The Lancet Retraction
Read the full article in Bloomberg News HERE.
By Michelle Fay Cortez
Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The Lancet medical journal retracted a 1998 study that linked a routine childhood vaccine to autism and bowel disease after a U.K. investigation found flaws in the research.
An investigation by the U.K. General Medical Council, which registers and licenses doctors, concluded in a report last week that three researchers led by Andrew Wakefield at the Royal Free Hospital in London carried out invasive, unnecessary tests, failed to act in the best interest of the children, and misused public funds. It also said Wakefield didn’t disclose a conflict of interest as he was involved in legal claims against the vaccine makers.
“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,” the editors of the Lancet wrote in a statement today.
The original study, involving 11 boys and one girl aged 10 and under, found bowel disease and developmental disorders in the previously normal children. The parents reported symptoms in eight of the children after they were vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella. Immunization rates plunged in the U.K. to less than 80 percent by 2003, as parents concerned about the possible health risks refused the vaccine, according to the Health Protection Agency.
The paper was retracted from the published record, stripping it of its scientific claims...
Parents are not going to fall for this dirty trick by Lancet.The autism garaph matches with the increased vaccination rates. They have started poisoning our children in the lat seventies.Thank you Willie for explaining this
horrific and shameful situation.There are billions of dollars on the table(selling vaccines),we, the parents need to send them a crystal clear message that poisoning our children
WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
Posted by: just a Mother | February 04, 2010 at 07:05 PM
"Daddy, I bounce in my bed because my stomach hurts me all the time."
Nevermind that I would not have been able to hear these sad words without biomed. 2 years ago I probably just would have been hit or bit.
Yes, it is just a relief that now that this article has been retracted I can finally tell him he's wrong. His stomach must not hurt. Nothing is wrong, it's a mystery again.
Posted by: Jack | February 04, 2010 at 10:42 AM
You know FMC, at least JC did a bit of research and found the good old Danish MMR study, the one full flaws in methodology as well as being fundamentally flawed in approach, being a cohort study.
I suppose you think that sloppy cohort studies prove the MMR is completely safe for everyone, vaccine insert safety information be damned. Well, wait a few more years then. Safety studies done by the manufacturer or distributors don't always end up working out in the end. There is a long history of this if you care to do some reading.
Posted by: Doodle | February 03, 2010 at 03:50 PM
[[Children who have been vaccinated develop autism at the same rate as those who have not.]]
What a bunch of hooey. Where for art thou background data?
And please, for the love of Gawd, the authors retracted an interpretation of the study... and the paper did NOT PROVE an association.
*head, meet wall*
Posted by: anon | February 03, 2010 at 03:15 PM
I feel for you folks, but the rabidity of your belief set, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, is a bit frightening (speaking here about vaccines and autism).
JC is the only poster here who has presented a reasonable, cogent set of thoughts and questions.
Posted by: FMC | February 03, 2010 at 02:28 PM
Rei entire physician groups opposed various vaccines and were not listened to, now of course, the Hep B damage is a reality children have died or been injured for what? It certainly was not science. Check out what the AAPS has to say about Hep B.
My name is Jane Orient, M.D. I am a practicing internist from Tucson, Arizona, and serve as the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (“AAPS”).
AAPS is a nationwide organization of physicians devoted to defending the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship. AAPS revenue is derived almost exclusively from membership dues. We receive no government funding, foundation grants, or revenue from vaccine manufacturers. No members of our governing body (the Board of Directors), have a conflict of interest because of a position with an agency making vaccine policy or any entity deriving profits from mandatory vaccines
It is apparent that critical medical decisions for an entire generation of American children are being made by small committees whose members have incestuous ties with agencies that stand to gain power, or manufacturers that stand to gain enormous profits, from the policy that is made. Even if such members recuse themselves from specific votes, they are permitted to participate in discussions and thus influence the decision. Moreover, there is the potential for deal- making. Or there may be a simple disinclination to cause problems for one member's agenda in the expectation that that member will reciprocate.
Once a vaccine is mandated for children, the manufacturer and the physician administering the vaccine are substantially relieved of liability for adverse effects. The relationship of patient and physician is dramatically altered: in administering the vaccine, the physician is serving as the agent of the state. To the extent that the physician simply complies without making an independent evaluation of the appropriateness of the vaccine for each patient, he is abdicating his responsibility under the Oath of Hippocrates to “prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.”
