Vaccinations, was everyone aware of this retraction?

Question

In 1998 Dr Andrew Wakefeild had an article published in a Journal called the Lancet which has led to thousands of parents rejecting vaccinations for their children based on a fear of Autism.

The article claimed the MMR vaccine was linked to Autism in children. The other professionals linked to this study have retracted their support over the years as it has become blindingly clear that this research is false. However publicity given to this false research seems to far outweigh any publicity of the retraction of this article by the publisher.
A disciplinarian panel found Dr Andrew Wakefield, was acting unethically while conducting his research.



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-fumento5-2010feb05,0,3589719.story

Another interesting article by Alison Singer - co-founder and president of the Autism Science Foundation
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/03/singer.autism.study.vaccines/

I just heard this and wondered if people were aware of just how wrong this article has been found to be?

What is your opinion?

Answer 1

Anyone who doesn't vaccinate their child is a potential murderer or abuser of my child. Period. Vaccines convey a degree of immunity, but they are not 100%. They depend upon herd immunity. When you've got unvaccinated, diseased children walking around, exposing others who either cannot yet get vaccinated or who are vulnerable without their knowledge, you're talking about a walking squad of Typhoid Marys.



And guess what? Having a disease does NOT necessarily make you immune to the disease, as my niece just found out. Granted, the body does produce *more* antibodies, but not necessarily enough to fight off a repeat infection.



My 20 year old niece was pregnant for the first time, five months along. She'd had chicken pox as a child. A non-vaxing neighbor's child came over to visit with her mother. Unbeknownst to my niece, the child was coming down with chicken pox. My niece caught it again (oh, yes, that can happen.) She was not exposed to anyone else carrying the virus. This child was the one and only carrier.



My niece is now in the hospital, recovering from a miscarriage caused by the chicken pox. And it WAS caused by the chicken pox, no doubt about it.



All I can say is, I really hope the neighbor's 'choice' was worth the pain and suffering my niece is now going through. All it would have taken would have been for that child to have a vaccine, and my niece and her husband in Iraq wouldn't be grieving right now. That neighbor killed my niece's child as surely as if she'd walked up to my niece and stabbed her in the abdomen.



Let's get it straight. Disease doesn't care about your personal choice. Disease isn't going to skip over a baby too young to get a measles vaccine. Disease isn't going to spare an elderly person who hasn't the immunity to one of these so-called 'childhood' diseases. You may have the right to not vaccinate your child, sure, but you *don't* have the right to inflict pain and suffering by your choice upon everyone else. Your personal rights end where someone else's nose begins.



I say, if you want to hold by your personal choice, I think anyone who is sickened by your infected child should be able to sue you for personal injury. You want personal choice? Take personal responsibility, then.



In the meantime, I'm making a point of asking mothers of children in my daughter's playgroups and activities if their children are vaccinated. If they're not, I'm raising the roof with the management until they're ejected. I'm not going to let my daughter's health be compromised for the sake of some ill-informed person's 'choice'. You want to let your child be a disease carrier, go right ahead. But keep them away from my child.



Oh, and FYI? I've got a dear friend with a mild case of Asperger's. He was thrilled when the Lancet retraction came out and can't stand the whole 'autism is a death sentence' implication of most anti-vaxers. He's fully functioning, has a great career, lovely family. He's had his challenges, but really resents the whole implication that having his condition is somehow *worse* than being blinded, deafened, crippled or sterile. I don't blame him. What an insult!

Answer 2

I think some people are retarded and ask unnecessary questions like: "Should I update my newly installed Windows XP?" I think some people are both lazy and/or don't know about wikipedia or howstuffworks. Also there's google:P PEOPLE! Use logic when asking questions!! There is no need to ask unnecessary questions. IE: anything relating to myspace or facebook (figure it out yourself) or "Should I update my newly installed Windows XP"

Answer 3

The MMR doesn't CAUSE autism, but it's what tips most affected children OVER.



Much the way a person at a bar could drink 5 beers, then drink a martini and pass out. Did the martini CAUSE the person to drop onto the floor? No, it's what pushed him over the edge.



Infants can only take so much aluminum, mercury, viruses, aborted fetal tissues (Lord knows what's in that DNA!) and formaldehyde before the immune system is *tricked* too much.



