Medical journal retracts autism paper

dejr_8

<font color=CC00FF>DIS Veteran<br><font color=33CC
Joined
May 4, 2001
Messages
3,880
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35197332/ns/health-mental_health/

LONDON - The Lancet medical journal formally retracted a paper on Tuesday that caused a 12-year international battle over links between the three-in-one childhood vaccine MMR and autism.

The paper, published in 1998 and written by British doctor Andrew Wakefield, suggested the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) shot might be linked to autism and bowel disease.

His assertion caused one of the biggest medical rows in a generation and led to a big fall in the number of vaccinations, prompting a worrying rise in cases of measles.

"It has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield ... are incorrect," the internationally renowned scientific journal said in a statement.

A disciplinary panel of Britain's General Medical Council ruled last week that Wakefield had shown a "callous disregard" for the suffering of children and had brought the medical profession "into disrepute."
 
wow - interesting. When I went to meet our new pediatrician, I asked about the vaccine thing and she mentioned this guy and how it was hooey. Looks like she was right. She said that the reason he said this was because the vaccine gets administered around the same time that you would start noticing symptoms of autism in a child.
 
I read something about this yesterday. Apparently this doctor is about to lose is license. From other things I have read it appears when he was doing his "research" he was also investing in a company that was developing an alternative innoculation for MMR. Can you say conflict of interest? I have always seriously doubted the connection between childhood innoculations and autism. It just never added up to me. And when I heard that the doctor who started the hysteria was developing his own MMR shots...well it just did not pass the smell test.
 
Can you say conflict of interest?

The same could be said about any researcher who has any financial interest in vaccines, either by vaccinating children him/herself or by having any ties to pharma, publishing pro-vax findings.

I'm not anti-vaccination. But this whole thing sounds like a politically motivated witch hunt.

Studies get published in the literature. A single study is seldom conclusive. They may be supported or contradicted by other studies. Eventually, when a subject is studied enough, a conclusion can be reached. Sometimes researchers do change their minds. It's the way scholarly communication takes place.

This action looks like a way to stifle scholarly communication and research to me.
 

The same could be said about any researcher who has any financial interest in vaccines, either by vaccinating children him/herself or by having any ties to pharma, publishing pro-vax findings.

I'm not anti-vaccination. But this whole thing sounds like a politically motivated witch hunt.

Studies get published in the literature. A single study is seldom conclusive. They may be supported or contradicted by other studies. Eventually, when a subject is studied enough, a conclusion can be reached. Sometimes researchers do change their minds. It's the way scholarly communication takes place.

This action looks like a way to stifle scholarly communication and research to me.

The original paper was published in 1998. It's taken the scientific community 12 years to act on this issue, that hardly seems like a "witch hunt" to me. Particularly given the circumstances of this issue. It has taken the medical establishment years to reassure the public that the claims were completely without foundation, and for vaccination rates to recover.

His study should never have been published to begin with! He released "evidence" based on test pool of 12. His study was also shown to be false one month after it was published. His study came out in February, in March a panel of experts set up by the Medical Research Council says there is "no evidence to indicate any link" between MMR jab and bowel disease or autism in children. Then in April that same year A 14-year study by Finnish scientists finds no danger associated with the MMR vaccine.

Later, in March 2004 the majority of colleagues of Dr Wakefield who worked on the Lancet paper retract their support for the claims of a possible link between the vaccine and bowel disease or autism.

As far as the peer review process goes, Wakefield had been thoroughly discredited years ago. As for the "stifl[ing] scholarly communication and research" have you read what he has been charged with?

A 2007 hearing with the General Medical Council is examining charges of professional misconduct against Wakefield and two colleagues involved in the Lancet paper. The charges include:

* He was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR, and failed to disclose this in his IRB.

* He ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications".

* Acting "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in failing to disclose how patients were recruited for the study, and that some were paid to take part.

* Performing colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without proper approval and contrary to the children's clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.

* Conducting the study on a basis which was not approved by the hospital's ethics committee.

* Purchasing blood samples - for £5 each - from children present at his son's birthday party, as described by Wakefield himself in a videotaped public conference.
Wakefield denies the charges. On 27 March 2008, Wakefield began his defence in the hearing.