Should a physician advise against a mandated vaccine, he faces increased legal liability should the patient acquire the disease. Moreover, he may risk his very livelihood if he is dependent upon income from “health plans” that use vaccine compliance as a measure of “quality.”
Federal policy of mandating vaccines marks a profound change in the concept of public health. Traditionally, public health authorities restricted the liberties of individuals only in case of a clear and present danger to public health. For example, individuals infected with a transmissible disease were quarantined. Today, a child may be prevented from attending school or associating with others simply because of being unimmunized. If there is not an outbreak of disease and if the child is uninfected, his or her unimmunized state is not a threat to anyone. An abridgement of civil rights in such cases cannot be justified.
With hepatitis B vaccine, the case for mandatory immunization with few exemptions is far less persuasive than with smallpox or polio vaccines, which protected against highly lethal or disabling, relatively common, and easily transmissible diseases. An intelligent and conscientious physician might well recommend AGAINST hepatitis B vaccine, especially in newborns, unless a baby is at unusual risk because of an infected mother or household contact or membership in a population in which disease is common.
AAPS awaits the release of full information concerning the licensure of hepatitis B vaccine and the mandate for newborn immunizations, as requested under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Vaccine Information Center. It is imperative that independent scientists have the opportunity to review the raw data. In the meantime, all coercive means for increasing the immunization rate should be immediately discontinued. Fully informed consent should be sought before vaccine is administered. This requires full and honest disclosure of the risks and uncertainties of the vaccine, in comparison with the risks of the disease.
Information given to parents about this vaccine often does not meet the requirement for full disclosure. For example, it may state that “getting the disease is far more likely to cause serious illness than getting the vaccine.” This may be literally true, but it is seriously misleading if the risk of getting the disease is nearly zero (as is true for most American newborns). It may also be legalistically true that “no serious reactions have been known to occur due to the hepatitis B recombinant vaccine.” However, relevant studies have not been done to investigate whether the temporal association of vaccine with serious side effects is purely coincidental or not.
An independent review of the VAERS data; publications by governmental, pro-vaccine, and anti-vaccine groups; and a sample of the medical literature leads to the following conclusions:
• For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B.
Overall, the incidence of hepatitis B in the U.S. is currently about 4 per 100,000. The risk for most young children is far less; hepatitis B is heavily concentrated in groups at high risk due to occupation, sexual promiscuity, or drug abuse.
VAERS contains 25,000 reports related to hepatitis B vaccine, about one-third of which were serious enough to lead to an emergency room visit, hospitalization, or death. It is often assumed that only 10% of reactions are reported. (This committee has heard testimony about persons being actively discouraged from reporting, even if they are aware of the reporting system.) Thus, if there have been some 80,000 serious adverse reactions associated with 20 million doses of vaccine, the risk is about 4 in 1000.
(This calculation depends on many assumptions. Moreover, many of the patients experiencing temporally associated adverse reactions had simultaneously received more than one vaccine. Nevertheless, a better estimate has not been put forth.)
It should be noted that a less than 1 in 1,000,000 purely hypothetical risk may be used to justify costly federal regulations on highly useful products that are used voluntarily.
• In nearly 20% of VAERS reports, the first of eight listed side effects suggests central nervous system involvement.
Examining the first listed effects shows about 4,600 involving such symptoms as prolonged screaming, agitation, apnea, ataxia, visual disturbances, convulsions, tremors, twitches, an abnormal cry, hypotonia, hypertonia, abnormal sensations, stupor, somnolence, neck rigidity, paralysis, confusion, and oculogyric crisis. The last is a striking feature of post-encephalitic Parkinson's disease, or it may occur as a dystonic reaction to certain drugs such as phenothiazines.
The CDC admits that the results of ongoing studies on a potential association of hepatitis B vaccine and demyelinating diseases such as multiple sclerosis are not yet available.
• There may be large genetic differences in susceptibility to vaccine adverse effects.
