or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 'Evidence-Based' Medicine: A Coin's Flip Worth of Certainty
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Evidence-Based' Medicine: A Coin's Flip Worth of Certainty - Page 2

post #21 of 33

Fwiw, I think saying Deers is the reason someone may have turned around and started vaxxing again is just as bad (with regards to "it is the body of evidence that is important in a decision") as saying someone stopped vaxxing due to Wakefield.  

 

In any event, I don't think it is true (beating a dead horse here :)     Correlative is not causative and all that. There were several factors that influenced the MMR vax decline in the very early 2000's and several factors that influenced its rise again.  

 

influence decline:

-rates of autism were going up

-media was seriously painting a negative picture of MMR (oh, times, have you changed!  Or perhaps not - they still like to play sides, only now it is the pro-vax side……)

-this was confirming many parents observations about what they had seen after MMR jabs - their child's reactions, or simply that MMR is a fairly reactive vax as vaxxes go...

 

Influence incline:

 -lots of media coverage (not just citing Deers) saying the issue has been "debunked"

-an increase in measles rates in the UK

-the demonization of non vaxxers as conspiracy theorist, quacks, selfish…. (great "science" there….)

 

There were plenty of people who were non-vaxxers before Wakefield, and plenty who became it afterwards who do not trace their reasons back to Wakefield.  There was a large majority of people who continued to vax through the Wakefield story.


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/10/12 at 6:24am
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

People don't make decisions on the basis of a single study, unless that study is done by Andrew Wakefield, I guess.
Ita with proscience, this is why consensus is so important.

Let's get the facts straight, please: the "study" you keep referring to was a case series, in which Wakefield specifically stated, "We have not proven a causal link between MMR and autism."

Let me re-emphasize this, as you seem to keep missing it whenever you try to paint Wakefield's "study" as something that said "vaccines cause autism--don't vaccinate!" (which it did not say or even imply)

the "study" you keep referring to was a case series, in which Wakefield specifically stated, "We have not proven a causal link between MMR and autism."

Merck's way of dealing with the inconvenient truth about MMR's role in vaccine injury has been to keep repeating lies about Wakefield, following the well-known political mantra:
"Keep the lie simple, make it big, keep saying it, and eventually they'll believe it."
Edited by Taximom5 - 11/13/12 at 10:25am
post #23 of 33
Taxi, I have already presented my case about why I think there were large number of people who chose not to vaccinate for mmr based on Wakefield. Pers did an even better job. You are welcome to disagree, after all reasonable people can disagree based on the same set of facts. However, I would prefer if you didn't accuse me of lying just because we disagree.
post #24 of 33
"Although Wakefield never claimed that his research had proven a link between the vaccine, autism and bowel disorders, the conclusion drawn by the case series was that, “Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to the vaccine.” Wakefield also recommended that until further research was done, it might be a good idea to separate the three viral components in the MMR shot into 3 single vaccines.
The study’s conclusion and call for additional research is often misunderstood as a call to discontinue immunization against measles, mumps and rubella." --http://vran.org/in-the-news/dr-andrew-wakefield-the-medical-inquisition/

-
post #25 of 33
Taxi, I am addressing what people took form wakefields study and what it was perceived to mean,not what it was actually claiming.
post #26 of 33

Let's please keep it about the topic and not the person. Taxi - please edit the first line of your post to remove the personal comment and focus just on the topic.

post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Taxi, I have already presented my case about why I think there were large number of people who chose not to vaccinate for mmr based on Wakefield. Pers did an even better job. You are welcome to disagree, after all reasonable people can disagree based on the same set of facts. However, I would prefer if you didn't accuse me of lying just because we disagree.

 

From WHO data:

In the US - no dip after Wakefield (1998) for MMR.

 

WHO has an interactive application (requires Flash) - it plots historical data for measles immunization rate from 1980-2010 ... nice app ...

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/immunization/mcv/atlas.html

 

WHO also has the raw data here - not just for measles but other vaxes also:

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/timeseries/tswucoveragemcv.htm

This can be downloaded as an .xls file too.

 

What happened in the US in 1986-1988?  The rate dipped from 97% in 1986 to 82% in 1987 then back to 97% in 1987 ...


Edited by MamaMunchkin - 11/12/12 at 11:02pm
post #28 of 33
Yeah, the study had a much bigger influence in the uk.
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Yeah, the study had a much bigger influence in the uk.

According to  http://www.vaccinationnews.com/measles-united-kingdom-wakefield-factor:

"Official statistics from the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency show that: 

  • The number of reported measles cases kept dropping after 1998 and only exceeded the 1998 figures ten years later, when there were outbreaks worldwide
  • There were strikingly far fewer reported measles cases in the UK in the 10 years that followed Wakefield’s paper than in the 10 years that preceded its publication 

The reporting of measles cases in the United Kingdom was not affected by Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s research."

 

Please do click on the link. They have a table showing reported measles cases in England and Wales for 10 years "pre-Wakefield" and 10 years "post-Wakefield."

 

They also state:

"The MMR vaccine was licensed and the MMR vaccination program was launched in the United Kingdom in 1988.

There were 188,483 reported measles cases in the ten years preceding the Wakefield paper compared to 28,289 cases in the following ten years, an 85% decrease.

Although increasing uptake of the MMR vaccine could account for much of the early decline, the fact that there were 43,010 reported measles cases in the five years preceding the publication compared to 13,981 cases in the following 5 years, a decrease of 67%, suggests that there was no “Wakefield Factor”, at least insofar as an impact on reported measles cases is concerned. "

post #30 of 33

Wakefield or no Wakefield…..some people do not think MMR is worth vaccinating for, and that is about that.  Some VPD's are scarier than others and not everyone is afraid of their children getting measles, mumps and rubella.  

post #31 of 33

I dont' really understand your point.  The rate of mmr vaccination DROPPED in the years immediately following wakefield and rose after he was discredited.  This has already been explained.  That seems the relevant statistic to assess the influence of the study on vaccination rates.

 

Either way, I've said my piece about this.  Other people disagree.  that's cool.  I'm not going back and forth about what is, ostensibly, a matter of opinion.

post #32 of 33

nm ... double post ...


Edited by MamaMunchkin - 11/13/12 at 8:37am
post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The rate of mmr vaccination DROPPED in the years immediately following wakefield and rose after he was discredited.  This has already been explained.  That seems the relevant statistic to assess the influence of the study on vaccination rates.

 

 

WHO/Unicef data does - not - support this statement.

 

Yes, there was a dip in the UK.  However, this does - not - imply there was a dip in the overall MMR vax rate.  No dip in the US.  No dip in Canada.  No dip in Germany.  Etc.  

 

For those who haven't checked it out yet, I linked an app from WHO that plots the historical rate at any country - hover over the country name, then a plot shows up.  Double click a country name, the plot stays, then you can hover a different country, to compare the rates if desired.  Hover over any point in the plot, it shows you the rate at that point.

 

Anyway, the question is, how does the - overall - rate change over time?  WHO/Unicef has data of rates by regions, per Europe, Asia etc as shown in the WHO report below.

 

Bottomline, for MMR, no dip overall after Wakefield.

 

Here's the full data:

Immunization Summary - A statistical reference containing data through 2009 (2011 edition)

http://www.childinfo.org/files/32775_UNICEF.pdf

 

A snapshot for MMR - this is page xii from the report above:

700

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 'Evidence-Based' Medicine: A Coin's Flip Worth of Certainty