On 28 January 2010, the GMC ruled that Wakefield "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his controversial research. Wakefield will likely have to wait several more months to learn of any disciplinary actions to be taken by the GMC.

*Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield (though the information is readily available elsewhere)

Taking 12 years to actually retract a paper when someone has been charged with these things hardly seems like "stifling" anything! And that's not even getting into the number of preventable deaths caused buy parents who chose not to vaccinate their children based on this man's work.
 
Sorry Pigeon but that is rubbish!

This wasn't just the case of ONE issue about funding. Not only did Wakefield have a stake in developing an 'alternative' vaccine for measles - dodgy 'incident' number one - but he was also taking money from the leagal teams of parents who 'thought' the vaccine was linked to autism BEFORE his 'research' was carried out - dodgy 'incident' number two.

He also carried out totally unethical and unecessary tests like lumber punctures and colonoscopies on his 'test' subjects - dodgy 'incident' number three. He also PAID his sons friends £5 a time to have a blood test whilst they were at his birthday party! - dodgy 'incident' number four.

Even without these VERY dodgy incidents his research methodology was totally flawed. Firstly he only used a group of 12 patients.....all of whom already HAD the symptoms of crohns and autism and then - bearing in mind dodgy 'incident' number two above - used the bottom up approach to 'prove' the link. In other words he was being paid to find the link and as if by magic a link appeared! :sad2:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine
 
This action looks like a way to stifle scholarly communication and research to me.

Irregardless of any payment issues, it is actually about lying, fasifying data, and unethical behavior in medical research.

Doctor Who Started Vaccine, Autism Debate in Ethics Row
Doctor's Critics and Parent Supporters Say Ethics Debate Is Irrelevant to Science
By LAUREN COX
ABC News Medical Unit
Feb. 1, 2010

Parent activists who say vaccines can trigger autism, and scientists who say that hypothesis has been discredited, agreed on one point last week.

Doctor Andrew Wakefield speaks to the media after a hearing at the General Medical Council (GMC) in London January 28, 2010. The GMC ruled that Wakefield acted unethically in doing his research into a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.

It won't change their debate if Dr. Andrew Wakefield -- the British doctor known widely for sparking international fear that vaccines cause autism -- loses his medical license for unethical behavior.

Wakefield has been found guilty of acting unethically during the time he conducted the famous, and now retracted, 1998 case report of 12 children that questioned if a childhood vaccine caused a new form of autism.

The United Kingdom's General Medical Council concluded Jan. 28 that Wakefield participated in "dishonesty and misleading conduct" while he conducted the 1998 research. Most of the findings against Wakefield are breaches of standard ethical codes meant to keep bias out of scientific journals.

But, according to one of the findings against the doctor, Wakefield took blood samples from children at his own child's birthday party, and paid them five British pounds for their trouble.

On Feb. 2, the Lancet retracted Wakefield's paper, explaining in a statement: "Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect ... 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."

"In some ways I think it's irrelevant," said Dr. Paul Offit, chief of the Section of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who has been twice threatened with lawsuits for critical statements he has made of Wakefield's work.

"His hypothesis was that by combining the MMR into a single shot that it was somehow weakening the immune system, causing the measles part of the vaccine to travel to the gut and cause damage, " Offit said.

That theoretical damage, according to Wakefield's hypothesis, could then theoretically travel into the bloodstream and cause (theoretical) damage to the brain -- perhaps causing autism symptoms.

"It created a firestorm," Offit said.

Parent advocacy groups jumped on the possibility of vaccines as a cause, or at least that gastrointestinal symptoms were a unique problem to children with Autism.

"The Autism Society strongly supports funding research into gastrointestinal pathology, as well as any links between this pathology and the symptoms of autism," the advocacy group said in a statement. "In this field, Dr. Wakefield's contributions to our families and members are greatly appreciated and there are many who support him in his research efforts."

The GMC panel also found Wakefield responsible for an ethics breach because he wrote that the children involved in the case report were referred to his clinic for stomach problems, when Wakefield knew nearly half of the children were actually part of a lawsuit looking into the effects of a measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Some children didn't have stomach issues at all.

The GMC also found that Wakefield failed to disclose he was paid in conjunction with the lawsuit, or that he had a patent related to a new MMR vaccine in development when he submitted the 12-child case report to be published in a scientific journal.

Wakefield declined an interview with ABCNews.com, but issued a statement saying, "The allegations against me and against my colleagues are both unfounded and unjust and I invite anyone to examine the contents of these proceedings and come to their own conclusion."

Wakefield was found "proven" to have committed the ethical breaches by the GMC Fitness to Practice Panel, but his time before the government is not over yet.

On April 7, the GMC is scheduled to decide whether these breaches constitute "serious professional misconduct" and if so, how Wakefield will be reprimanded or whether he will lose his license.

Wakefield and his former colleagues may see their fate hanging on the April decision, but the public may not agree.

Scientists who say Wakefield's hypothesis has been discredited long ago view the ethical breaches against the conclusions of large studies finding no link between vaccines and autism.

Similarly, the parent groups who stood behind him in rallies and in press statements say his theories have led to anecdotally successful treatment in their children and also doubt that a finding by the GMC will change any minds.


Are Dr. Wakefield's Ethics Irrelevant?
When the public got word of Wakefield's work, worried parents skipped vaccines, and the percentage of children who were not vaccinated in the United States rose from 0.77 percent in 1997 to 2.1 percent in 2000, according to an article by Dr. Michael Smith in the journal Pediatrics.

A similar drop-off in vaccinations occurred in the United States, weakening overall immunity and putting those who are too young to get vaccinated at risk for measles, mumps or rubella.

Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control declared the United States cleared of measles in 2000, fewer vaccinations brought back the disease in a 2008 outbreak.

At least 131 cases were reported to the CDC, and 11 percent of the cases were hospitalized. A handful of children in Britain died of the measles around the time of the U.S. outbreak.


Scientists Investigate Vaccine, Autism Connection
Offit said that scientists didn't sit idly by after the news broke in 1998.

"People spent millions and millions of dollar looking at this hypothesis that he raised," he said.

But according to Offit -- and international studies supported by the CDC as well as a 2004 review of large international studies by the Institute of Medicine -- high-quality studies could not confirm Wakefield's hypothesis about vaccines.

Parent Groups Still Supporting Dr. Wakefield... and His Work
Although Wakefield's original hypothesis did not mention mercury, a row also arose over whether a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal found in other vaccines cause autism. As a precaution, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and several other governors banned mercury from childhood vaccines in 2004. But autism rates have only increased since then.

"He had his day in scientific court, this is his day in ethics court," said Offit.

Robert Field, an expert in health care ethics and a professor of law and public health Drexel University in Philadelphia, agreed that the charges against Wakefield posed ethical issues.

In light of the ethical charges brought against Wakefield, 10 of the original 13 authors of the 12-child article issued a retraction.

Yet, like Offit, Field did not believe the current charges would influence the way scientists viewed Wakefield's hypothesis.

"Taking blood samples without the consent would be a serious ethical and legal violation in the United States and even more so if children were involved," Field said. But, "independent of the autism and vaccine issue, that is unethical behavior. I would also say that counseling parents to avoid vaccines for fear of autism would also be unethical."

Field said it was unethical because, "there is no evidence, even after numerous scientific investigations, of a link between vaccine and autism."

Parents like Rebecca Estepp of Talk About Curing Autism and anti-mercury activists like Theresa Wrangham, say these current charges are irrelevant not because Wakefield's hypothesis has been proved or disproved. Instead, groups like Talk About Curing Autism, the Autism Society and SafeMinds, say they still appreciate Wakefield's work.

"The number one point we were making, kids with autism have gastrointestinal issues. We know this," said Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds -- an organization that dedicated to eliminating neurological damage in children from exposure to mercury. "Our kids are in distress, and this is a recognized area that needs research."

Dr. Wakefield's Legacy Still Debated
Wrangham said bringing up Wakefield on charges of unethical conduct would only "chill" other researchers who want to investigate issues such as vaccine's link to autism, or the mercury additive in vaccines thimerosal.
"Do I think the book is closed on thimerosal? No," Wrangham said.

Estepp, Talk About Curing Autism's manager of strategic planning, agreed with Wrangham in that the charges against Wakefield may lead doctors away from researching vaccines, or gastrointestinal problems in children.