The committee has been told that serious reported adverse effects seem restricted to Caucasians. Yet the oft-cited long-term safety study was conducted in Alaskan natives, and many studies involved Asians. In adults, 77% of the reactions involve women, who are generally more susceptible to autoimmune diseases. This deserves serious study, not off-hand dismissal (“nurses always over-report”). Universal immunization could lead to disproportionate injury to susceptible populations, who might also be the least affected by the disease one is trying to prevent.
• Striking increases in chronic illnesses have occurred in temporal association with an increase in vaccination rates.
Asthma and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, causes of lifelong morbidity and frequent premature death, have nearly doubled in incidence since the introduction of many new, mandatory vaccines. There is no explanation for this increase. The temporal association, although not probative, is suggestive and demands intense investigation. Instead of following up on earlier, foreign studies suggesting a greater-than-chance association, the CDC, through vaccine mandates, is obliterating the control group (unvaccinated children).
Dr. Classen testified concerning his opinion that hepatitis B vaccine could precipitate diabetes mellitus. Of note, VAERS contains more than 4,000 reports of abdominal symptoms that could have been due to pancreatitis, which was probably not specifically sought and thus missed if present.
Even more alarming is the huge increase in reports of autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, with devastating, life-long impacts. Much of this could be due to overdiagnosis (now rewarded by numerous government subsidies). The change in behavior that many parents observe related to vaccines could be coincidental, or it might reflect a desperate need to explain a disastrous occurrence. Nonetheless, the implications are so grave that immediate investigation is needed. Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction (say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an impassioned crusade for universal vaccination.
There are plausible mechanisms such as molecular mimicry whereby vaccines could have such effects. Basic research, as well as epidemiologic studies (starting with a long-term follow-up of reactions reported to VAERS), is urgent.
• Hepatitis B vaccine as a cause of sudden infant death has not been ruled out.
The mere observation that the incidence of SIDS has decreased while hepatitis B immunization rates have increased proves nothing whatsoever. In other contexts, the Back to Sleep campaign is credited with a dramatic fall in SIDS; the fall might have been much greater without hepatitis B immunizations. The presence of findings such as brain edema in healthy infants who die very soon after receiving hepatitis B vaccine is profoundly disturbing, especially in view of the frequency of neurologic symptoms in the VAERS.
Does SIDS occur on the day after hepatitis B vaccine with a greater-than-expected frequency? Does it occur at a younger-than-expected age? Are the autopsy findings different in babies who just received the vaccine? The fact that vaccine just happens to be given during the time period that babies are most likely to die of SIDS complicates the analysis. Also, there are a number of other confounding variables (sleep position, socioeconomic status, and possibly smoking behavior).
The data in VAERS are probably too incomplete to answer the questions. A very detailed statistical analysis and an aggressive attempt to obtain more complete information are urgently needed. Glib reassurance, based on the secular trends shown to this Committee, is dangerous.
CONCLUSIONS
Public policy regarding vaccines is fundamentally flawed. It is permeated by conflicts of interest. It is based on poor scientific methodology (including studies that are too small, too short, and too limited in populations represented), which is, moreover, insulated from independent criticism. The evidence is far too poor to warrant overriding the independent judgments of patients, parents, and attending physicians, even if this were ethically or legally acceptable.
AAPS opposes federal mandates for vaccines, on principle, on the grounds that they are:
1. An unconstitutional expansion of the power of the federal government.
2. An unconstitutional delegation of power to a public-private partnership.
3. An unconstitutional and destructive intrusion into the patient-physician and parent-child relationships.
4. A violation of the Nuremberg Code in that they force individuals to have medical treatment against their will, or to participate in the functional equivalent of a vast experiment without fully informed consent.
5. A violation of rights to free speech and to the practice of one's religion (which may require one to keep oaths).
AAPS would specifically oppose the campaign for universal immunization against hepatitis B, even if the above did not apply, because the safety of the vaccine is in question.
There are a lot of intelligent and well trained people opposed to vaccines for ethical and scientific reasons that transcend any of the transparent fraudulent bullshit reasons given by the supporters of the failed hypothesis of vaccine immunological benefit. This is a clear case of devastating risk without reward.
One day these people will be punished for their crimes.
