1998 Study Linking Autism to MMR Vaccine Is Retracted
_
Posts: 6,651
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/study-linking-mmr-vaccine-autism-is-retracted-by-the-lancet/19341758
(Feb. 2) -- The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet retracted a 1998 study linking childhood vaccines to autism today, after an independent investigation found that its lead author acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his research.
"We fully retract this paper from the published record," Lancet editors said in a statement.
The move comes days after the U.K.'s General Medical Council, a government regulatory agency, ruled that Dr. Andrew Wakefield acted improperly during his research. Lancet Editor Richard Horton said he didn't have sufficient evidence to retract the study until the council's independent investigation was complete.
Wakefield, a gastroenterologist who now works in the U.S., is largely held responsible for the widespread panic over vaccinations that led to a surge in children not being immunized against measles, mumps and rubella, for fear that the injections could lead to illness. Following the publication of Wakefield's study, MMR vaccination rates in the U.K. dropped from 92 to 80 percent.
Wakefield, who could lose his U.K. medical license, hasn't backed down from his study's results, and today he described the council's decision as "unfounded and unjust." The doctor is still in the business of autism research: He's the executive director at Thoughtful House, a Texas autism center that's a favorite of anti-vaccination spokeswoman Jenny McCarthy.
Questions about the integrity of his research have been circulating for years. Several subsequent studies have largely discredited Wakefield's results, and 10 of the study's 13 authors have since rejected its results. Last year, reports surfaced that Wakefield "may have altered data" after being paid $1 million to examine autistic children whose parents blamed the MMR vaccine for the illness, according to Slate.com.
Despite the longtime dismissal of the 1998 study by medical professionals, and piles of new research, vaccination debates have continued to rage, with startling health implications for children. In England and Wales, measles rates soared by 80 percent from 2007 to 2008. Here in the U.S, the CDC reports that vaccinations are at an all-time high, but measles outbreaks are at unprecedented levels, largely due to parents who opt out of immunizations.
Thoughtful House didn't return calls for comment, but the CDC has issued a statement to CNN, praising the Lancet's decision:
"It builds on the overwhelming body of research by the world's leading scientists that concludes there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism. We want to remind parents that vaccines are very safe and effective and they save lives. Parents who have questions about the safety of vaccines should talk to their pediatrician or their child's health care provider."
The retraction also comes a day after the competing British Medical Journal called for the Lancet to take action. Of the study, commentary authors wrote that "the arguments were considered by many to be proven and the ghastly social drama of the demon vaccine took on a life of its own."
_____________________________________
Here's a link to another article about it:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AutismNews/lancet-retracts-controversial-autism-paper/story?id=9730805
(Feb. 2) -- The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet retracted a 1998 study linking childhood vaccines to autism today, after an independent investigation found that its lead author acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his research.
"We fully retract this paper from the published record," Lancet editors said in a statement.
The move comes days after the U.K.'s General Medical Council, a government regulatory agency, ruled that Dr. Andrew Wakefield acted improperly during his research. Lancet Editor Richard Horton said he didn't have sufficient evidence to retract the study until the council's independent investigation was complete.
Wakefield, a gastroenterologist who now works in the U.S., is largely held responsible for the widespread panic over vaccinations that led to a surge in children not being immunized against measles, mumps and rubella, for fear that the injections could lead to illness. Following the publication of Wakefield's study, MMR vaccination rates in the U.K. dropped from 92 to 80 percent.
Wakefield, who could lose his U.K. medical license, hasn't backed down from his study's results, and today he described the council's decision as "unfounded and unjust." The doctor is still in the business of autism research: He's the executive director at Thoughtful House, a Texas autism center that's a favorite of anti-vaccination spokeswoman Jenny McCarthy.
Questions about the integrity of his research have been circulating for years. Several subsequent studies have largely discredited Wakefield's results, and 10 of the study's 13 authors have since rejected its results. Last year, reports surfaced that Wakefield "may have altered data" after being paid $1 million to examine autistic children whose parents blamed the MMR vaccine for the illness, according to Slate.com.
Despite the longtime dismissal of the 1998 study by medical professionals, and piles of new research, vaccination debates have continued to rage, with startling health implications for children. In England and Wales, measles rates soared by 80 percent from 2007 to 2008. Here in the U.S, the CDC reports that vaccinations are at an all-time high, but measles outbreaks are at unprecedented levels, largely due to parents who opt out of immunizations.
Thoughtful House didn't return calls for comment, but the CDC has issued a statement to CNN, praising the Lancet's decision:
"It builds on the overwhelming body of research by the world's leading scientists that concludes there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism. We want to remind parents that vaccines are very safe and effective and they save lives. Parents who have questions about the safety of vaccines should talk to their pediatrician or their child's health care provider."
The retraction also comes a day after the competing British Medical Journal called for the Lancet to take action. Of the study, commentary authors wrote that "the arguments were considered by many to be proven and the ghastly social drama of the demon vaccine took on a life of its own."
