Mothering Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,771 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
<p>When I made the decision to not vax I had not heard of Wakefield.  </p>
<p>I had babies from 1996-2002, so while my oldest predates Wakefield's finding, my younger two do not.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In a nutshell, I decided not to vax because the known serious complications from the vaxxes were higher than the chances of getting the disease and having a serious reaction. You can disagree with me if you want, my point is my decision had nothing to do with Wakefield.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have spoken to several non- vaxxers in real life, and none of them site Wakefield or his specific research as a reason for their decision.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have read numerous accounts online from non-vaxxers, and few of them mention Wakefield.  Some do have concerns about vaccines and autism, but it does not seem to be a huge reason people do not vaccinate.  And for those whom autism is an issue, I suspect the roots are due to thousand of anecdotal reports, or personal experience with a child who was fine and then not (co-incidentally right around the vax time!)   </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So...I wonder...why the fuss over Wakefield?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think all the screaming the pro-vax side does over Wakefield is misplaced  - or yelling into the echo chamber.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>From what I can tell, most non-vaxxers believe the following concerning Wakefield:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1.  he is being made a scapegoat from the pro-vax side.</p>
<p>2.  Who cares?   I never made my decision to vax based on Wakefield anyways, so why the fuss?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have met zero people online or IRL who changed their minds on vaxxing over Wakefield being "discredited".  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>To the pro vax side,  I would like to ask - why do you keep bringing Wakefield up?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Are you just angry over the situation?  Do you think it is going to convince anyone to vax  (I think not, for reasons explored above - but maybe you think differently?).  </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,948 Posts
<p>Great questions.  I've often wondered this myself.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My reasons for discontinuing vaccinating my children have zero to do with Wakefield or his study, or Jenny McCarthy.  I don't know anyone who has based their vaccination decisions on those sources, yet we are belittled as a group for blindly following them.  It's never made sense to me.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
<p>Kathy you're feeling mighty feisty today aren't ya?  I made my vax decisions without knowing who Wakefield was.  I made my decisions based on information my pediatrician gave me.  My ped, a ped for 35 yrs was well versed in the negatives of vaccines.  He made a 15 minute check up to a 2 hr appointment and then sent me lots of information through out the years.  When he first brought it all up I was still on the fence.  Thinking against the grain was difficult for me.  </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,556 Posts
<p>Good question!  I knew almost nothing about Wakefield or autism when deciding not to vax my now seven year old.  And knowing about it now does nothing to effect or change my decision.  And frankly, I'm sick of hearing the vaxers bring it up all the time.  Like you say...none of us seem to care lol.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
<p>"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become <span style="text-decoration:underline;">psychologically impossible</span>. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so."</p>
<p>-<em>-The Impact Of Science On Society</em> by Bertrand Russell.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';font-size:small;">"In the pursuit of possible links between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, and neurologic injury in children, Dr. Wakefield lost his job in the Department of Medicine at London’s Royal Free Hospital, his country, his career, and his medical license."</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>For this, for going against the "powers that be" and suggesting there may be a problem with the MMR, Dr.Wakefield was destroyed. Think about that. Do not go against the Holy Medicine of Vaccines, or else your life will be ruined. All he tried to do was help the children and their parents.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> *We have all heard the talking point that "the autism-vaccine link has been debunked. Debunked, debunked, debunked."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Educate yourself. Read this page! You don't know the entire story until you've heard Wakefield's side. Anyone who wants to believe he has been debunked should hear his side, and then make a decision.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html" target="_blank">http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Excellent interview. <a href="http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186" target="_blank">http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>More to come, gotta take care of the baby girl now!</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
<p>I was actually familiar with Wakefield's study about 10 years ago, way before it ever made headlines.  My husband found it on MedLine, and we went over it with a fine-tooth comb, noting that it never said NOT to get vaccines, but that it suggested separated M, M, and R vaccines, which we asked for--and then found that the separated vaccines in the US were preserved with thimerosal, with which we already had a history of problems.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The study also clearly states, "We have <span style="font-size:14px;"><strong>not</strong></span> proved a causal association between MMR and autism." (bolding mine)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For what it's worth,  the researchers  I know (as well as the two attorneys I know) all say the same thing about Wakefield:  there is nothing wrong with his research, he clearly did not commit fraud--but he was an absolute FOOL to think he could go against Big Pharm and win. (And I agree.  But sadly.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't believe he is going to do any better this time around, even though I do believe he has the truth on his side.  I don't think he has a snowball's chance in Hades.  Big Pharm is just too powerful, and there are too many corrupt or corruptible people, everywhere.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
<p>I watched a news story about Wakefield's research in 1999. It got me started on my vaccine research, so I will be forever grateful to Dr. Wakefield and the whatever television program it was that reported the story.<br>
 </p>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Taximom5</strong> <a href="/community/t/1342849/wakefield-and-perceptions#post_16842487"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>separated M, M, and R vaccines, which we asked for--and then found that the separated vaccines in the US were preserved with thimerosal</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
The separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines were not and are not preserved with thimerosal.</p>
<p> </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
<p>Wakefield is blamed for parents refusing to vaccinate, but let's look closer at the issue. He recommended separate vaccines, but the government would not allow parents to do this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"...in the UK, when I suggested the single vaccine instead of the MMR, those single vaccines were available and so a lot of parents generally concerned opted for the single vaccines. Children continued to be protected and parents could choose from MMR or single vaccines. That was in February of 1998; in August of 1998, the British government withdrew the importation license for single vaccines. In other words, when the demand for single vaccines was at its peak they withdrew the option of the single vaccines.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is "our way" or you do it no way. Now let me ask you, if your concern is for the protection of children against these diseases would you not allow parents to do it in the way of their choosing as long as they did it? Of course you would. To me that is extraordinary."</p>
<p>~Wakefield, <a href="http://www.thedailybell.com/1089/Dr-Andrew-Wakefield-on-the-AutismVaccine-Controversy-and-His-Ongoing-Professional-Persecution.html" target="_blank">http://www.thedailybell.com/1089/Dr-Andrew-Wakefield-on-the-AutismVaccine-Controversy-and-His-Ongoing-Professional-Persecution.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Demonized to the nth degree. He went against the Religion of the Vaccine, and it cost him dearly. He is still fighting to clear his name, while continuing to help families.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I posted this elsewhere, but it needs to be heard. I'll write it below, but please please <span style="color:#b22222;"><strong>please</strong></span> listen from 4:42 to 6:05. It's a quick clip that will show you the kind of illegitimate system that brought down Wakefield. Who's the fraud now?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAy1M50PgW4&feature=watch_response" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAy1M50PgW4&feature=watch_response</a></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration:underline;">                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            </span></p>
<p>Nutshell:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1.  Wakefield published his paper in The Lancet.</p>
<p>2.  The Lancet was owned by the Elsevier publishing company.</p>
<p>3.  Head of Elsevier was also a non Executive Director on the board of GlaxoSmithKline when the Wakefield fraud charges were taking place.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>***So far, the manufacturing company of the vaccine that Wakefield called into question is in charge of the medical journal Lancet, the journal responsible for publishing Wakefield's work, then retracting the work later on.***</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4.  Head of Elsevier's brother was a high court judge who dismissed the appeals of parents seeking compensation for MMR vaccine damages</p>
<p>5.  Dr.Kumar, chairman of the panel who found Wakefield guilty, did not disclose the fact that he was a stockholder of GlaxoSmithKline.</p>
<p>6.  Brian Deer, the journalist who brought the fraud allegations against Wakefield, is a LIAR!   Deer "entered her home under a false name" and "claimed to be a health correspondent of The Sunday Times." Mr. Deer was not on the staff of The Sunday Times.</p>
<p>7.  Brian Deer had the names of the Lancet Children and dates they entered the Royal Free hospital on his website for all to see long before the GMC hearing. Get it? He published private patient info for anyone to see! Shame on him!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, these frauds are declaring Wakefield a fraud. You should trust them, because they are lying journalists and greedy rich powerful stockholders, publishers, and judges. Believe them instead of a doctor who tries to help families.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
<p>Meh, it was interesting but didn't push me one way or the other. When I was PG with my first in 2001, Consumer Reports did an article on Vaccinations. Like most of their articles I found it to have information on both sides (and frankly am still surprised they took it up as a topic).   Three things stuck out to me, one was that the last <em>naturally occuring</em> case of Polio in the US was in the 70s, then they profiled a child who contracted Polio from the vaccine and what things are like for him, his parents, etc. in regards to the gov't paying for his braces. Secondly was that there are enough adverse reactions that the US Gov't maintains a database of them. And lastly they discussed how new vaccines weren't overly tested on humans b/c who is going to sign their child up for that? So basically it's the first children to receive 'new vaccines,' presumed safe by eager parents that are really the test subjects.  That article in a very mainstream magazine was actually what first lead me to question vaccinating my child.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ironically, I don't think the article was actually trying to sway parents away from vaccinating, perhaps even the opposite.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Since I've obviously read other things, talked to other people and heard other hypothesis about Autism and Vaccines.  I pretty much sit on the fence with it, but overall am comfortable with the few our children have received the and bulk that they have not.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>ma2two</strong> <a href="/community/t/1342849/wakefield-and-perceptions#post_16842694"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><p>I watched a news story about Wakefield's research in 1999. It got me started on my vaccine research, so I will be forever grateful to Dr. Wakefield and the whatever television program it was that reported the story.<br>
 </p>
<p><br>
The separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines were not and are not preserved with thimerosal.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br><br><p>Holy heck, you are right! They're all live-virus vaccines!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Huh.  We had brought in a scrip for the measles one, and the pharmacist called us to tell us that there was thimerosal (the pharmacy computer had my son flagged as allergic to thimerosal).  So we never went ahead with it. We got a titer for him instead, and found that he already had 4 times the number of antibodies needed to be considered immune.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Weird.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span><img alt="headscratch.gif" src="http://files.mothering.com/images/smilies/headscratch.gif"><img alt="faint.gif" src="http://files.mothering.com/images/smilies/faint.gif"></span></p>
<p> </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
<p>I would never base such an important decision on the opinion of just one person, no matter how much of an "expert" they claimed to be, and it's insulting to be accused of having done so. It's funny that most of the pro-vaxers I've met have never done any research but simply do what their doctor, as directed by Big Pharma, tells them to do. Perhaps that's why they assume that anti-vaxers are also blindly following someone, albeit the "wrong" person. </p>
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top