Posted by: WILLIE | February 03, 2010 at 03:35 AM
Rei I am a physician too. Vaccines are horse shit and it is that simple my children will never receive another 1 in life. The studies that are published in support of vaccines are most probably fraudulent. Note the following conflict of interest
Dr Kumar, a man who during the hearing refused to answer questions about his shareholding in GlaxoSmithKline, pronounced on behalf of the multinational drug companies and the British government that there was no such thing as vaccine damage and that any parents who claimed that their children had suffered such, would be treated with scorn and contempt.
Brian Deer has carried out his campaign against Dr Wakefield from the pages of the Sunday Times, a paper managed and owned by James Murdoch a man who sits on the board of GlaxoSmithKline. Deer researched his case with the help of Medico-Legal Investigations a private enquiry company funded solely by The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.
The panel gave their verdict after two and a half years partial scrutiny of the case, after legal aid for the parents claims to be heard in a real court, against vaccine manufacturers, was denied by High Court judge Sir Nigel Davis, whose brother, an executive board member of Elsevier the publishers, was on the Board of GlaxoSmithKline.
During the hearing, some of the apparently most authoritative evidence, not about science, but about conflict of interest, was given by Dr Richard Horton the editor of the Lancet one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. The Lancet is owned by Elsevier and Sir Crispin Davis is Dr Horton's line manager.
ELSEVIER PUBLISHED 8 FAKE PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AT THE BEHEST OF MERCK WITH PLANS FOR 13 MORE.
Read what the United states congressman testified to in front of congress concerning the nepotism, cronyism and fulminating conflict of interest concerning the FDA, CDC, NIH and pharmaceutical industry.
June 15, 2000, 1:00 pm , 2154
committee and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rely on these advisory Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515
Today, we are going to continue our series of hearings on vaccine policy. For the last few months, we’ve been focusing on two important advisory committees to help them make vaccine policies that affect every child in this country. We’ve looked very carefully at conflicts of interest. We’ve taken a good hard look at whether the pharmaceutical industry has too much influence over these committees. From the evidence we found, I think they do.
The first committee is the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). This Committee makes recommendations on whether new vaccines should be licensed. The second committee is the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP). This committee recommends which vaccines should be included on the Childhood Immunization Schedule.
To make these issues easier to understand, we’re going to focus on one issue handled by these two committees – the Rotavirus vaccine. It was approved for use by the FDA in August 1998. It was recommended for universal use by the CDC in March 1999. Serious problems cropped up shortly after it was introduced. Children started developing serious bowel obstructions. The vaccine was pulled from the U.S. market in October
1999. So the question is, was there evidence to indicate that the vaccine was not safe and if so, why was it licensed in the first place? How good a job did the advisory committees do? We’ve reviewed the minutes of the meetings. At the FDA’s committee, there were discussions about adverse events. They were aware of potential problems. Five children out of 10,000 developed bowel obstructions. There were also concerns about children failing to thrive and developing high fevers, which as we know from other vaccine hearings, can lead to brain injury. Even with all of these concerns, the committee voted unanimously to approve it.
At the CDC’s committee, there was a lot of discussion about whether the benefits of the vaccine really justified the costs. Even though the cost-benefit ratio was questioned, the Committee voted unanimously to approve it. Were they vigilant enough? Were they influenced by the pharmaceutical industry? Was there appropriate balance of expertise and perspectives on vaccine issues? We’ve been reviewing their financial disclosure statements. We’ve interviewed staff from the FDA and the CDC. The staff has prepared a staff report summarizing what we’ve found. At the end of my statement, I’ll ask unanimous consent to enter this report into the record. We’ve identified a number of problems that need to be brought to light and discussed.
Families need to have confidence that the vaccines that their children take are safe, effective, and truly necessary. Doctors need to feel confident that when the FDA licenses a drug, that it is really safe, and that the pharmaceutical industry has not influenced the decision-making process. Doctors place trust in the FDA and assume that if the FDA has licensed a drug, it’s safe to use. Has that trust been violated? How confident in the safety and need for specific vaccines would doctors and parents be if they learned the following:
1 That members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies that make vaccines.
2. That individuals on both advisory committees own patents for vaccines under consideration or affected by the decisions of the committee.
3 That three out of five of the members of the FDA’s advisory committee who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived.
