paper isn't indexed for pubmed, so it will be considered not scholarly since it's not peer reviewed.

Fair enough, but didn't Wakefield's findings pass peer review?

[dknees]

My decision to not vax has nothing to do with Dr. Wakefield.