Since Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper is "an elaborate fraud", should I vax? - Page 3

[majormajor]

i've been thinking about what explains how people can draw different conclusions from the same information, with respect to vaxes, and i think that our previously held beliefs are what explain most of the difference in opinion.

i can't even estimate how many research articles i've read (i try to restrict myself to original sources of info). too many. and i haven't kept a spreadsheet of results or anything.  i have to remember all of my reasoning and conclusions, and i'm sure there's a bias filter going on in my brain, and everyone else's. so when i come to the conclusion that vaxing is a pretty great thing, for the most part, and there are only a few i am interested in skipping/delaying, well that has a lot to do with the fact that i believe most scientists are honest (wakefield being of of the exceptions!), and that the CDC isn't on a mass campaign to poison our children and cover it up. my science background (BS in physics, MA in science journalism) certainly plays into it.

but, if i were a person that distrusted government more, and had an initial bias away from science, then i'm sure i could easily come to a different conclusion. it's so hard to try to control our own biases. one thing i always try to do is be on the lookout for how much i "like" the results of a scientific paper--how much they agree with my previously held beliefs. if they're results i like, i make myself pretend they're the opposite of what i want to hear. how hard would i be on the paper then? and likewise, if i don't like the paper, how would i analyze it if i did? i usually find that my first instinct is to go easier on papers when the conclusion agrees with my beliefs, and harder if it doesn't. forcing myself to behave oppositely has been immensely helpful.

[Pirogi]

Originally Posted by majormajor 

i've been thinking about what explains how people can draw different conclusions from the same information, with respect to vaxes, and i think that our previously held beliefs are what explain most of the difference in opinion.

i can't even estimate how many research articles i've read (i try to restrict myself to original sources of info). too many. and i haven't kept a spreadsheet of results or anything.  i have to remember all of my reasoning and conclusions, and i'm sure there's a bias filter going on in my brain, and everyone else's. so when i come to the conclusion that vaxing is a pretty great thing, for the most part, and there are only a few i am interested in skipping/delaying, well that has a lot to do with the fact that i believe most scientists are honest (wakefield being of of the exceptions!), and that the CDC isn't on a mass campaign to poison our children and cover it up. my science background (BS in physics, MA in science journalism) certainly plays into it.

but, if i were a person that distrusted government more, and had an initial bias away from science, then i'm sure i could easily come to a different conclusion. it's so hard to try to control our own biases. one thing i always try to do is be on the lookout for how much i "like" the results of a scientific paper--how much they agree with my previously held beliefs. if they're results i like, i make myself pretend they're the opposite of what i want to hear. how hard would i be on the paper then? and likewise, if i don't like the paper, how would i analyze it if i did? i usually find that my first instinct is to go easier on papers when the conclusion agrees with my beliefs, and harder if it doesn't. forcing myself to behave oppositely has been immensely helpful.

Not to devalue your reasoning and thought process, but I have a strong science/math background (BS and MS in chemical engineering), and my DH has a strong science and math background (2 BS in math and chemistry, MS in chemical engineering, PhD in chemical engineering), and we still came to the opposite conclusions.  Based on what we saw in graduate school, we certainly don't believe that most scientists are honest.  However, I appreciate and respect your approach to consider how your previously held beliefs could influence your ability to believe or disbelieve a scientific paper.  I think this is a valuable technique that everyone would benefit from.
 

[freestylemama]

Majormajor you're so right.  My father is a chemist and worked for a government agency.  DH has a PhD in physics and is funded by a massive federal grant.  The last job I had was as a researcher in a medical school on another federally funded grant.  I have an MA and have taken many grad level public health classes. 

Our educational experiences and the fact that I understand the research process gives me a mostly benevolent opinion about science.  I am not naive about the unfortunate impact that profit motives have on medicine, but good science and evidence based medical research exist and it's possible to weed out good results from profit motivated decisions and policies.  I think that we all have to be careful not to blindly join "sides" when making decisions about our health.  It's very appealing to discount all medical research because some pharmaceutical companies make immoral and unjust decisions (I'm thinking specifically of patent issues with life saving ARVs) that are motivated by profit.  Nothing is ever that clear though.    

[kittywitty]

My dh is a chemist and worked QA in pharmaceuticals. We do NOT vax and his experience had a big hand in that. I don't trust it at all. The Wakefield studies have nothing to do with it, honestly. My medical and science background also give me a healthy dose of skepticism behind vax'ing.

[carriebft]

awallrising-

My response to you was directly related to your quote that unvaccinated individuals do not cause outbreaks, that this idea "is a myth with no basis in fact." I provided you with facts and asks for facts to back up this statement you made. It is a general statement that does not specify disease. My aim was to demonstrate to you that unvaccinated individuals do indeed initiate most outbreaks of two specific illnesses: measles and rubella. Moreover, they are also the populations were the outbreak is maintained and spread. There are, of course, other illnesses were this is true (varicella and hib disease come to mind).

As you mentioned, there are vaccines that do not do as good of a job at creating "herd immunity." Pertussis is one of these.

