The Lancet Finally Retracts Vaccine-Autism Connection Paper
Yesterday The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, retracted its report on the connection between vaccines and an increased risk for autism. According to NPR, Dr. Andrew Wakefield authored the study 12 years ago after he found 12 patients who had taken the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine, 8 of whom had diagnosed with autism. From the NPR article:
It later emerged that Wakefield had been taking money from a lawyer suing vaccine makers. The results of his study couldn’t be replicated… In the retraction today, the Lancet editors wrote that it became clear parts of the paper are “incorrect.”
I view this retraction as a major success in transparency of medical research, and I can only hope that its effects are reflected in public health and health prevention. The fear of autism has lead to a small–but significant–decrease in child vaccinations. This reflects a poor understanding of how well the MMR vaccines have changed the world in which we live. In America, because of effective vaccination programs, these diseases are almost nonexistent:
In America, vaccine usage has all but wiped out these once-devastating diseases.
I can only hope that vaccinations continue as they have in the past–before Dr. Wakefield’s work. There are many more discussions we can have about research funding and biases, but I’ll save those for later. Similarly, I’ll postpone discussion of the need for large-scale vaccination programs in developing countries. For now, I’ll just end with the reminder than Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and other diseases were once regular epidemics–occurring every couple of generations–that would wipe out huge segments of several societies throughout history. It is the hallmark health and medicine of the last century that we are no longer subject to these kinds of regular plagues and destruction, and we largely have vaccines to thank for this peace. So, it’s refreshing to see some honesty about the risks of vaccination.
Great post! I agree that vaccines are an amazing technological and scientific achievement, but I also believe if there is a problem with a certain vaccine, the public should be informed.
“if there is a problem with a certain vaccine, the public should be informed.”
Without a doubt! But the mechanism for doing it should be a sound system of research with appropriate conflict-of-interest monitoring. There are regulations from the National Institutes of Health about such monitoring–medical schools like mine have upgraded this monitoring so as to maintain a steady flow of their funding. However, this usually amounts to self-reporting of suspected conflicts of interest, without any real audits on funding and payroll of drug investigators.
I can see where one might find reason for caution. The “first, do no harm” requirement of the Hippocratic Oath rightfully keeps us from becoming drug gamblers, willing to take any risk as long as the odds and the benefits calculated out to our favor. And against this philosophy, Big Pharma have a history of writing medical papers and paying medical professionals to sign off on the research as though they had performed it themselves. This “ghostwriting” is an equally worrisome corruption of medical research. Again, a good system that restricts corporate interests in the field of medical research would serve us well.
Great article, I love reading your post, but does someone need a hug?
Always
Hehehehe I guess that came off a bit more snappy than I intended. The next one will be short and sweet and not up-in-arms.