4. That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory committee were not present at the meeting, two others were excluded from the vote, and the remaining five were joined by five temporary voting members who all voted to license the product.
5. That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time, and allows full
participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member, whether they have a financial stake in the decision or not.
6. That the CDC’s advisory committee has no public members – no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the childhood immunization schedule. The FDA’s committee only has one public member.
These are just a few of the problems we found. Specific examples of this include: Dr. John Modlin— He served for four years on the CDC advisory committee and became the Chair in February 1998. He participated in the FDA’s committee as well owned stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines, valued at $26,000. He also serves on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board. Dr. Modlin was the Chairman of the Rotavirus working group. He voted yes on eight different matters pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, including recommending for routine use and for inclusion in the Vaccines for Children program. It was not until this past year, that Dr. Modlin decided to divest himself of his vaccine manufacturer stock.
At our April 6 autism hearing, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he holds a patent on a rotavirus vaccine and receives grant money from Merck to develop this vaccine. He also disclosed that he is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe. Dr. Offit is a member of the CDC’s advisory committee and voted on three rotavirus issues – including making the recommendation of adding the rotavirus vaccine to the Vaccines for Children’s program.
Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, during her tenure as Chair of the FDA’s advisory committee, owned stock in Merck valued at $20,000 and was granted a full waiver.
Dr. Neal Halsey, who serves as a liaison member to the CDC committee on behalf of the American Association of Pediatrics, and as a consultant to the FDA’s committee, has extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including having solicited and received start up funds from industry for his Vaccine Center. As a liaison member to the CDC committee, Dr. Halsey is there to represent the opinions of the organization he represents, but was found in the transcripts to be offering his personal opinion as well.
Dr. Harry Greenberg, who serves as Chair of the FDA committee, owns $120,000 of stock in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer. He also is a paid member of the board of advisors of Chiron, another vaccine manufacturer and owns $40,000 of stock. This stock ownership was deemed not to be a conflict and a waiver was granted. To the FDA’s credit, he was excluded from the rotavirus discussion because he holds the patent on the rotashield vaccine.
How confident can we be in the process when we learned that most of the work of the CDC advisory committee is done in “working groups” that meet behind closed doors, out of the public eye? Members who can’t vote in the full committee because of conflicts of interest are allowed to work on the same issues in working groups, and there is no public scrutiny. I was appalled to learn that at least six of the ten individuals who
participated in the working group for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies developing rotavirus vaccines. How confident can we be in the recommendations with the Food and Drug Administration when the chairman and other individuals on their advisory committee own stock in major manufacturers of vaccines?
How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the number of experts is so few that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers must be granted. It almost appears that there is a “old boys network” of vaccine advisors that rotate between the CDC and FDA – at times serving simultaneously. Some of these individuals serve for more than four years. We found one instance where an individual served for sixteen years continually on the CDC committee. With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 11 years?
It is important to determine if the Department of Health and Human Services has become complacent in their implementation of the legal requirements on conflicts of interest and committee management. If the law is too loose, we need to change it. If the agencies aren’t doing their job, they need to be held accountable. That’s the purpose of this hearing, to try to determine what needs to be done.
Why is this review necessary? Vaccines are the only substances that a government agency mandates a United States citizen receive. State governments have the authority to mandate vaccines be given to children prior to admission to day care centers and schools. State governments rely on the recommendations of the CDC and the FDA to determine the type and schedule of vaccines.
I am not alone in my concern about the increasing influence of industry on medicine. Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine learned that 18 individuals who wrote drug therapy review articles had financial ties to the manufacturer of the drugs discussed. The Journal, which has the most stringent conflict of interest disclosures of medical journals, had a recent editorial discussing the increasing level of academic research funded by the industry. The editor stated, “What is at issue is not whether researchers can be 'bought' in the sense of a quid pro quo, it is that close and remunerative collaboration with a company naturally creates goodwill on the part of researchers and the hope that the largesse will continue. This attitude can subtly influence scientific judgment.”
Can the FDA and the CDC really believe that scientists are more immune to self-interest than other people? Maintaining the highest level of integrity over the entire spectrum of vaccine development and implementation is essential.
