Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Children's Health
The Lancet retracts paper linking autism to MMR vaccine



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

shalhevet




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Mar 03 2010, 2:42 pm
British Medical Journal

Quote:
Lancet retracts Wakefield’s MMR paper

Clare Dyer

1 BMJ

The Lancet has retracted the 12 year old paper that sparked an international crisis of confidence in the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine when its lead author suggested a link between the vaccine and autism.

Andrew Wakefield was found guilty by the General Medical Council last week of dishonesty and flouting ethics protocols.

The UK regulator held that Dr Wakefield abused his position, subjected children to intrusive procedures such as lumbar puncture and colonoscopy that were not clinically indicated, carried out research that breached the conditions of ethics committee approval, and brought the medical profession into disrepute.

In a statement published online (www.thelancet.com) the editors of the Lancet said: "Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.

"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."

Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP and doctor, who had called for the retraction, said: "The whole thing is flawed. You should not publish or leave in the literature papers which are unethical."

His call was echoed in the BMJ this week by Trisha Greenhalgh, professor of primary health care at University College London, who says: "The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, is no doubt familiar with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org/guidelines), which recommend that a journal should formally retract a paper if its findings are subsequently shown to be unreliable as a result of either misconduct or honest error or if the work turns out to have been conducted unethically" (Observations, BMJ 2010;340:c644, doi:10.1136/bmj.c644).

One of the biggest public health scares in UK history was triggered by Dr Wakefield’s study of 12 children, published in the Lancet in 1998 (351:637-41, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0). Although the paper conceded that it had not found a definite link between the vaccine and autism, Dr Wakefield, then a consultant gastroenterologist, caused a furore when he suggested during a press conference at the Royal Free Hospital in north London, where he worked at the time, that single vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella might be preferable to a triple vaccine.

The take-up of the MMR vaccine plummeted and has still not fully recovered, whereas the number of cases of measles has soared.

Dr Wakefield, 52, failed to disclose to the Lancet that his research had received funding from the Legal Aid Board through a solicitor who hoped to mount a legal action against the manufacturer and that he had also filed a patent application for a new vaccine.

His failure to mention these conflicts of interest was contrary to his duties as senior author of the Lancet paper, the GMC panel found, and he had dishonestly represented that the children in the study, several of whom were litigants in the legal action, had come through GPs or paediatricians by the standard route.

Ten of the paper’s 13 authors later retracted the "interpretation" of the data (BMJ 2004;328:602, doi:10.1136/BMJ.328.7440.602-c). But Peter Harvey, one of the two who, with Dr Wakefield, did not sign the retraction, told the BMJ: "I stand by that original paper, and I see no reason to retract it. I saw no reason to retract it then, and I see no reason now." Dr Harvey, a neurologist, said that the GMC findings represented "the establishment baying for blood—they want a sacrificial lamb."

Subsequent research has found no evidence of a link between the vaccine and autism. Dr Wakefield left the Royal Free Hospital by mutual agreement and is now executive director of Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin, Texas, which studies developmental disorders.

Backed by a throng of supporters, including parents of autistic children, he insisted outside the hearing in central London that the GMC panel’s findings were "unfounded and unjust."

After a hearing lasting 148 days over two and a half years—the longest in the GMC’s history—he was also found guilty of a "callous disregard" for the distress and pain of children who had blood samples taken from them at his son’s birthday party and were paid £5 ({euro}6; $8) each.

The panel also ruled that two of his former colleagues at the Royal Free who were coauthors of the Lancet paper—the retired professor of paediatric gastroenterology John Walker-Smith, 73, and Simon Murch, 53, now professor of paediatrics and child health at Warwick Medical School—had carried out investigations that were not in the interests of children and that did not have proper ethics approval.

Decisions on whether they and Dr Wakefield were guilty of serious professional misconduct and whether they should be struck off the medical register or receive a lesser sanction will be taken at the final session of the marathon hearing, which starts in April.
Back to top

joy613




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Mar 04 2010, 9:21 am
Besides for the risk of autism, was there any other reasons for not giving this vaccine?
The reason I am asking this is becuase I wonder if now all those who refused the MMR vaccine due to fear of autism will still not give it. Or do they still believe that it's risky?
Back to top

Hashem_Yaazor




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Mar 04 2010, 9:32 am
Hashem loves me wrote:
Besides for the risk of autism, was there any other reasons for not giving this vaccine?
The reason I am asking this is becuase I wonder if now all those who refused the MMR vaccine due to fear of autism will still not give it. Or do they still believe that it's risky?
Most of the people I know who don't give the MMR vaccine don't give it for reasons other than the fear of autism.
Actually, I have not met a single person who won't give a vaccine because of autism concerns alone.
Back to top

gryp




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Mar 04 2010, 9:58 am
Thank you for posting, Shalhevet.

