Study linking autism and vaccines is retracted by medical journal

The Lancet has formally retracted a controversial paper published 12 years ago that purported the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism.

"The action came less than a week after the U.K. General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Panel concluded that Wakefield had provided false information in the report and acted with 'callous disregard' for the children in the study," The Los Angeles Times reports. "The council is now considering whether Wakefield is guilty of serious professional misconduct. A positive finding could cause him to lose his medical practice. Wakefield's study, conducted on only 12 children, concluded that the MMR vaccine is a primary cause of autism," and he said that he could not recommend parents vaccinate their children.

"His words and actions led to a sharp drop in vaccination rates in both Britain and the United States and a resurgence in measles. Despite multiple subsequent studies that have refuted the link, vaccination rates have remained lower than they were before his report, and many parents remain concerned about the potential effects of the lifesaving vaccines" (Maugh III, 2/2).

The Guardian: "The medical journal's editor, Richard Horton, told the Guardian today that he realised as soon as he read the GMC findings that the paper, published in February 1998, had to be retracted. 'It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false,' he said. 'I feel I was deceived'" (Boseley, 2/2). 

Associated Press/Fox News: "The retraction by The Lancet comes a day after a competing medical journal, BMJ, issued an embargoed commentary calling for The Lancet to formally retract the study. The commentary was to have been published on Wednesday. …Ten of Wakefield's 13 co-authors renounced the study's conclusions several years ago and The Lancet has previously said it should never have published the research" (2/2).

The Times of London: Wakefield was "found to have brought the medical profession into disrepute after taking blood samples from youngsters at his son's birthday party in return for payments of £5 and failing to disclose vital conflicts of interest. He received £50,000 to carry out the research on behalf of solicitors acting for parents who believed that their children had been harmed by MMR, but could not account for how at least half this money had been spent" (Rose, 1/29).


Kaiser Health NewsThis article was reprinted from khn.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Comments

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Prenatal BPA exposure tied to autism risk in boys