I personally believe 'anecdotal evidence' is very important and underrated in decision making. I definitely don't base all my decisions on anecdotes but don't feel I can completely ignore it either. When there is a link between a vaccine and a reaction (just as an example), it starts off as an anecdote, one person saying they had a reaction, then another, and another, until studies are done.
I know the science says it's safe but like PP said, lots of things were considered safe which are now known not to be. They would've all started off as 'anecdotes'.
Anyway, each to their own, just wasn't right for me.
Yes I agree anecdotal evidence is not 'real' evidence and is often coincidental, but I would never completely discount it, and in fact believe its irresponsible to do so. As a PP used thalidomide as an example- at first the babies being born without limbs would've been purely anecdotal. I guess also, for me, people say there is no scientific evidence that some natural therapies work, yet I and many of my friends will testify that they do iykwim.
There have actually been compensation payouts for autism in relation to vaccinations (o/seas) despite no clear scientific evidence that the vaccination caused it, but I guess the anecdotal evidence was so strong that there was no scientific evidence that it 'didn't either. There was also a pay out last year in Italy where it was deemed that the vax did cause it.
My kids still get MMR, as I weigh up the scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence, the risks to my child and the community of not vaxing vs vaxing, but I feel really uneasy about it because I do believe there probably is a link even if not directly causative.
Anyway, sorry just wanted clarify, but agree it must all be taken into account and decisions not made simply on 'my sister's friend's husband's cousin....'
In the absence of evidence, anecdotes are often all we have to go on. But once scientific evidence is provided, anecdotes are just unfounded stories.
Re the compensation claim in Italy, consider that the very same court system also found six scientists guilty of manslaughter last year for failing to predict an earthquake
Last edited by lambjam; 19-02-2013 at 08:45.
Not sure how I feel about these pay out cases without scientific evidence. One of the vaccines has listed in its may cause death part that someone was killed in a car accident a few weeks after receiving the vaccine. What the heck is that about!?!??
Dunno but it's enough to make me feel a bit uncomfortable about it, I've just heard too many stories of kids who were completely normal before a vaccine and gradually deteriorated afterwards. I don't think it's as simple as ' X vaccine causes autism' but I do think they may be somehow linked even if its just that some individuals are predisposed somehow and the vaccine aggravates it (all based on anecdotal evidence of course).
To date, there is absolutely zero evidence that vaccines cause autism. Zero. There have been loads of studies done in regard to vaccines and autism, many trying to replicate the results fabricated by Wakefield, and many others and there still is not one shred of evidence that vaccines cause autism. His fraudulent study came out 15 years ago, and it has been studied ad nauseum since.
Regarding thalidomide, errors of that gravity are rarely made these days, in part due to the thalidomide crisis. Because of that case, drug standards are much more rigorous than they used to be and there is much greater onus on drug companies to prove not only the efficacy of their treatments but their safety. Thalidomide was sold for 5-6 years while babies were being born with deformities and dying as infants. These days as soon as a reaction is noticed, action is taken, iykwim.
Regarding natural therapies, there are often other explanations, but people pin results onto them. I remember my DSD being treated with a homeopathic remedy for a high fever (as her fathers new partner, I had no say in the matter) I was horrified that at 4 years old she was made to suffer a fever of over 39 degrees for several hours and was not given Panadol. When her fever broke 7 hours later, her BM credited the homeopathic remedy, whereas I thought it was pretty obvious that the fever broke on its own. She went on to recommend this "remedy" saying it had brought down her daughters fever- this became her "anecdotal evidence", kwim?
I actually think there are many cases where taking into account such anecdotal evidence is irresponsible- there are just too many compounding factors and it is just I possible to verify without proper scientific observation. I would much rather put my faith in facts rather than other people's stories.
Sorry to go so off topic OP!
My doctor said its fine but my OB said get it done after bubs is born. So that's what I'm doing
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!