The Department of Health and Human Services has a responsibility to the American public to ensure the integrity of this process by working diligently to appoint individuals that are totally without financial ties to the vaccine industry to serve on these and all vaccine-related panels.
No individual who stands to gain financially from the decisions regarding vaccines that may be mandated for use should be participating in the discussion or policy making for vaccines. We have repeatedly heard in our hearings that vaccines are safe and needed to protect the public. If the panels that have made the decisions on all vaccines on the Childhood Immunization Schedule had as many conflicts as we found with rotavirus, then the entire process has been polluted and the public trust has been violated. I intend to find out if the individuals who have made these recommendations that effect every child in this country and around the world, stood to gain financially and professionally from the decisions of the committees they served on. The hearing record will remain open until June 28 for those who would like to submit a statement into the hearing record
The Vaccine industry and the people who support it at all levels are either paid off or extremly stupid. I am not sure which camp you fall in but the entire system is rotten to the core.
Posted by: WILLIE | February 03, 2010 at 01:41 AM
If autism is so genetic, why are my three BOY grandchildren, who are unvaccinated, don't have a trace? PLUEEZ,,,and I am saying that because I am a mother of two with autism now in their early and late twenties....who got the SLOWER schedule, but were at the start of the peak in the eighties. Had my four BROTHERS gotten vaccinated like they do today, they would all be full blown autistic, no brainer in my head (like and similar biochemistries, immune genetics, detox ability) So...one generation, slighly autistic like (very very shadowee) due to single vaccines, my children, autistic due to this schedule (though not the current schedule), and now my grandchildren, no vaccines, no autism, no residual anything neurological, very healthy. Think on these things.....
Dr Wakefield...he never said no vaccines, correct? ? He said split them. What's so wrong with that? (albeit, I am totally anti vaccine today)....I just think we have finally laid on the alter of our medical societies our children's lives, by the trust we have in these people. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them today. Then, when you really look microscopically into why vaccines have no value, are dangerous, are contaminated, may be full of retroviruses and future ills, I just say, why don't we just bag this whole idea, and start with the question....what is in that vaccine, and what does it do to a predisposed child? Let's have some biological markers that suggest why this child or that child may not handle them? Hmmm? Not so hard people? Cord Blood IgE? Autoimmune problems in the family? Exposures to toxins? Fluoride? MSG? Harsh Birth? Family history of neurological problems, mito disorders? Helllooooo?
See PERFECT STORM KATHY BLANCO....I dare you to read the entire article...
Posted by: Kathy Blanco | February 02, 2010 at 10:57 PM
What it all comes down to is this. Just how many people who are attacking Dr. Wakefield have recovered a child from autism, and let's compare that to how many people with autism have been recovered due in part to Dr. Wakefield. The time has come when results speak louder than bureaucratic science. The amount of parents choosing to believe in the results is growing everyday. My children are recovered. I choose to listen to those who have actual success, and it has made all the difference.
Posted by: Heidi N | February 02, 2010 at 09:22 PM
Rei,
And here I am, from a family which has opposed vaccination for generations...and I have two quite healthy grandchildren...coincidence of course.
Posted by: MinorityView | February 02, 2010 at 08:43 PM
Rei, you're making absolutely no sense at all. If we always opposed vaccinations, how did our kids come to be vaccine-injured?
Posted by: PhillyLisa | February 02, 2010 at 07:19 PM
Rei and Carol:
This is what's scary:
Graph of Autism Increase 1975-2009:
http://www.autismspeaks.org/docs/Prevalence_Graph_12_18_2009.pdf
Posted by: Sarah | February 02, 2010 at 06:59 PM
Rei and Carol..
Please explain a 600% increase in autism over the last 20 years. I was never afraid of vaccines and I never heard of Andrew Wakefield til long after my son was dxed. I actually believed in vaccination but now I question the judgement of giving a young child 24+ vaccines by age two w/o any research on the culmulative effects on an infants immature immune system.
Wakefield's supposed indisgressions pale in comparison to the fact that culmulative safety studies have not been done or, if they have, the results have never been made public.
If a single vaccine carries a degree of risk, then what is the culmulative risk? Is it multiplied? Using an untested schedule is like playing Russian roulette when you consider the culmulative risks.