_____________________________________
Here's a link to another article about it:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AutismNews/lancet-retracts-controversial-autism-paper/story?id=9730805
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
99 out of 100 pediatricians will tell you to get the vaccine and probably don't have a child with Autism. If I new then what I know now, I would never have given my Autistic child the MMR vaccine.
What exactly is it that you know now that disputes the "overwhelming body of research by the world's leading scientists that concludes there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism"?
But... hey... that just like... my opinion, man.
Are these the same leading scientists that said a H1N1 pandemic was a sure thing and we all needed to be vaccinated or we would have overwhelming numbers of death and mayhem?
Probably not the exact same ones, but I haven't read all the studies. But I think you're misrepresenting the sentiment behind what was said about H1N1 anyway. Are you suggesting we re-open that thread?
And they weren't wrong about the pandemic occurring, it just wasn't quite as lethal as they feared. The virus spread, and made many people sick.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
i watched planet in peril a few weeks ago and according to it, i forget the agency in the US that approves chemicals, but they don't require ANY testing on human interaction with it when they submit it for approval!! :shock:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Here is my theory on this. When your child is born, before they leave the hospital, they are already getting their first vaccine. Then comes the onslaught of not only one, but three at a time. After the damage is done, I find out through blood testing that my son has an Immune system deficiency. So I belive the MMR fucked up his brain because his body couldn't deal with it. I stopped all vaccinations with my second child at 7 months because there was no way I was going to deal with 2 Autistic children, and there are a lot families in that situation. I believe everyone must use their own instincts on vaccinations and not just get them because the doctor says so. They always make you sign a form that says they're not resposible for anything that happens to your child, yet they us a hard time if we choose not to. I think children should be tested for Immune system deficieny before they get vaccinations so parents can decide what's best for their child.
Interesting. I would think that for people with weak immune systems it would be even more beneficial to get vaccinated than for those with healthy immune systems, given the higher risk involved if they do get sick. :?
Well I'm with you on that one!
Pearl Jam is one of the positives in life.
http://www.generationrescue.org/wakefield_statement2.html
Peace
As crazy as I may sound, I am more scientific than conspiracy theorist.
Here's a purely hypothetical and probably unfair question, and I wouldn't wish either of these fates on anyone's children:
Would you rather have an autistic, vaccinated child who lives a long life or a "normal," unvaccinated child who dies young from a preventable (by vaccine) illness?
Just wondering.
Would you mind providing your sources, please, showing:
1. "Big Pharma" convinced the Lancet to recant.
2. "Big Pharma" convinced the 10 out of 13 other authors to recant previously.
3. There is sufficient evidence to support what Dr. Wakefield discovered.
4. Whatever evidence you have that the preponderance of evidence to the contrary should be discounted?
Thanks.
The thinking seems to be that "my child can't just suddenly turn autistic. Someone must have done something to it". Especially since it doesnt become all that apparent until the child have grown a little, and it becomes clear that it's different. This is very tough on parents, and my heart go out to them. But they are not exactly objective on the matter.
What is really the case is that autism, Down's and so forth have heavy genetic components. It's like a friend of my girlfriend who have the "danger genes" running in the family, and she had to DNAtest herself to see if she carried it. If she did, it was 50-50 that her children would have some mental retardation. she was lucky though. The fact that boys are incredibly more likely to be autists also point towards the genetic component, as boys generally have easier for catching genetic maladies due to the Y chromosome. (Insufficient backup in a crisis you might say).
I worked with autists for years as a part-time job, and all I have seen about it, points towards genes and inheritance first and foremost. My youngest brother also had some signs of Asperger or "autism light" and in the course of that, I really thought about the male side of my father's side of the family, and inheritance really looks like the biggest factor.
Drug companies are out to make money, make no doubt about it. But I really dont think they would cover up anything like this. Doctors usually are that because they wish to help. They are adamant in the absence of any conclusive evidence though. And now one of the biggest supports for the link seems to be disproved or invalid.
Also be aware that avoiding vaccines may altogether be a much more dangerous route than the potential harm of a vaccine. Its not like not having them means no risk. It is far more likely to mean more risk than the rare side effects. Many children's diseases we dont see as big deals today, arent big deals because of widespread vaccination. Children are very capable to die of measles for instance.
I find it unlikely that someone is out to kill us with vaccines on the basis of profit. I generally think greed is overrated as a motive. There are some sociopaths out there, but for them to run an entire organization with thousands of people, and get them all to play along, I don't buy it at all.
There are risks with evrything. You are continually at risk of developing many diseases, be run over by a truck, hit by a meteorite, who knows. But generally, data shows that vaccination lowers risk of some diseases that otherwise might kill you. (Even if the alarming link was true, the trade-off would be between live autists, or more dead kids on the whole.) So the option is never risk and no risk, it is always more or less risk. Vaccines means overall less risk than not having them. So when I go to South America this summer, I'm gonna load up on vaccines before I go.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
From Dr. Tenpenny: "In 1955, the death rate from measles was less than 3 per ten million; that was eight years before the measles vaccination campaign began in 1963." [Here she is referencing Achievements In Public Health 1900-1999 Impact of Vaccines Universally Recommended for Children]
Looks like vaccination saved us from that killer!
