The three researchers behind the 1998 link between vaccines and autism are charged with deliberately skewing the results of their research, the Times of London writes. The paper re-researched the study—based on just eight children—and found that the authors deliberately ignored the data that showed that there was no connection, which is to say they relied only on the parents’ faulty recollections of their children’s health histories, choosing to disregard the medical records which proved otherwise. (Most notably the parents’ claim that their children were just fine until they had their MMR shot, though the medical records showed that the physicians had raised concerns of developmental problems with the parents beforehand.) The General Medical Council, the UK’s medical regulation agency, has brought the doctors up on ethics charges. They may lose their licenses.
Comments are closed.
Great. Now what can we do about the industry that’s sprung up around this, convincing hundreds of thousands (if not more) of parents to send their kids out into the world without vaccinations?
Waldo, I’m glad you posted this. Although the revelations (which have actually been around for 4-5 years; they’re why some co-authors retracted their support to the study) will not likely affect people who have committed themselves to the thesis that vaccinations==>autism, it’s important to spread the word to others who will soon confront questions about vaccinations.
JohnL
I’ve done another round-up post — who is saying what about the Deer articles on Wakefield in the London Times. I’ve included this post.
11 years on, Wakefield Manufactured Data showing MMR-Autism Link?
I know some of you may think I am crazy but this is true. My son was born with many problems. Autism was not one of those that they told me about. I didn’t even know what it was. At the age of 2 he started having seizures. We worked to get that under control,Finally 3 or 4 years ago they stopped. At the age of 3 they told us he was mentally retarded. So here we go to get proper care here. Then everyone tells us later in the next few years he is hyperactive. Here comes the Ritalin. I mean these were professionals we were taking the word of. Lets skip to age 17. He becomes uncontrolable. No help from no one now. Mental health system won’t help because his age and iq are not in sync with each other. Finally 18 hits and everyone can help. But that is not the answer. Life is still not good. But to get to the point. It took strangers to tell me my son had autism. Strangers who are not friends and are caring for him at their group home. My life the past 6 years has been great. I know about Autism now. I have been to meetings about it. And I know how to help my son. Thanks to strangers, not professionals.
I have a friend who’s son is autistic, and she’s quite big on this theory. I wouldn’t presume to theorize, as my degree is in medicine, not biochemistry, but my kids were all vaccinated.
Is it really even a theory anymore when the evidence has been falsified? Would this bring this back to the hypothesis stage?
I for one would love to see long range studies documenting the actual efficacy of vaccines. It is my understanding that no studies have ever been performed that show vaccines, in the absence of other variables, actually result in a decrease in morbidity. On the other hand, there is loads of evidence documenting the harmful, and sometimes fatal, side effects. This is truly an area in which it is important to make informed decisions rather than blindly following another’s advice.
Smallpox was responsible for 300-500 million deaths during the 20th century alone (to put that in perspective, that’s about 27 to 55 Nazi holocausts or 106,000 to 177,000 September 11ths). Largely due to vaccination, smallpox has been eradicated in the wild.
This is not just a subject of personal choice, but one of public safety. I’m of course not saying we should take every vaccine possible (nor is anyone), but the base idea that vaccines should be viewed with skepticism is not only foolish but incredibly dangerous.
Utterly predictable. Why we should be surprised anymore to find out the the “dangers” of vaccines, Alar, DDT, “global warming,” er, I mean “climate change,” to name just a few, were cooked and overblown is beyond me.
The difference being that no reputable researcher has ever claimed that vaccines cause autism.
Will,
Yes, this sure does prove that “global warming”–er, you mean “climate change”–is unimportant. Because there was one bogus study on one subject obviously means that all of scientific thinking on other subjects is bogus.
I sure am glad we settled that. Thanks for meaningfully adding to the discussion.
I’m confused. I thought the alleged link between autism and vaccinations had to do with the use of thimerosal (mercury) as a preservative in these injections, and not the vaccines themselves. Since mercury is a neurotoxin it makes sense not to inject it into anyone, let alone children. But maybe this is a separate issue.
That’s true—the link is mercury, not vaccines. And I agree that whenever alternatives exist to mercury, they should be used. It might not cause autism, but it certainly can’t be good for you. But if the choice is between a mercury-based vaccine or nothing, take that vaccine every time.
That’s partially true. The initial concern was thimerosal. This has ballooned for some into vaccines in general. This is despite that fact that several large studies have reliably refuted the thimerosal link specifically (I think there was a very large one in Canada comparing pre- and post- thimerosal vaccines and autism rates or something like that).
Unfortunately, many people have been (understandably) drawn into the vaccine theory, and this has led many well-meaning people to not vaccinate their kids. Which actually is a detriment to everyone.
Thimerosal based vaccines are no longer made, as I understand it. Better preservatives now.
Vaccines are a major triumph of the 19th and 20th centuries. This bogus theory has been an increasingly major problem of the late 20th and early 21st.
One study involving a very small number of children was falsified. So what? This seems to be very common these days. Does it prove anything? No. It does not prove that the children were not harmed by vaccines nor does it prove that they were harmed. There is still a court case out there that one child got autism and was harmed by vaccines.
All the posts here are from pro vaccine folks.
Here is a tidbit for you. All the vaccine ingredients do not appear on the vaccine insert. Vaccines can have a mixture of vegetable and animal oils in the adjuvant and can have a mixture of many foods used in the culture medium. The problem? Traces of food protein remains in the vaccine. Since many foods are used the traces will vary from shot to shot. There may be a few shots with no traces of food protein. What this does mean is that every vaccination is playing food allergy roulette with your child. This is the main cause of the skyrocketing numbers of children under 6 who are suddenly coming down with food allergies. This is not the only cause of food allergies but it is the main cause.
These ingredients are protected trade secrets and do not have to be revealed. Until this becomes an issue, vaccine manufacturers have no reason to make any changes to make the vaccines safer or at least let the public know what foods they may develop allergies to. Frankly, I wouldn’t care if I became allergic to lupin – lupin oil is one of the oils used – but I do care if I become allergic to shellfish or peanuts.
Where are the scientific studies? I found some that prove that injecting animals with food protein causes food allergies. There are no current studies from vaccine manufacturers. Proving there is a problem with vaccines is not something they are interested in doing.
Right now 1 in 70 people in the UK have a serious peanut allergy which is the reason we are given for the need for genetically engineered peanuts.
Seems like everything has a price to pay – even avoiding measles.