"What comes down at the end of the day is that Dr. Wakefield continued his research," said Estepp. "The things that he has found and the different treatment models that have come about from those findings are the things I've seen improve my son."

Indeed, Wakefield left England since the original 1998 article and has since set up an alternative research and treatment organization called Thoughtful House in Austin, Texas.

Estepp correctly noted that it wasn't a complaint from a parent of the 12 children, but an investigation by U.K journalist Brian Deer that opened up questions into Wakefield's actions.

"In my eyes Dr. Wakefield's work was the foundation of my son getting better," said Estepp.

"The thing that I'm worried about as a parent with a child of autism… is if you are a scientist and you stumble upon something controversial, we now know that scientists can see that their careers or their livelihoods are at stake," she added.

But doctors like Offit warn that not every doctor who goes against the status quo is necessarily a brilliant outlier.

"Science is full of mavericks," said Offit, pointing geniuses like Galileo where people are originally thought to be heretical and are cast out only later to be vindicated by scientific evidence.

"But the history of science is also filled with mavericks that have this heretical notion that is dead wrong," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Autism...debate-ethics-debacle/story?id=9713197&page=1
 
Finally, and thank goodness. :thumbsup2

Ember, Tiggernut and Deb, I couldn't agree more.
 
When my son was 18 months I chose to skip the MMR because my oldest son was on the Autism Spectrum and many of his cousins were being diagnosed, too. Well, fast forward a couple years later and he was still diagnosed with Autism! Looks genetic to me, at least in our family.
 
The same could be said about any researcher who has any financial interest in vaccines, either by vaccinating children him/herself or by having any ties to pharma, publishing pro-vax findings.

I'm not anti-vaccination. But this whole thing sounds like a politically motivated witch hunt.

Studies get published in the literature. A single study is seldom conclusive. They may be supported or contradicted by other studies. Eventually, when a subject is studied enough, a conclusion can be reached. Sometimes researchers do change their minds. It's the way scholarly communication takes place.

This action looks like a way to stifle scholarly communication and research to me.

One way research is proven is by others being able to replicate your findings. No one has ever been able to do this with his research. That is what caused the red flags. Then when it was discovered he was invested in a company coming up with another version of the MMR he really came under suspicion. Any above board researcher would stay far away from any kind of conflict of interest.
 
But, according to one of the findings against the doctor, Wakefield took blood samples from children at his own child's birthday party, and paid them five British pounds for their trouble.
Sounds like a swell party. :laughing:

On a serious note...thanks for posting this. However, I have a feeling it's not going to sway the minds of most people who are anti-vaccinations. There will always be another excuse waiting in the wings.
 
The "damage" done by this study has already been done. There will always be those that KNOW autism is caused by the MMR vaccine, no matter what the findings.
 
My daughter has been autistic from the moment she was born. It is part of who she is. Wakefield's legacy is that valuable time, energy, and resources have been diverted from more valuable research. He has muddied the waters and further confused parents. The connection between vaccines and autism was a legitimate concern but it has been debunked (at least to my satisfaction) and now it is time to move forward.
 
The "damage" done by this study has already been done. There will always be those that KNOW autism is caused by the MMR vaccine, no matter what the findings.


I was thinking the same thing. There are going to be plenty of people who don't need studies to tell them that there's a link between Autism and vaccines because they "just know". I know some people like that. There's nothing on earth that will convince them that vaccines are safe, no matter what the science says. I feel bad for their kids.:sad2:
 
The trouble is that the british government is doing its best to stop people getting hold of the single jabs and there ARE children who shouldn't have the mmr according to the nhs information
The vaccine should not be given to:
•
those who are immunosuppressed
•
those who have had a confirmed anaphylactic reaction to a previous dose of a measles-, mumps- or rubella-containing vaccine
•
those who have had a confirmed anaphylactic reaction to neomycin or gelatine
•
pregnant women

So a pregnant woman who has been told to have the rubella jab cant just have it she is supposed to take the mmr and as a pregnant woman she shouldn't. I believe that the manufacturer also says children who are latex intolerant should not get it either
 
I hope someone tells Jenny McCarthy so she can stop spreading her alarmist views. There's no such thing as a "vaccine injury" that causes autism.
 












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom