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.
-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...
-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