It's so funny to me that they're not getting it. I've seen mentioned so many other articles in medical journals that support the no-vax position, but they think that pulling this one will make people go get the MMR.

I don't know a lot of people who don't vaccinate but they gotta be kidding if they think this is the main reason.
Back to top

Hashem_Yaazor




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Mar 04 2010, 9:59 am
GR wrote:
Thank you for posting, Shalhevet.

It's so funny to me that they're not getting it. I've seen mentioned so many other articles in medical journals that support the no-vax position, but they think that pulling this one will make people go get the MMR.

I don't know a lot of people who don't vaccinate but they gotta be kidding if they think this is the main reason.

I'm with you there.
Back to top

shalhevet




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Mar 04 2010, 10:07 am
I'm not really on either "side" and I'm not sure where the truth lies, but I thought it was interesting.

Nothing to do with vaccination, I am definitely a believer that "scientific studies" can be biased, deliberately "prove" a pre-determined point, or without any basis at all, and that's because of what I know about nursing/bottlefeeding "scientific studies".
Back to top

gryp




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Mar 04 2010, 10:13 am
Quote:
March 03, 2010
Brian Deer Hired to "Find Something Big" on MMR

Brian Deer was hired by the Sunday Times to find “something big” on MMR and started his investigation “with an empty notebook”.

By John Stone

Brian Deer revealed in an article last month in British Medical Journal that he was hired by a Sunday Times section editor in September 2003 who told him he needed “something big” on MMR (HERE ). The investigation, according to Deer, was not commenced on information but “with an empty notebook”. We are not told by Deer why the editor needed the story, and it is disturbing that the investigation apparently began as a fishing expedition. So far, BMJ have failed to respond to concerns.

Deer wrote:

“For me the story started with a lunch. So many do. "I need something big," said a Sunday Times section editor. "About what?" I replied. Him: "MMR?"”
and goes on:

“So I took an empty notebook and made my own inquiries. It was the largest Sunday Times medical investigation since thalidomide.”

Deer does not at this point mention Andrew Wakefield but it seems likely that the editor wanted something “big” on the main critics of MMR rather than the product. It has been widely reported that the section editor was Paul Nuki, and the son of Prof George Nuki, who sat on the Committee on Safety in Medicines when it passed Pluserix MMR vaccine as safe for use in 1987 (which was later withdrawn 1992 after adverse side effects ): Pluserix was manufactured by SmithKlineFrench Laboratories, which was later incorporated into GlaxoSmithKline. In 2007 Paul Nuki left the Sunday Times to manage a UK National Heath Service website (‘NHS Choices’ ).

While it has not been explained why the editor should have needed a “big” story on MMR the UK House of Commons Health Committee stated in its report ‘The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry’ in 2005 p.60:

‘The use of PR to counter negative publicity’

‘221. ………. Considerable resources are invested into building long-term, sustainable relationships with stakeholders and ‘key opinion leaders‘ and journalists. These relationships are used to promote the use of certain brands and counter concerns relating to safety. Efforts to undermine critical voices in particular were identified, under terms of “issues management”. In later evidence, in response to the ISM’s memorandum, Pfizer stated that PR is entirely legitimate and can “help to educate and inform”. According to the PMCPA, PR activities may include “placing articles in the lay press, TV documentaries, soap operas etc“.’

Later on in February 2009 Sunday Times proprietor James Murdoch was appointed to the board of MMR manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline with a brief to “help to review "external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation"” (Guardian UK) . Coincidentally, or not, this was swiftly followed by new attacks on Andrew Wakefield’s reputation by Deer and other Times Newspaper journalists (HERE), (HERE), (HERE) & (HERE).

Deer also failed to disclose in the BMJ article that he was privately the author of at least three complaints to the GMC , as disclosed by Mr Justice Eady in the High Court.


BMJ have yet to publish my letter expressing concerns about some of these conflicts:-

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Grave concerns - are we are being led?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I note a new feature of this story recorded here [1] which should
arouse disquiet. Brian Deer tells us that a Sunday Times editor approached
him to find a story, rather than investigate one which already existed.
"For me the story started with a lunch. So many do. "I need something
big," said a Sunday Times section editor. "About what?" I replied.
Him:"MMR?""

and Deer goes on to confirm:

"So, I took my empty notebook and made my own enquiries"

But crucially we are not told why this editor needed "something big".

