Report linking autism with childhood vaccines retracted; what do you think?
A journal that published a report linking autism to childhood vaccines announced today the report is being retracted more than a decade after it was originally published.
Medical journal Lancet said it would retract the study after re-reviewing its methodology and conclusions and determining they were deeply flawed. The announcement came less than a week after a British panel said they study was conducted in an unethical manner.
As reported in the Los Angeles Times, Wakefield's work led to big drops in vaccination rates in Britain and the U.S.Â
Despite studies since presenting findings to the contrary, vaccine rates have not returned to levels seen before the report, and parents remain concerned about vaccines.
Wakefield is now a doctor in the U.S. and said the allegations the study was conducted in an unethical manner are "unfounded and unjust." He also said he does not regret the study.
What do you think: Does the retraction of this report have any impact on your attitude toward childhood vaccinations?
Comments
Rork Kuick
Thu, Feb 4, 2010 : 2:32 p.m.
Here's a better quote from that factsheet: "In fact, sadly, autism rates have actually gone up since thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in 2001, providing further evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines are not related to autism."
Rork Kuick
Thu, Feb 4, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.
I say that childhood vaccines contain no thimerosal since 2001 in the U.S. You claim that is not true because "some vaccines" still contain it - but you don't say they are for kids, and you don't say what they are. You have proven squat. Since 2001 "all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children under six years of age have been thimerosal-free" says http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/thimerosal_qa.htm Hold it, you pointed to that link yourself, so you are supposed to know that. You claim that some kids were given does for novel H1N1 that had thimerosal, but you don't say how many or where, or who says that. I hope you will grant that kids below 6 months weren't getting it at all. My understanding is that single unit doses (without thimerasol) were being made for kids 6-23 months, and that older kids could get the inhaled live-attenuated-virus. That is at http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/vaccine_factsheet.htm. It is true that stocks of those vaccines were limited and some parents that were not-so-concerned about thimerosal may have permitted injections from multidose vials - I haven't heard but it is possible. So maybe some kids got it, with parental approval. Sorry if that was in error. I should have written "intended" rather than "given". That novel H1N1 was or is a scam is very unlikely. I suppose it will take a repeat of the 1919 resurgence, and the death of millions to convince some folks otherwise though. If that happens, paranoids are likely to blame that on CDC as well.
Rork Kuick
Thu, Feb 4, 2010 : 7:54 a.m.
Not all H1N1 vaccines contained thimerosal, those given to young kids did not, mostly to give anti-vax folks less traction. I see V is starting to move the argument on to other possible causes, which seems necessary, and is very easy as long as we just get to make up new guesses without any evidence, cause it could be any of 100 things. I do believe that regurgitating half-truths or outright falsehoods by anti-vaxers has lead to decreased vaccination for some serious diseases, and that this will, and has already, lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths. The BBC article I linked to leads to some of that information.
liekkio
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.
Mercury is a very toxic and dangerous neurotoxin that damages brain cells. No one disputes this...Thimerosal contains 49% mercury And how is this relevant to the question at hand? The question is whether vaccinations cause autism, not about mercury being toxic. If children vaccinated with vaccines made WITHOUT thimerosal still get autism as well as UNvaccinated children, the cause is obviously something else.
Rork Kuick
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 4:44 p.m.
Yes, I do believe there has been no thimerosal in vaccines for young kids in the U.S. since 2001, and I believe that here as in other countries, autism did not decrease. That's not even mentioning real studies in scientific journals.
Rork Kuick
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.
1) No it is not that simple. It depends no how much. Also, please get straight which vaccines do and do not contain thimerosal. CDC website says our U.S. MMR vaccine has NEVER contained it. 2) Got a reference to that amish "study"? I think you will find that difficult to supply, not because of any lack of ability, but rather because it does not exist! It's hearsay.
Rork Kuick
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 3:02 p.m.
The bigger story was perhaps the General Medical Council (in Britain) ruling Wakefield guilty of acting unethically. Here's a link to that story that is a bit better than USA today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8483865.stm Fans of the "Science-based Medicine" blog will want to see: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3716 Of if you like David Gorski (aka "orac") see: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3660 or the similar http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/the_martyrdom_of_st_andy.php and there's a part 2 of that last article now as well. This is a very old issue with hundreds of related articles.
Rork Kuick
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 2:43 p.m.