[amnesiac]

I have removed several posts from this thread which were not consistent with our guidelines or which were responses to such posts. Please remember that discussion should remain on topic, regarding how this study relates to vaccines or vaccination decisions. Any discussion or speculation about individuals is not permissible. Should there be any further issues, the thread will be removed from the forum.

[amitie]

I am very, very grateful for this timely discussion. We are just in the process of registering our child for school, and this issue is going to come up.

Thank you to all who have kept it civil and who have taken the time to post links. I look forward to reading more. I think it's safe to say that this is not a black and white issue!

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by gr8tmama 

My 2 children are not vaxed. After the recent new that this paper is a fraud and some correlations between autism and vaccinations, but no proven causation/evidence.  I think it's time to have DC vaxed. What do you guys think?

It really depends on why you have not vaccinated your children so far. If the basis of your decision relied on this study, then you could be in a fix. Although, the study never claimed MMR caused Autism. And a case series of 12 children would not convince anyone of causation. However, if despite that, you relied on the interpretation by the media on what the study concluded, and decided not to vaccinate, then yes, your reason would be on very shaky ground at the moment.

Knowing the reasons why you give each specific vaccine, and when you give it (or don't - whatever your ultimate choice is) is probably the best way forward for you and your family.

[nattyblonde]

@ gr8tmama

Do your kids have any medical conditions that would preclude vaccinations? As others have pointed out - it depends on what your concerns are? 

It is so heartening to see a person willing to reexamine an opinion after new evidence surfaces. When discussing the possible reactions to the Wakefield fraud with a friend she told me about a study done by a political scientist (Univ of Mich) in which participants were deliberately given misinformation and later researchers issued a correction. A lot of people continued to believe the original lie and a fair number of those believed it even more strongly after the correction. Ironically, they stick to their beliefs even more strongly in the face of new information. So, rather than attributing the continued anti-vaccination stance to stupidity or ignorance (as some commentators in other venues have) it seems it is more like an unavoidable part of the human psyche. It is a part of my psyche I do not wish to be a slave to, however.  Speaking of being willing to take a second look, Salon did a really great interview with Seth Mnookin recently in which he discusses the “Why?” behind the anti-vaccination movement (related to his book “Panic Virus”).

Whatever you decide to do, thank you for being willing to take another look at your decision. Parenting decisions are hard enough without the second-guessing helped along by the media (Mothering included). Four years ago I did extensive research into this topic because I saw many intelligent and trusted friends choosing not to vaccinate. I trusted that their concerns were real and their conclusions were based on good information, but like to educate myself as well.  I was prepared not to vaccinate the child I was pregnant with. Instead I found that their decisions were based on misinformation and misapplications in logic with heavy doses of fear-mongering that they fell prey to. It is still a topic I keep educated about. As a mother who knows vaccines are vastly safer then the diseases they were designed to prevent I am always on the watch for credible information that might show otherwise. Contrary to what has been promulgated on many platforms, including this one, that information does not yet exist. 

[jimblejamble]

Originally Posted by nia82 

We select and delay, and autism was never on my list, so the Wakefield study whether true or faked didn't go into my decision whatsoever.

Ditto.

[frogeagle]

 First, I believe that every one out there needs to read the book Deadly Spin by Wendell Potter.  The Medical Field in America is a For-Profit Oraganization that uses Fear Tactics to control YOUR HEALTHCARE.  Therefore I DO NOT believe one commercial, FDA approved drug, magazine advertisement, or media driven news clip on T.V. Every parent out there needs to use their own gut instinct and watching their child's drug reactions and family health history to make the best decisions possible.  If that decision is to not VAX or use a different schedule then so be it.  I used a different schedule, believeing that my child has better chances with VAX with a more mature immune system.  Why?  I saw, first hand, what MMR VAX did to my individuals in the house that I was a house manager for, for mentally disabled.  I had a good Ped. that blew off my concern but did not fight my decision, provided me with the information I rightfully had access to and also gave me pro's and con's of my decisions.  He respected me and many dr's today do not do even that. 

So, if you see something on T.V. to de-bunk such research, I say that researcher hit a nerve in some rich person's pocket.  Also, it is hard for any parent to weigh your "gut instinct" but are you willing to bet that the new drug out or even improved drug released is to make more money and was pushed through the FDA to be cleared, then to weigh that on your childs life?  Todays healthcare, lack there of, and decisions made by non medical corporations are killing people, period, including children.  They do not care.  Stick to your instinct and always keep informend from all sources, domestic and foreign. 

[CookAMH]

I am sure sufficient things were mentioned, but if that study was the sole reason you chose not to vaccinate, then I guess it makes sense to go ahead and start vaxing.

It actually has NO effect on our position. There are so many other reasons we don't vaccinate, it changes nothing.

[Lisa1970]

I do not buy that it was a hoax. But, autism risk is not the reason I don't vax. I think vax'ing is innappropriate for babies and I think most of the vaccinations out there are a waste.

[amnesiac]

Since there have continued to be multiple instances of posts in violation of our UA and/or forum guidelines, the thread is now closed to further discussion.