DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The Lancet retracts controversial 1998 paper linking autism to vaccines

Thought I'd call attention to something going on in the biology world as pertaining to vaccines. It's a short read, and is the ending of a long, drama-filled, story. The worst thing is, this quack has a practice in Texas and is still continuing to prey on the parents of autistic children telling them things that have been dis-proven through more recent, highly replicated, data sets. Vaccination techniques are one of the safest and cost effective medical interventions out there, there's no reason not to use them! [/psa]

Quote:

---

After stirring controversy in medical circles for more than a decade, the inflammatory findings that a routine childhood immunization is linked to gastrointestinal disease and autism has been formally retracted. The Lancet -- the esteemed British medical journal that published the findings -- has pulled the case study from its published record, its editor calling the paper "the most appalling catalog and litany of some the most terrible behavior in any research."

The study was submitted by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who found in what is now an infamous case study that 12 children may have developed a new form of autism as a result of a childhood measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Wakefield's findings showed that by combining measles, mumps and rebella vaccines into a single potent inoculation, the vaccine weakened the immune system, causing damage to the gastrointestinal system that eventually led to autism-spectrum disorders. As a result, a fierce debate arose in the medical community over the risks involved in even the most basic vaccines, and hundreds of thousands -- possibly even millions -- of children went un-immunized. But repeated studies over the last decade could not come to the same conclusions.

But it was Wakefield's own methods that did the study in. A General Medical Counsel ethics review found that a year before the study was published Wakefield applied for a patent on his own measles vaccine that also treated inflammatory bowel disease, and that some of the children in the study were involved in a lawsuit over the effects of an MMR vaccine, and some had no stomach issues at all. Dr. Wakefield also failed to mention in his paper that that very lawsuit was paying some of his bills.

But while the paper has been rejected by The Lancet and Wakefield's work has been roundly discredited by the medical community, the damage is already a full decade done. The percentage of kids in the U.S. who went without MMR vaccines rose in the years after the study was published, and after declaring measles dead in the U.S. at the beginning of the last decade, the CDC saw it re-emerge in a 2008 outbreak. In Britain, the shunning of vaccinations was even more widespread, leading to a handful of child deaths.

What's worse, vaccinations are still viewed as suspect in the popular consciousness. It's a poignant reminder about one of the most basic tenets of good science: one experiment does not a fact make. The case of the faulty autism link reminds us that we have to keep learning, keep researching, and keep pushing forward lest we end up taking a big step back.

---

Link

Good post. This guy committed a scientific cardinal sin; not disclosing conflict of interest. Another interesting aspect of this is I believe part of his argument was that autism rates are rising. As a result, some researchers were looking for environmental variables to explain these increases, and most everyone gets vaccinated. But I think these increases are controversial now. The question is are there really more people with autism; or has there been a relatively constant rate of autism in the country, and we are getting closer to the true number with better diagnostic tools?

Its about time, I hope those crazy parents will get their act together and the fad to not get their kids vaccinated will end.

There was a recent study (it was a phone study unfnrtunately) whose goal was to determine the spread across age groups. What they found was that from ages 1-70 the numbers for each generation are roughly 1% of the population.

I think that we're just giving names to mental diseases that have always been present. It just so happens that we've retooled some definitions and diagnoses as new data comes in, and we've gotten better at diagnosing them because of it.

Ah, I would say we are now giving names to problem children/adults that are only a way of excusing bad behavior.

Drug them up - problem still isn't gone - but at least they have a name to put with them, and thereby get free med's.

Yeah, I'm cynical - I"m also right.

Heck I have 2 nephews that, when their parents are around, are crazy. When mom and dad aren't there? They are well behaved and respectful, and listen.

Yet, their doc has them both on ADD med's.

Shady researching, but I want to comment on this. The article says this, then assumes the exact opposite many times throughout:

Quote:

---

It's a poignant reminder about one of the most basic tenets of good science: one experiment does not a fact make.

---

This goes both ways. One good experiment does not make fact, either. A person has the right to be skeptical of anything going into their body whether the assertion is discredited by a consensus or not.