But those of you who don't believe--go ahead, keep vaccinating. Obviously 1 in 91 American children is not enough to create honest research. We'll need to get those numbers up! And with all the FLU scares (and the mercury that comes with them) we'l get those numbers up in a hurry.



My get got hit. Maybe yours will next...

Answer 4

Lisa didn't watch the news after the 1998 Lancet paper. He DID claim there was a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. He couldn't say that in the paper because no reviewer would have allowed such a definitive statement in a preliminary work.



The retraction is the end point of a long saga of corruption and dishonesty. Virtually all the other authors of the paper retracted years ago when no one could repeat the result and it was discovered Wakefield had two separate conflicts of interests.



They really need to just pull his license for misconduct at this point. He has acted medically and scientifically with no regard for the safety of others.

Answer 5

Dr. Wakefield did NOT claim in the 1998 case series that there was a link between the MMR and autism. The fact that the media said he did does not make it true. And if anyone cares enough to make comments about this, they should at least read the case series in question, instead of regurgitating rumors. http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield.pdf



The Lancet retraction of the 1998 Wakefield case series was a political move and had nothing to do with the validity of the science. Here is the full retraction statement: http://press.thelancet.com/wakefieldretraction.pdf

"Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, 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. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were "consecutively referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record."



Their big thing against Dr. Wakefield is that he did not ask for approval by the ethics committee for the location in which he obtained blood samples from control group children. With their parents permission, the children's consent, and in exchange for a small amount of money, he drew blood samples from willing children at his son's birthday party. Yes, that's a little out of the ordinary, but that certainly doesn't seem unethical to me, and it of course has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the case series.



Several of the other researchers in the case series caved to the incredible pressure against them, which I guess is understandable, but not admirable.



Edit: To comment on your additional details, even a 100% vaccine rate for pertussis probably would not have prevented that baby's death. Here's a article about an Australian study showing that the DTaP vaccine is no longer effective due to mutation of the bacteria. http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100209/Whooping-cough-vaccine-may-be-losing-its-punch-study.aspx



Edit: Well said, Sunny.

Answer 6

As a mum of 3 girls and yes one with special needs (not autism), the risk of not vaccinating and contracting a bug that could make my daughter sick far outweighs those risks of vaccinating. There will always be some people who believe or disbelieve the MMR theory. There is honestly not enough research to confirm or deny the effects but in my situation with a child that already was born with special needs (chromosome disorder) I have chosen to vaccinate all of my girls and I'm grateful for it and so are they as they have very rarely been sick even if there has been an epidemic going around such as whooping cough not long ago. I believe that if there is a weak link in the genetics, yes a "side effect" can be autism but there would have to have been the tendency there in the first place whether it be on the mother's side or father's side.

This is just my opinion though and it certainly wont stop me from vaccinating my children in the future.

Answer 7

I'm getting checked to make sure my vaccinations are up to date. I teach and I have a kid in my class with the mumps. We're seeing about getting the school policy changed to require vaccinations and expelling him if his mom won't comply. This could be a nightmare. Thank goodness for private schools.



And go, Weise! Nice to see someone with an intelligent response.

Answer 8

I was aware of it; however I still do not vaccinate as Autism was never my original reason for not vaccinating.



What I don't quite understand, is why we (humankind) seem to have everything backwards. In other words, most people these days, instead of first asking , 'Where are the studies that show vaccines are beneficial in the first place?' instead they skip this question entirely and move on to 'Where are the studies that show vaccines cause (insert side effect)?' Assuming that vaccines are effective without even questioning it. The truth is, vaccines have never been proven to be effective. In fact, they have been proven to be otherwise. More than half of all people involved in breakouts are fully, RECENTLY, vaccinated.



The reason most people give for their assumption that vaccines are beneficial and necessary is that the diseases have been eradicated or brought under control by vaccines. FACT: The death rate from infectious diseases began its decline about 20 years before mass vaccination was introduced.



If you are not convinced, take a look at this: http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/immunization.html



In addition to this; even if the vaccines were 'effective'--come on. Diptheria? Mumps? Measles? In non-vaccinated individuals these diseases do not take atypical form. In other words they are normal, and they have normal symptoms. When a vaccinated person catches the disease it is usually an atypical form which is more dangerous and far more likely to result in death. But in a non-vaccinated person the disease is controlled normally by the immune system and is easily treated.