I believe it is also of concern given what followed that Deer was
named by Mr Justice Eady as a complainant to the GMC about Wakefield [2]:

"Well before the programme was broadcast [Mr Deer] had made a
complaint to the GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on
25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004. In due course, on 27 August of the
same year, the GMC sent the Claimant a letter notifying him of the
information against him."

Indeed, we still do not know of any other complainant in the case,
and Deer does not explain this part of his role in the affair here. I
think we are entitled to know this as background to the present somewhat
wistful reminiscences, but even more importantly why did the editor need
something "big" on MMR (or, by implication, on its critics), and what
exactly hung on it? Otherwise we are surely simply being led.

[1] Brian Deer,'Reflections on Investigating Wakefield' Published 2
February 2010, doi:10.1136/bmj.c672

[2] Melanie Phillips, 'A deer in the headlights', The Spectator 16
February 2009, http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel.....deer-
in-the-headlights.thtml

Competing interests:
Autistic Son


From ageofautism.com, the point is to show a different angle in the story.
Back to top

gryp




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Mar 04 2010, 1:13 pm
Just saw this: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vacci......aspx
Stunning.
Back to top

ChutzPAh




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Mar 04 2010, 11:08 pm
I posted this story on Feb.9, but it was mostly ignored on here.
Back to top

chavamom




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Mar 16 2010, 2:41 pm
http://www.ageofautism.com/201......html

Quote:
An author of one of the most frequently cited “vaccines do not trigger autism” articles is Dr. Poul Thorsen. Well, well, well… this week we learned that Thorsen has allegedly absconded with approximately $2 million of CDC research money and is the target of an international police manhunt. We also learned that the Univ. of Aarhus, Denmark, where Thorsen was employed when conducting the studies (naturally in close cooperation w/ the CDC) has released a letter detailing Thorsen’s recently uncovered crimes. These crimes include but are not limited to: theft, forgery and assorted serious breaches of ethical norms.

Apparently Thorsen was a very, very busy scientist. He was simultaneously and secretly employed at the Univ of Aarhus, Emory University, Drexel University and as a “visiting scientist at the CDC.” Emory and Drexel have, some might say, inappropriately close relationships with the CDC. There appears to be very little room for independent or unbiased science at these research centers. All three are heavily invested in denying any relationships between vaccines and autism. The CDC owns numerous vaccine patents and Emory and Drexel receive tremendous financial support from vaccine companies.
Back to top

gryp




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Mar 16 2010, 3:54 pm
The plot thickens.
Back to top

Hashem_Yaazor




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Mar 17 2010, 9:58 am
This I didn't know -- the CDC owns vaccine patents?! How in the world is that ethical?
Back to top

chaylizi




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Mar 17 2010, 10:03 am
I'll admit that the thought of the CDC owning vaccine patents, is hugely disturbing.
Back to top

chavamom




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Oct 17 2010, 1:30 am
So maybe this story isn't over yet...

Scientists Fear MMR Link to Autism

Quote:
New American research shows that there could be a link between the controversial MMR triple vaccine and autism and bowel disease in children.

The study appears to confirm the findings of British doctor Andrew Wakefield, who caused a storm in 1998 by suggesting a possible link.

Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus.....

This is the second independent study to back up Dr Wakefield. In 2001 John O'Leary, Professor of Pathology at St James's Hospital and Trinity College, Dublin, replicated his findings.

Last night Dr Wakefield said: 'This new study confirms what we found in British children and again with Professor O'Leary. The only exposure these children have had to measles is through the MMR vaccine.


FTR - Wake Forest is a reputable place with a stellar reputation.
Back to top
Page 1 of 1 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Children's Health

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Iso magnets to stick to paper
by amother
1 Fri, Mar 22 2024, 11:50 am View last post
Nice paper goods
by amother
1 Tue, Mar 19 2024, 4:20 pm View last post
Cheapest place for nice paper goods
by amother
8 Sun, Mar 17 2024, 9:16 pm View last post
Hives after vaccine
by amother
0 Sun, Mar 17 2024, 1:41 am View last post
Can someone help me with a list what to buy for paper goods?
by amother
1 Thu, Mar 14 2024, 9:40 pm View last post