Does the Wakefield study affect your decision?

[MamaMunchkin]

edited: POLL removed - I'm going to tally the results by hand based on the responses.

The study by Wakefield on autism-MMR.  How much does it affect your decision?
Poll options:
- A lot
- Somewhat
- Not much
- Not at all

Results so far:
- A lot = 0
- Somewhat = 0
- Not much = 0
- Not at all = 11

One vote for not at all. The biggest thing that caused me to pause and re-evaluate was CDC's Pink Book.
Edited by MamaMunchkin - 11/12/12 at 10:06pm

[kathymuggle]

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

[Mirzam]

I was one of the "not at alls". I stopped all vaccines in 1995 when my eldest DD was five. DD#2 wasn't born for another two years, and by then I had long made the decision not to vax, so nothing to do with Andy Wakefield. 

[LitMom]

No, did not affect my decisions at all. 

[Bokonon]

Not in the slightest.  

[WaitingForKiddos]

Nope. Interesting ideas but not at all why we don't vax.

[Jennyanydots]

Not at all here.

I learned about the Wakefield stuff after becoming vax hesitant, and while I think his findings sound intriguing, the issue of whether the retraction was legit or a smear is so he said/she said that frankly, it's a wash in my mind. I guess I'm too lazy and not interested enough to read about and research that saga thoroughly enough to declare for one side or the other.

On the other hand, maybe I'm going to agree with Kathy in saying my vote should be between not at all and not much. After all, it was a big media story, and if it hadn't stirred up so much buzz maybe some of the information that was influential to me wouldn't have been as readily available.

I do find it annoying that anytime a non vax opinion comes up, IRL or online, the knee jerk response from pro vaxxers is to trash talk Wakefield. Man, I have no dog in that fight. Let it rest and let's talk about the real issues!

[emmy526]

wakefield wasn't even part of the equation for me in the early 90's...he wasn't  a media hit yet...and actually, back in the early 90's, there was little  mainstream media info out there on vaccines..a person had to dig thru medical journals, magazines, and digests, all hard copies...no internet existed yet.  

[Sharlla]

not at all.  i have seen first had the affects of vaccine injury in the field i work in. also im not comfortable putting all that junk into my kids, very scary stuff.

[emmy526]

What kinds of injuries did you see, if i may ask?

Originally Posted by Sharlla 

not at all.  i have seen first had the affects of vaccine injury in the field i work in. also im not comfortable putting all that junk into my kids, very scary stuff.

[midstreammama]

Not at all.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 

Not at all here.
I learned about the Wakefield stuff after becoming vax hesitant, and while I think his findings sound intriguing, the issue of whether the retraction was legit or a smear is so he said/she said that frankly, it's a wash in my mind. I guess I'm too lazy and not interested enough to read about and research that saga thoroughly enough to declare for one side or the other.
On the other hand, maybe I'm going to agree with Kathy in saying my vote should be between not at all and not much. After all, it was a big media story, and if it hadn't stirred up so much buzz maybe some of the information that was influential to me wouldn't have been as readily available.
I do find it annoying that anytime a non vax opinion comes up, IRL or online, the knee jerk response from pro vaxxers is to trash talk Wakefield. Man, I have no dog in that fight. Let it rest and let's talk about the real issues!

[Sharlla]

Originally Posted by emmy526 

What kinds of injuries did you see, if i may ask?

seizure disorder causing permanent brain damage.

[Taximom5]

Not at all.  My kids had already had their severe reactions to vaccines before I read his case series (which was about severe bowel disorder in autistic kids), and in any case, his conclusion was "We have NOT proven a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism."