Nydia Ywalmoriel
02-09-2009, 10:24 PM
Not that I can say this is much of a surprise, but apparently the noose of investigative journalism and academic integrity is tightening around noted anti-vaccine crusader Andrew Wakefield:
From the Times Online this week, via link from Daily KOS:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece
THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.
Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.
The association Wakefield and his co-authors were drawing between thimerosol in the MMR vaccine and 'developmental regression' (autism) and an intestinal syndrome, even taking into account the manipulated evidence, was so tenuous that 10 of the 13 authors of the original 1998 Lancet paper felt compelled to issue a retraction:
In 2004, 10 of the 13 authors issued a statement in the Lancet entitled "Retraction of an interpretation".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_enterocolitis#cite_note-PMID15016483-10) In this, the authors retracted the conclusion section of the paper, formally known in the Lancet and in many biomedical journals, as the "interpretation". The section of the paper retracted said:
"Interpretation. We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." In the retraction, issued in March 2004, they said:
"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent."
The tragedy of all this, of course, is twofold: first, fear, uncertainly, and doubt as a result of the sensationalism made of this study resulted in vaccination rates dropping significantly in the UK (and also here in the US):
Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary. After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%. Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.
Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.
Secondly, the results of this study misled numerous parents of autistic children into believing that mercury poisoning was responsible for their childrens' plights, resulting in expensive, unnecessary, and painful chelation therapies, among other things;
And finally, of course, reprehensible behavior like this because one is a slave to an idea (or a financial interest) undermines the very foundation of science and our ability to trust that what is released via peer-reviewed studies is trustworthy.
Unfortunately, we've already discussed here how retractions of misinformation often serve, ironically enough, to reinforce, rather than dispel the misinformation; and people are less likely to read retractions than sensationalist headlines. It's also hard for people to understand something that they can't don't have any memory of, as we're 40 years into MMR vaccination now and few people remember when children routinely got these infections and quarantine was necessary. Hopefully, since this is a health issue that involved children, the CDC or one of the major news agencies will pick this up and run with it, and vaccinations 'black eye' among the trendy and prone to run with spurious information will come back into vogue...
Regards,
Nydia
From the Times Online this week, via link from Daily KOS:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece
THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.
Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.
The association Wakefield and his co-authors were drawing between thimerosol in the MMR vaccine and 'developmental regression' (autism) and an intestinal syndrome, even taking into account the manipulated evidence, was so tenuous that 10 of the 13 authors of the original 1998 Lancet paper felt compelled to issue a retraction:
In 2004, 10 of the 13 authors issued a statement in the Lancet entitled "Retraction of an interpretation".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_enterocolitis#cite_note-PMID15016483-10) In this, the authors retracted the conclusion section of the paper, formally known in the Lancet and in many biomedical journals, as the "interpretation". The section of the paper retracted said:
"Interpretation. We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." In the retraction, issued in March 2004, they said:
"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent."
The tragedy of all this, of course, is twofold: first, fear, uncertainly, and doubt as a result of the sensationalism made of this study resulted in vaccination rates dropping significantly in the UK (and also here in the US):
Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary. After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%. Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.
Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.
Secondly, the results of this study misled numerous parents of autistic children into believing that mercury poisoning was responsible for their childrens' plights, resulting in expensive, unnecessary, and painful chelation therapies, among other things;
And finally, of course, reprehensible behavior like this because one is a slave to an idea (or a financial interest) undermines the very foundation of science and our ability to trust that what is released via peer-reviewed studies is trustworthy.
Unfortunately, we've already discussed here how retractions of misinformation often serve, ironically enough, to reinforce, rather than dispel the misinformation; and people are less likely to read retractions than sensationalist headlines. It's also hard for people to understand something that they can't don't have any memory of, as we're 40 years into MMR vaccination now and few people remember when children routinely got these infections and quarantine was necessary. Hopefully, since this is a health issue that involved children, the CDC or one of the major news agencies will pick this up and run with it, and vaccinations 'black eye' among the trendy and prone to run with spurious information will come back into vogue...
Regards,
Nydia