Parents see autistics kids in their communities. They know families with autistic kids. They hear about soaring rates and that is what is causing the fear not Wakefields research. The fear will continue until the government stops ignoring the crisis.
I don't blame Wakefield for any of this.. I am fearful for the kids. We are losing a generation and that is very sad.
Posted by: Sarah | February 02, 2010 at 06:54 PM
Autism is a disintegration, contraction, and detachment of being, experience, and consciousness. These numerous vaccines are making us increasingly unconscious and reactive in various, numerous, and unpredictable ways.
Posted by: Author Frank Martin DiMeglio | February 02, 2010 at 06:48 PM
As a Physician I could not be happier with Lancet finally retraccting from this study, which was frown upon by the Medical community and it was only useful to feed fear among parents by people who always opposed vaccinations.
Posted by: Rei | February 02, 2010 at 06:07 PM
I just read this in The New Yorker online. It regurgitates all the talking points.
Autism, Vaccines, and The Lancet
Posted by Michael Specter
Finally.
More than a decade after The Lancet published a study led by Andrew Wakefield that connected the symptoms of autism directly to the Measles-Mumps and Rubella vaccine, the journal issued a full retraction today.
Published in 1998, the notorious study—so severely flawed that ten of its thirteen authors long ago retracted their contributions—has been long been completely discredited. Yet the wave of fear and panic that it set off, in the United Kingdom and the United States, persists to this day. Vaccine rates plummeted, and measles—a disease that killed 160,000 people in the developing world last year—has returned to places that hadn’t reported a case for years.
The article fueled a massive, and remarkably vibrant, anti-vaccine movement in the United States, led by people who insist that a connection between autism and the inoculation exists. More than ten major studies have been carried out to test that thesis; no correlation has ever been discovered. Children who have been vaccinated develop autism at the same rate as those who have not.
But the damage Wakefield has done cannot be overstated, and vaccine denialism became a central issue in American public health as a result.
The Lancet acted today only because it no longer had a viable choice: last week, Britain’s General Medical Council issued a scathing statement detailing Wakefield’s unethical methods. The council found him guilty of “callous disregard” for the pain of the children in his study as well as of dishonesty.
In 2004, the journal published a statement on the controversy the study caused, but it was not a retraction. Today’s release ended with these words: “we fully retract this paper from the public record.”
If only it were possible to retract the fear and confusion the article caused. Unfortunately, that could take at least another decade.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/02/autism-vaccines-and-the-lancet.html#ixzz0eQEra5gK
Posted by: Carol | February 02, 2010 at 06:01 PM
My blind 90 year-old aunt residing in a nursing home was happy to report to me today that she heard on the radio "the shots don't cause autism" hoping I would be relieved to hear it. Apparently we can all breathe a sigh of relief for some reason only others can fathom.
JB Im afraid parents are stupid. I know we were at one time.
Posted by: bensmyson | February 02, 2010 at 05:20 PM
You can't retract a paper after it has been published. If a publisher (like the Lancet) stands by evidence presented in 1998, it should be legally compelled to stand by that same evidence a mere dozen years later.
Facts don't change. Facts are either true or they are not. If a fact is true in 1998, it is still true in 2010. Publishers of medical and scientific journals are not is the business of defending truth. These publishers are in the business of defending what is right.
And in this case, what is right is what is true. Unless, of course, a mistake has been made with the truth. But even in that case, what is right must prevail over what is true.
Posted by: Jim | February 02, 2010 at 05:13 PM
I can't believe this! Wake up, MSM! Waht's it gonna take!? A full geneeration of effected children?!
Posted by: Jake | February 02, 2010 at 04:33 PM
I was browsing the web for relevant info on autism (having a son with PDD-NOS), and I had spied the above news of the Lancet's retraction. Out of curiosity, I googled "Incidence of autism non-vaccinated". The second link was for a Time Article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003673,00.html) talking about an extensive study in Denmark that showed no correlation between vaccinated and unvaccinated autism rates. Am I assuming too much that when a nationwide study can find no association between vaccination and autism that perhaps vaccination is neither a primary nor even a major component?