That's right, the vaccines causes autism theory is pretty much dead scientifically, though some people are still trying to move the goal posts to the number, or the timing, but they could almost as easily hypothesize that it is plastic containers for drinks, lack of eating dirt, or more satellites. However, some of those alternatives are less attractive to the quack doctors trying to get your money for autism treatments whose efficacy has not been well demonstrated, and often the safety has not been properly tested either. Wish more money was spent on real science rather than cranking and enriching witch-doctors selling snake oil or H20, since the problem is a very important one.. Note: I believe the retraction of the paper is not due to it's scientific findings, but rather due to the unethical conduct of the researchers - it is unethical to publish papers on unethically performed research.
liekkio
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.
The problem with thimerosal-autism hypothesis is that it is consistently disproved by research. In Denmark from 1970 till 1992 there was only one vaccine in use that contained thimerosal, and after 1992 none of their vaccines contained any thimerosal at all. Nevertheless, Denmark still has a growing number of new cases of autism in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children born after 1992.
another guest
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 8:48 p.m.
It is troubling to me how much hostility there is around the vaccination issue. It seems such a personal decision, and every parent should do their research. I am disturbed by the lashing out from either side. This report, in particular is getting blown up all over the internet, and people are claiming that it debunks the whole argument against vaccines. There is much much more to the anti-vaxers concerns than just autism and more than just the MMR. It's much wider than that. I'd like to point out that the study even admits that it "did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination" and autism. Instead, they described an association between chronic enterocolitis and autistic-like brain function and clearly stated that more research is necessary (5). Also, I think it is important to note that not one of the parents of children involved in the study has filed a complaint against him. I ask you all to take a deep breath before you judge so harshly. There's always more to the story.
SBean
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 8:17 p.m.
Sharing information seems to be seen as an argument by some and as an offense by others. We argue with and offend ourselves, others don't do it to us.
Dorothy
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 7:58 p.m.
Great, and I suppose Mercury is healthy. Just let big pharma pump us full of it. Gotta be the vitamin D. Right. And, after that, what do we blame it on?
scole
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.
SBean, I agree, this is an interesting question, and if there is enough information it needs to be studied. Yet let's not jump in to an interesting idea once again, and start an emotional and political trend that no amount of actual science will dispel. There are well known risks of not using sunscreen (I am not an advocate of SPF 50 on a cloudy day, or never working in the yard without sunscreen by any means, but there is solid science on skin cancer) and it would be a shame to see a rise in preventable skin cancer deaths because someone tried to invent a conspiracy by "big sunscreen companies." Let's be sane with the sunscreen, and let the research guide us, not hot emotion.
Cash
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 4:53 p.m.
SBean, Thanks for the interesting and informative post. Much appreciated.
Geek Chick
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 4:43 p.m.
The flaws in that original study have been well-known and well-publicized for years by many in the medical and research communities, such as the National Institute of Health website. The sad thing is the misperceptions of many in the public about the original study. The theory about vaccines was "sexy" and created a convenient, easy scapegoat. Few questioned how small the original sample was and other problems in the original study. For example, I heard from a doctor about the original study when it was first released. Then he updated my family when the study began to be challenged. This doctor kept us informed as information changed. Those old results from the original study have swilled around the internet for years generating paranoia. Wish there was a master delete key for the web! Time to move on from a bad theory to continuing the research for the true cause. I bet it is a lot more complicated than a shot. Very tough to isolate a cause for a disorder with so many variables over so many years in a child's life.
Mark Allen
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 4:30 p.m.
Is it intentional irony that a story about the validity of a study in a medical journal is accompanied by a Web poll? Perhaps this is a more efficient system than peer review.
Atticus F.
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 4:12 p.m.
The definition of what constitutes Autism has changed in the last 20 years. As a result, more people are being diagnosed with Autism... which has created a big scare among the simple minded.
SBean
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 3:58 p.m.
John Cannell, M. D. (www.vitamindcouncil.org) has suggested a connection between autism and vitamin D deficiency that fits with the timing of the adoption of sunscreen use in the 1980s, also coincident with the vaccination concerns. His latest newsletter addresses that topic specifically. In response to a question about his newsletter piece on the vaccination issue, Cannell wrote, "As far as 'mass vaccinations,' that is, giving multiple vaccinations all at once, you are correct that it has not, to my knowledge, been studied and may trigger autism in vitamin D deficient children. However, triggering and causing are two different things. Remember the co-occurrence of vaccinations and autism may reflect the fact that children are weaned from Vitamin D rich formula to the empty calories of juice, even breast fed infants get formula, around the time of their 12 to 18 month vaccinations, thus precipitously dropping their Vitamin D levels."
Top Cat
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 3:39 p.m.
Is autism actually increasing or are more learning and behavioral issues being defined as autism?