Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Lancet formally retracts 1998 paper linking vaccine and autism

PARIS (AFP) – Medical journal The Lancet Tuesday withdrew a 1998 study linking autism with inoculation against three childhood illnesses, a paper that caused an uproar and an enduring backlash against vaccination.

The British journal said it was acting in the light of an ethics judgement last week by Britain's General Medical Council against Andrew Wakefield, the study's lead researcher.

"We fully retract this paper from the published record," The Lancet's editors said in a statement published online.

In 2004, 10 of the paper's 13 authors distanced themselves from part of the study, publishing what they called a "retraction of an interpretation."

In last Thursday's ruling, the General Medical Council attacked Wakefield for "unethical" research methods and for showing a "callous disregard" for the youngsters as he carried out tests.

How about that? Twelve years of people refusing to inoculate their kids and a decade of research to prove the link, all for naught.

Behold the power of the pen. Pictured is disgraced doctor and author of the paper, Andrew Wakefield (R) and his wife Carmel. They are seen outside the General Medical Council in central London on January 28.


Fritz said...

Complete bullshit. Wonder how much money the Big Pharm Pharm gave to have this study retracted.

Kids were healthy, Kids got the vaccines, Kids got sick and disabled. You don't need a study to put that logic together.

OkieRover said...

It wasn't Big Pharm that discredited the doctor. He managed to screw that up all by himself. And what he did to the kids he tested should have put him in prison.

From that alone it shows to me, that he had a predisposed agenda. Which would discredit is work, no matter what field he was doing research in.

In a really big picture view, you give a million vaccinations out if you get a million sick kids that's bad. If you get less than a tenth of a percent sick kids, I would expect that to happen just on genetic variability alone.

I'm not sure you can expose every kid to lets say polio just for argument, just because a few kids got sick from the vaccine.

Are the diseases worse than the side affects? Maybe that's the question that should be asked.

Just my opinion.

Heather said...

The diseases are definitely not worse than the side affects. I would rather stay home with a sick kid who has a fever with the measles for a week than have to nurse them through autism for a lifetime. I think the only disease that I know of that we vaccinate kids against that would be super devastating would be polio, and there has not been a wild case of polio in the U.S since the 50's. The polio that has happened has been a "side affect" of the vaccine. Also, if you look at the charts for when these diseases started to become less pervasive, it was just before vaccinations and just after we learned how to have better sanitation in our environments.

OkieRover said...

There are cases of polio in countries that don't vaccinate. I wonder if we didn't vaccinate for that how long it would be before we had 1 in 100,000 kids coming down with polio. Measles can lead to other things that are none too pleasant. I believe one is sterility. So...its a quality of life issue for many.

Heather said...

The main thing for me is the autism thing. It just can't be a coincidence that these kids are perfectly normal, and then they go in for their MMR and within days or a couple of weeks they are diagnose with regressive autism. Autism has gone for 1 in 10,000 kids 12 years ago to 1 in 65 kids today. What else are we doing systematically that is harming our children? If it's not the vaccines, then fine, but then you damn well better be able to tell me what it is. Don't just tell us, "It's not the vaccines, but we have no idea what it is so vaccinate your damn kids against diseases that have been virtually eradicated in this country." I think the instance of sterility from measles is less than the instance of autism and I'm pretty sure that someone would rather adopt a child if need be than live with an autism spectrum disorder the rest of their life. I think this, like many other of our firmly held beliefs will have to be something we agree to disagree on.