Look. I understand the heartbreak of first learning about the condition in your child. Anecdotally, I've heard people come to the correlation from a seeming cause and effect (my child got the shots then soon after started manifesting). Perhaps for me, the reason that I might lean the other way is that my child started manifesting BEFORE his shots (peculiar repetitive movements and lack of eye contact). All the same, though I didn't think "vaccine", I too did soul-searching, wondering what I or my wife may have done that could have introduced this to our child. How had we failed? If not our fault, then whose? God's?
Back to Dr. Wakefield... I looked through some of the articles on this site and see how you support him. I didn't explore the articles thoroughly to try and understand the science, but from the various reports in the web and media in general, it did seem he had a bit narrow of case study. At some point, the arguments have to break down. Is his study upheld by his peers? No? "It must be a conspiracy to hide the truth." As soon as I hear vast conspiracy (for it would have to be vast), alarms and whistles go off in my head. I don't subscribe to the "vast conspiracy" kinds of theories. I think you have to rethink your arguments with the evidence of the predominant studies thus far.
My feeling? Genetic components that are hereditary but are exascerbatyed by environment... environmental effects on the PARENTS. I do believe environment causes a large role, but on the genes themselves that form the child. Though symptoms don't manifest at birth, the evidence already shows how genetically there are damaged chromosomes in afflicted children. Thus the damage was already there affecting the children as they mature. Though you may completely disagree with me, which is your right, I do not say these things to denigrate. These are my questions, observations, and theories. I just want to urge readers to look in other areas, look for other possibilities. Even if you feel there is a link with vaccines, look at what else could ALSO play a role.
--PEACE
Posted by: JC | February 02, 2010 at 04:11 PM
I would like to thank the Lancet for forcing this issue back on the front page. Parents are not stupid. When they see the headline, they do their own research, and our community grows. Well done.
JB
Posted by: JB Handley | February 02, 2010 at 03:49 PM
Someone needs to copy it and post it on here then they cant remove it ...unlike the rubbing out the UK is infamous for,Dr Kelly et-al
Behind this until i die ...
Angus
Posted by: ANGUS FILES | February 02, 2010 at 03:35 PM
Bloomberg.com opening paragraph reports:
"The Lancet medical journal retracted a 1998 study that linked a routine childhood vaccine to autism and bowel disease after a U.K. investigation found flaws in the research".
Nah .. the GMC investigation did NOT "find flaws in the research".
Not only did they NOT find flaws in the research .. they, by their own admission, didn't even look at the research.
So, it appears a little misleading to me for Bloomberg to suggest "The paper was retracted from the published record, stripping it of its scientific claims...
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | February 02, 2010 at 03:01 PM
I guess the powers that be are angry thaat their fake pandemic flopped.
Posted by: Maggie | February 02, 2010 at 02:44 PM
they believe that this restores confidence in their vaccines..lmao..cnn talked about camps..those who believe vaccines cause autism/and those who dont..those who will stand behind wakefield ..will remain standing proudly with integrity truth,and honor..the lancet will slide.into a pool of ignorant denial...along with all their lies and cover ups..{the people have seen and felt the destruction at the most personal level..there children..these damaged familys dont give up..we dont give up..carry on Andy wakefield we are behind you..candace
Posted by: candace | February 02, 2010 at 02:37 PM
For anyone trying to post a comment on the NY Times blog today that attacks Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield, FYI, the editors are not posting comments supporting these two individuals, or anything that suggests some validity to their claims. They are only posting comments from people who say hateful things about those who believe in the possibility of a vaccine-autism connection. Since the NY Times published "all the news that's fit to print," I guess that must have run out of room.
Posted by: lisa | February 02, 2010 at 02:02 PM
Kill you and remove all trace of your existance sounds more like organized crime than medicine. Oh wait, organized crime rings actually try to keep their hit lists centered mostly on adults, so I guess that is an ufair analogy.
Posted by: Sylvia | February 02, 2010 at 01:50 PM
So, what does this do to all the articles that reference this one?
Posted by: Jack | February 02, 2010 at 12:23 PM
That's odd. It looks like I can still get the paper from The Lancet website. They better fix that right away. This paper is very dangerous and people shouldn't be allowed to read it.
Posted by: Carol Martin | February 02, 2010 at 12:10 PM