Major Vaccine-Autism-Link Paper Retracted, Proven Invalid
The flu season isn't over yet. Have you and your family members been vaccinated? Haven't had the time, or are you worried about some of the rumors that you've heard about vaccines?
Could vaccines increase a child's risk of developing autism? Most studies deny this relationship, but one major study has long stood as the foundation for the pro-link argument, and has helped to support follow-up studies.
Yesterday, however, that long-standing study was retracted from the medical journal in which it was published (The Lancet) in 1998. It has been proven that several elements of the paper were flat-out incorrect, and furthermore, investigations in the study were not approved by the local ethics committee.
So the vaccine-autism argument just got a whole lot weaker, but will this end the debate? Probably not. These days, there's even more at stake for some people who are now involved in vaccine-related court battles.
One valid concern about vaccines, of course, has to do with the methods and ingredients used to make them. For example, in the case of the flu shot, complications may arise if you have an egg allergy. However, the vaccine remains, as it was designed to be, a safe and helpful medical advancement that is highly effective at preventing disease. Vaccines help an extraordinary number of individuals each year.
Share Your Thoughts
Eric O from Ithaca | February 4, 2010, 8:38pm
Kirk,
Basically, this story consists of three ideas:
1. One of the earliest, major articles that helped support later vaccine-autism studies was found to be invalid. If your study is based on faulty data...that could put into question the validity of your own study.
2. A majority of research would suggest that no link has been found between vaccines and autism. As of this moment, I have not discovered any convincing, definitive research that would suggest otherwise.
3. I am promoting the use of vaccines because they have been proven to be effective at preventing disease, and before their induction, millions were killed by smallpox, thousands were paralyzed by polio and rubella caused serious birth defects in roughly 20,000 newborn babies (http://health.howstuffworks.com/vaccine.htm).
Modern science is also able to explain why and how vaccines work, in a very logical manner, which helps to inspire confidence.
You asked, "If vaccines did not cause any damage, why then did Sebelius grant vaccine makers immunity from lawsuits?" I cannot speak for Sebelius, but I suspect that if the lawsuits involve autism-link accusations and there has not been any proven link between vaccines and autism, there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to sue, right? So we're talking about the prevention of unfounded lawsuits, I'd say. Thousands of unnecessary lawsuits could put any good company out of business. Do we want to put U.S. vaccine-makers out of business? Do we want to ensure that there are no more vaccines for anyone? Of course, if a vaccine company engaged in inappropriate practices, I would imagine that no kind of immunity could prevent legal action. This immunity isn't absolute in that sense.
On the anti-vaccine side, many people often like to ask the question about why autism rates have skyrocketed in recent years, linking it to vaccination rates. The problem is, correlation doesn't equal causation. That's the standard retort to this kind of a question, and it makes sense. There was an interesting Time article involving a Jenny McCarthy interview. The interviewer mentions that childhood obesity and diabetes have both gone up in recent years too. Is this related to vaccines as well?
Like I said, what I really need, to be convinced of all of this, is concrete proof. It can't be correlation.
I'm not absolving vaccines of all potential negative effects, just as I can't absolve any other medical technology of all potential negative effects, but here are two major points: (1) Vaccines do a lot of good for a lot of people and (2), so far, no one has found that striking proof you're looking for that says more vaccination equals a higher incidence of autism.
Are you suggesting that we would be better off without vaccines? Should everyone avoid getting them?
Basically, this story consists of three ideas:
1. One of the earliest, major articles that helped support later vaccine-autism studies was found to be invalid. If your study is based on faulty data...that could put into question the validity of your own study.
2. A majority of research would suggest that no link has been found between vaccines and autism. As of this moment, I have not discovered any convincing, definitive research that would suggest otherwise.
3. I am promoting the use of vaccines because they have been proven to be effective at preventing disease, and before their induction, millions were killed by smallpox, thousands were paralyzed by polio and rubella caused serious birth defects in roughly 20,000 newborn babies (http://health.howstuffworks.com/vaccine.htm).
Modern science is also able to explain why and how vaccines work, in a very logical manner, which helps to inspire confidence.
You asked, "If vaccines did not cause any damage, why then did Sebelius grant vaccine makers immunity from lawsuits?" I cannot speak for Sebelius, but I suspect that if the lawsuits involve autism-link accusations and there has not been any proven link between vaccines and autism, there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to sue, right? So we're talking about the prevention of unfounded lawsuits, I'd say. Thousands of unnecessary lawsuits could put any good company out of business. Do we want to put U.S. vaccine-makers out of business? Do we want to ensure that there are no more vaccines for anyone? Of course, if a vaccine company engaged in inappropriate practices, I would imagine that no kind of immunity could prevent legal action. This immunity isn't absolute in that sense.
On the anti-vaccine side, many people often like to ask the question about why autism rates have skyrocketed in recent years, linking it to vaccination rates. The problem is, correlation doesn't equal causation. That's the standard retort to this kind of a question, and it makes sense. There was an interesting Time article involving a Jenny McCarthy interview. The interviewer mentions that childhood obesity and diabetes have both gone up in recent years too. Is this related to vaccines as well?
Like I said, what I really need, to be convinced of all of this, is concrete proof. It can't be correlation.
I'm not absolving vaccines of all potential negative effects, just as I can't absolve any other medical technology of all potential negative effects, but here are two major points: (1) Vaccines do a lot of good for a lot of people and (2), so far, no one has found that striking proof you're looking for that says more vaccination equals a higher incidence of autism.
Are you suggesting that we would be better off without vaccines? Should everyone avoid getting them?
mike from nashville | February 4, 2010, 6:25pm
Check the results of the study titled: Ask the parents of autistic kids when the change occured. I have a beer, drive my car home and wreck on the way, was it the beer? According to the bartender (doctor), no it was not the beer, there must be another reason- unknown to us. but it saves the bartender from paying a claim for serving.
Kirk Patrick | February 4, 2010, 5:44pm
Ummm... just because one study that said vaccines are bad is retracted, it is not proof that vaccines are good. If vaccines did not cause any damage, why then did Sebelius grant vaccine makers immunity from lawsuits? That is the only immunity vaccines provide - legal immunity to those who profit from them. Mercury is still bad to inject into your body. Autism rates have still skyrocketed along with vaccine use. As for the myth that it's about better screening, then where are all the autistic adults that we can now screen for, unlike before?
For those who really believe in vaccines, France is unloading 50 Million useless H1N1 vaccines.
Fri
38°
25°
Sat
36°
22°
Sun
34°
23°
Mon
43°
27°
0.00 (-8.33%)
0.01 (4.76%)
advertisement | your ad here
