I voted "not at all" but the truth is probably somewhere between not at all and not much.
I have 3 kids - born in 1996, 1998 and 2002.
I stopped vaxxing when my youngest was about 18 months old - around 1997. The reasons had nothing to do with Wakefield - I had never heard of him. They had nothing to do with autism, either. I was ticked off with the government for giving DTP when DTaP was safer; I was also ticked off with the government for trying to get me to do a second round of MMR, when the public health nurse told me the first shot "took" in about 95% of people. 95% is good enough for me, thank you very much. My hcp were unable to answer my questions about how many cases of VPD's were floating around, severe reactions, etc. I was annoyed with public policy, and frustrated by my hcp's lack of knowledge on the issue…so I stopped vaxxing. You want me to give my children a drug? You darn well better be able to demonstrate a need.
I would say concerns around autism were part of the reason I did not vaccinate my youngest. They are hardly the only reason. The deeper you go into studying vaccines, the more reasons you can find to support your decision (whatever that decision may be). Information overload, anyone? I digress…. My sister has 2 severely autistic children, and I was eager to avoid that path. Her life has been very difficult. I am not 100% convinced vaccines do not play a role in autism - there are simply too many parents who say their child was fine before a vax, and wasn't afterwards. I don't put much stock in the Wakefield study, though, and never did (even before he was "discredited"). It is a 12 case studies - it is simply too small.
While his work did not directly influence my decision, maybe his work did in an indirect way? It is very hard to quantify how much Wakefield contributed to concerns about vaccines and autism in society. I think it is a lot less than some pro-vax people would like to think, but perhaps more than nothing?
Edited by kathymuggle - 11/10/12 at 6:38pm