There are many different levels of severity in Autism. My son is some what social and seeks comfort from people. He is not self injurous as many of them are, but went through a bad bout of aggression at age 15.
He knows a lot of things , but is unable to apply them in daily life.
For those reading this post, there is an article by Robert F Kennedy Jr called Deadly Immunity you should read. I believe it was in Rolling Stone 2005.
I just pulled measles out of a hat as an example of vaccination. Not the biggest killer perhaps, but something one can do without, and avoid potentially unnecessary deaths. The real vaccination successes in saved lives/avoided maiming are polio and tuberculosis. Read up on those numbers.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Interesting bit from the other article I linked:
Autism Risks Detailed In Children Of Older Mothers
by The Associated Press
AP - February 8, 2010
A woman's chance of having a child with autism increase substantially as she ages, but the risk may be less for older dads than previously suggested, a new study analyzing more than 5 million births found.
"Although fathers' age can contribute risk, the risk is overwhelmed by maternal age," said University of California at Davis researcher Janie Shelton, the study's lead author.
Mothers older than 40 were about 50 percent more likely to have a child with autism than those in their 20s; the risk for fathers older than 40 was 36 percent higher than for men in their 20s.
Even at that, the study suggests the risk of a woman over 40 having an autistic child was still less than 4 in 1,000, one expert noted.
The new research suggests the father's age appears to make the most difference with young mothers. Among children whose mothers were younger than 25, autism was twice as common when fathers were older than 40 than when dads were in their 20s.
The findings contrast with recent research that suggested the father's age played a bigger role than the mother's. Researchers and other autism experts said the new study is more convincing, partly because it's larger. Older mothers are known to face increased risks for having children with genetic disorders, and genes are thought to play a role in autism.
The study was released Monday in the February issue of the journal Autism Research.
Maureen Durkin, a University of Wisconsin researcher who also has studied the influence of parents' age on autism, said it's important to note that the increased risks are small and that most babies born to older mothers do not develop autism.
Durkin said the overall low risk for autism "may be the most important take-home message," especially for prospective parents
The study was based on records of all 5.6 million births in California between Jan. 1, 1990 and Dec. 31, 1999, and on cases of autism diagnosed before age 6. That number totaled more than 13,000; the study involved 12,159 autistic children for whom information on both parents' ages was also available.
The researchers took into account factors that might affect autism diagnosis, including parents' education and race.
Catherine Lord, director of the University of Michigan's Autism and Communication Disorders Center, said the study is stronger than previous research focusing on paternal age, and "gives us a fuller picture of what is going on."
Autism is a developmental disorder that involves mild to severe problems with behavior, communication and socializing.
Recent data suggest about 1 in 100 U.S. children are autistic, a rate that appears to have increased substantially in recent decades. Many experts believe that rise reflects better awareness and a broadening of the definition of autism rather than a true increase in affected children.
Births to older mothers also have risen in recent years, but that likely only accounts for a small part of the increase in cases, said study co-author and UC-Davis researcher Irva Hertz-Picciotto.
Dr. Edwin Cook, an autism researcher with University of Illinois at Chicago, offered a novel theory for why autism is more common among children with older parents: Autism is known to run in families and it may be that adults with mild or undiagnosed autism have children at later ages, Cook said.
The study doesn't include information on autism in adults.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press
As far as the doctors who recanted their positions, five are working directly with big pharma. In other words, they are paid, not by you, or me, or the damaged child, but by the manufacturer of the vaccine. Conflict of interest. No. Just criminals. Vist VAERS. Look at he stats. It is mindblowing.
Peace.
If we were 'clear' of measles, then where did it come from 8 years later?
It could be like rabies and foot and mouth in animals, where the vaccines for those diseases are keeping it in circulation and causing outbreaks.
On a different point: Autism is much more prevalent in northern cities where women get less Vitamin D from the sun.
The Generation Rescue article provided some great reasons for the Wakefield study to be discredited now, all these years later, yeah? Or do you disagree?
I was going to reply, and then I realized you're the same person who hasn't answered my questions from your other post. You conspiracy-theorist folks really scare me.
I'd just like to point out, in all your attempts (with zero proof to back it up) to discredit research as being invalid because it's supposedly driven by money motives, that one of the many reasons THIS study was discredited was because the author not only falsified his research methods, but also because he had a direct profit motive to do so. How can you say profit motives which are unproven invalidate research but profit motives which are proven don't?? :roll: Seriously??? :roll: :? :(
Edit to add: If you're going to throw around "sources" as if to lend validity to your argument, you've got to cite your sources better and be more clear about what statements you're referencing. Otherwise people can't follow your source. But I have a feeling that was your intention all along.
1. "My 'return' key is broken & I have no ability to create paragraphs."
2. "I am unable to provide specific, properly-cited sources to back up my claims, so I'll just insult you instead."