The medical journal The Lancet on Tuesday retracted a controversial 1998 paper that linked the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism.
The study linked autism with the MMR vaccine. The research had been discredited subsequently.
Last week, the study’s lead author Dr Andrew Wakefield was found to have acted unethically in conducting the research.
The following is a report by Physiciansnews.com
The only agreed-upon conclusion regarding autism is that it’s on the rise. Aside from that, researchers can’t seem to agree on much. The Wall Street Journal today profiles several studies questioning autism’s origins and causes. In California, the prevalence of autistic children is greater in West Hollywood and Beverly Hills than in the rest of the state, even though those areas have just 1% of the population. So is it environmental? Is it due to a greater knowledge base and more available resources of the parents?
One theory that seems to be on the way out – officially – is that of a link to certain vaccines. In 1998, the British journal The Lancet published an article by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who suggested the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) shot might be linked to autism and bowel disease. Today, 11 years after the original article appeared, The Lancet issued a complete retraction of Wakefield’s studies. Britain’s General Medical Council ruled that Dr. Wakefield had shown a “callous disregard” for children and acted “dishonestly” while he carried out his research. It will decide later whether to strike him off the medical register.
Here is the Lancet’s statement: “Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al 1) are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation, 2) In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.”
(Source: CNN / Physiciansnews.com)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
15 Responses
This is NOT breaking news. It’s a follow-up on old news.
Some time ago some American trial lawyers managed to get into court, and promptly lost since their evidence was lacking (plus the fact that the change in how the vaccines were made did not result in a lower rate).
The journal was slow in admitting they goofed.
Someone has suggested that the increase in the diagnosis of autism was triggered by the government giving extra money to educate autistic children, so schools encouraged finding a diagnosis (or to be charitable, expanding the definition of “autistic”).
The Lancet is not credible. One would assume that their 1998 paper was based on some scientific evidence. Now, regardless of their view, it means nothing. They are no more qualified to assess this than the milkman.
Unfortunately, we can no longer trust the “establishment” scientists. Their debacles–Global Warming, H1N1 Vaccine–are just too numerous.
The lancet, like virtually all other medical publications, are funded by the drug companies’ ads. The pressure on them is enourmous to discredit people who question the efficacy of ndrugs.
and why is Physiciansnews.com any more credible?
they are only releasing studies that support their point of view
“…In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false…”
Note that they did not repeat his research and find it inaccurate. They are simply disqualifying his research, because they claim he broke their precious rules.
It is so good to see these comments. So many good points brought out!
@Deepthinker, what do you mean about H1N1? The vaccine is safe and effective. Also, global warming still has an overwhelming majority of climate scientists stating that it is caused by humans. As well, the rules of research are tight and strict for this very reason- to ensure legitimate science is researched. The author of the original article clearly violated those rules as he was being paid by an injury law firm and then tried to cover them up.
There is alot of data not presented here to point to some truth to being allergic to vaccine that may lead to such as autism. It’s easy to go along with the above article if B”H all is well by you.
Who are these physicians anyway? They are appointed to sing the song of the government.
Yes, there is too much autism. And if the fingers are to be pointed away from vaccines maybe we should do a study on the additives in foods that perhaps may be the cause. Included too would be study on all ingredients in candy or nosh that we can’t evern pronounce. Some of the ingredients are so poisonous that adding coloring to such as Mr. Clean or Windex would make them a healthier snack!!
Another point to the immunization is not the injection or vaccine itself but the frequency of when it’s given. The babies are given vaccines when there immune systems are not strong enough yet and often more than one at a time and that’s where the problems come in.
To akuperma
Evidently you comment on issues you don’t know much about and throw in your 2 cents. it is only worth 2 cents.
The Lancet may have retracted but the Autism MMR question remains unproven either way. There are many studies that point suspicion that there is a link. Claiming it is because of funding for autism is absurd. Schools that cater to Autistic kids are bursting at the seams.
Rav baruch,
Do you trust our Government so much?
Did you know that months ago there were plans to add Adjuvants to the H1N1 vaccine to make smaller doses work harder. Adjuvants irritate the immune system to get a response, not a simple thing. Adjuvants have never been used in the USA except when they were tried on some soldiers that then died or were paralyzed as a result.
I suggest you realize that while the study by Wakefield was attacked nobody has yet answered the questions he brought up.
Yes, I respect the name Rav but not your scientific knowlege as presented.
Vaccines simply do not cause autism. In this study the rates of autism in unvaccinated children were compared to vaccinated children. The rates of autism were *higher* in the unvaccinated children. Clearly, vaccines do not cause autism.
“Lack of Association Between Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Autism in Children: A Case-Control Study.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952979?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=7
To Lia,
The problem with conspiracy theories are -as soon as you disprove one as being accurate, there are ten more that people like you spout. Don’t spout theories without scientific proof. But just in case you want another unproved claim; How about genetics as being the cause of autism?
ShloimieB, the use of adjuvants in vaccines is very safe and very effective. I could find no studies or reports about soliders dying from vaccines that included adjuvants. Here is a scientific paper on the safety of adjuvants: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12184360
Do I trust the government? Much more than I do than banks! At least I get to vote who runs the government.
#2, no, there was never any evidence. None whatsoever. The simple truth is that there has never been any reason at all to suspect a link between vaccines and autism. EVERY person who claims there is such a link is a LIAR. Every single one. And because of their cynical lies millions of dollars have been poured down the toilet researching something that did not deserve a single penny. Money that could have gone to research something valuable, something promising, something that could have done somebody some good.
#9, no, there are no such studies. And sure, it remains “unproven either way”, just like the “theory” that autism is caused by unicorns is “unproven either way”. Maybe autism is caused by having stupid parents like you.
#8, who says there is too much autism? How much is too much? Maybe there is just the right amount? Did you ever think of that?
Milhouse, seems like we’re the only ones here who subscribe to reason.