Weighing in on the debate of whether or not to vaccinate yourself or loved ones is always a delicate thing. How do you know that you are receiving the proper information from the media, from your ND or MD, from pharmaceutical companies? How do you wade through the loads of social media supporting or opposing such treatments? Chances are you're not a researcher, a doctor, or even have a grasp of most of the medical terminology that's bantered around. So how do you decide what's right for you? For many people it's a difficult decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. For almost everyone it's an emotional decision.
And it shouldn't be.
So let's talk about how you can go about making the decision that's right for you based on the information that's available to you. I'll attempt to break it down for you and provide you with some tools to make the process easier....
Step 1:
Look at the research.
In the scientific community we talk a lot about something called "Evidence Based Medicine". Evidence Based Medicine is the "conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about care of individual patients" (Sackett et al, 1996). Most EBM and medical practices are based upon research conducted using randomized control studies. These studies are considered to be at the top, just behind Meta Analyses and Systematic Reviews, in the quest for sources of "best evidence". In this type of scientific study there must be at least 2 groups of comparison. The people in the experiment must be randomly assigned to each group and one of the groups must be used as a control group. Sometimes this means you will have a group that receives no intervention, a placebo or a different type of intervention. Ideally this study is double blind, meaning that neither the subject nor the investigator knows which group is which. This attempts to prevent any bias from occurring in an effort not to skew the results. Randomized control studies are the foundations that Evidence Based Medicine is built upon and when looking into something, such as vaccines, they are the best way to look at the evidence.
(As a side note there are some negatives to using EBM as the golden standard, especially for Naturopathic Medicine as we don't treat in a reductionistic fashion, but treat the entire being. As a result of this the argument ensues as to which modality used is creating the changes and positive results that we see. As NDs we know that it's likely the combination of techniques and treatments used to stimulate the Vis. Another problem with applying EBM to Naturopathic Medicine is that in allopathic medicine 2 people being treated, for example, for insomnia, will be treated relatively the same way, with similar, if not the same medications. In Naturopathic Medicine each person is treated differently depending upon his or her symptoms set. To use reductionistic research methods to investigate wholistic practice is nearly impossible and frankly illogical.)
Ok so that's great to know but how does that help me to make medical decisions?
When reading information about new research in the media, try to find out the details of the study. Some studies are actually available for free online. If you can't find the study to look at try to ascertain if it at least seems like the information is coming from something akin to a randomized control study. Using a formula called PICOs, ask yourself the following questions about the information that you can access:
P: Population Surveyed
- how many people were involved, is the population clearly defined, etc.?
I: Intervention
- what was the intervention that the researchers used?
C: Was there a control group and if so what are the details surrounding that group?
O: Is the outcome clearly stated?
S: Are there any safety concerns?
Now there's one very important thing you have to understand about research of any type. It is impossible to prove causation. What I mean by that is it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that any particular thing caused a specific result. Impossible. This is because there are always exceptions to the rule, because it is impossible or too costly or too complicated to rule out or control for all various aspects of life that may influence the outcome of any particular study. The best we can say is that there is a very good chance that the two things are related.
If this seems a bit complicated and philosophical that's because it is.
What you have to understand though is that to say, with absolute certainty, that A causes B then A must ALWAYS cause B. ALWAYS.
Step 2:
Once you are able to determine that the information seems to be reliable do a little investigating into who did the research. The Internet is actually your friend in this arena because with a little time you can probably track down some information on the researchers, who they work for and where their funding comes from.
The source of
funding is an important thing to consider and you should ask yourself if there
might not be a conflict of interest with regards to funding. Is a study
extolling the virtues of Echinacea funded by the leading producer of Echinacea
capsules? Is the latest and greatest research on pharmaceutical treatment for
depression funded by a pharmaceutical company? Things like this should trigger
your spidey senses and make you want to dig a little deeper. It doesn't mean
that something's amiss if this is the case, however it could be cause for bias
and slanting and should be taken into consideration.
Step 3:
Opposing research. Try to find other studies that show the opposite of what the media or your study is portraying. This is important because it can help you look at the data or clinical applications of the information a bit differently. In the case of vaccinations for example, if you see in the media or in a paper that a vaccination caused an adverse reaction, are there other studies that show positive reactions? Again look who's behind the research and also be sure to consider the number of people surveyed within the study. The more people that are included, the more accurate and applicable the results will be to the population as a whole.
Step 4.
Risk vs. .
Once you've looked at the research consider the risk or harm of treatment compared to the benefits of treatment. Basically you need to make a list of pros and cons. Yes, sometimes people experience bad reactions to treatments. It happens and it's unfortunate, but the important thing to look at is how many people received treatment without experiencing an adverse reaction and then decide if this is a risk you're willing to take. Also try to keep numbers in perspective. How does the number of reported adverse reactions stack up to another substance that you may take regularly? It's a great idea to cross reference these statistics and you may be surprised at some of the things you find out.
So there you have it folks. A basic, quick and dirty breakdown of some very useful tools that you can use to better understand the mixed messages you may be receiving daily from a variety of sources. If nothing else at least it will get you looking a little deeper at the latest breakthroughs or breakdowns reported by the media. And if after all that you don't want to wade through all the nitty gritty details then ask your ND. After all, it's part of our job.
So wait a minute...what about whether or not you should vaccinate yourself or your loved ones?
In my opinion?
Absolutely.
Do I believe we need to be vaccinated against every thing that's out there? Not at all but I do believe that it is vital to vaccinate against the basic major players. Then again, I've done the research, have been educated in biochemical, physiological and immunological sciences, considered the risks versus harm, and made my decisions based upon what's right for me.
It's up to you to do the same.
All my relations,
Mandy