Also, AUTISM ASIDE, there are several other side effects that are plainly admitted to by just about everyone. Statistics from the CDC state low occurrences of moderate to serious side effects; yet an estimated 90% of moderate to serious side effects are NOT reported. Why? Doctors are reluctant to actually place blame for anything on vaccines.



When you think about it, we are trying to play God with this vaccine BS. We were not meant to inject foreign substances into our bodies. They are perfect as they are. My thoughts? If a thing isn't natural; it's probably not beneficial. Think about the serious mistakes that have been made in the past. Doctors used to recommend smoking cigarettes for general well-being. Women were instructed to wash their privates with Lysol and in this way many women unwittingly sterilized themselves and burned away their insides. People used to think circumcision prevents cancer, curvature of the spine, masturbation and several other ridiculous things. Formula was at one time believed to be superior to breastmilk.



We now know these are all untruths, of course; but what makes you think we are completely right about everything else as well, including vaccinations-considering these mistaken beliefs that were held in the past? The only true way to know anything is to ask yourself if it's something natural and instinctive. Would vaccination occur to you if you lived alone in the wild? No. Then it must not be necessary and probably isn't beneficial.

Answer 9

I was aware. I have never been fully convinced of the Autism Theory myself, but I do not completely disbelieve it either. As a mother, I personally cannot disregard the many accounts from other mothers of their child changing literally overnight after a round of vaccinations.



All that being said, all 3 of my boys (6, 3, and 1) are all completely unvaccinated. I made this decision after much research and it has nothing to do with the Autism Theory. There are many more concerns, when it comes to vaccinations, than just that.

Answer 10

I was aware, but thanks for sharing in case somebody wasn't and in 2 minds whether to vaccinate or not. I think "Dr" Wakefield was lucky not to be struck off by the GMC and has caused significant damage. His research methods were appalling, his study severely flawed with no creditable evidence, and thanks to him the cases of measles have soared since 1998 when the MMR uptake dropped. Measles can, and does, kill healthy children.



The fact that his "research" has been withdrawn from a medical journal speaks volumes. MMR does not cause autism.



My daughter has had the jab; this little one will too.



--edit--

ah see this is an Australian post. Yeah the case has been very well publicised here in UK, and thankfully MMR uptake is increasing again!

Answer 11

Both sides have their own reasons for why they do or do not vaccinate and each mother is entitled to her own opinion and, in American at least, we are a free country so each side has their own rights. HOWEVER...



If you put a vaccinated child around other children the vaccinated child won't be infringing upon their rights. But the same can not be said for the reverse. An un-vaccinated child can more easily spread disease which DOES infringe upon the rights of parents and children who would not otherwise have gotten sick if the child had been either properly vaccinated or kept away from the general public until the children in their age group had passed a point where they had received all their vaccinations and would be relatively safe around a child like this.



I have no problem with mothers wanting to retain their rights but I do have a problem where my rights and the rights of my children are taken away just so those mothers can enforce theirs. If you don't want to vaccinate, fine, but keep your child home, start your own school, whatever - but keep them away from my kids.



Anyone who doesn't think un-vaccinated children spread and contract diseases more than vaccinated children either doesn't care and just want things their way or they don't pay attention to the reports that areas in America and Europe with a high population of un-vaccinated children/adults have reported and documented HUNDREDS of cases of increased outbreaks.

Answer 12

When things go wrong people look to blame someone or something for it. I think it helps people cope if they can put a reason to it. For a few children that have got Autism it seems vaccinations got the blame. Autism happens. Sometimes there isn't a reason or anything to blame. I chose to get my child vaccinated.

I'll tell you If my newborn who hasn't been able to be vaccinated yet caught something off another child whos parents had chosen not to immunise them and died i would be in a rage. There negligence had caused the death of my child. I think it should be a criminal offence.

Answer 13

I was aware of the controversy, but the fear of autism is not why I don't vaccinate. Thanks though. ;)



Edit: Wow, hello, rant much?? I'll have you know that every single parent I know in real life and online who does not vaccinate is EXTREMELY well-researched on the topic. We're not imbeciles, and our children's health and welll-being is why we keep them vaccine-free. Lucky for both of us we have the freedom to choose either way eh? Calm down and respect parental choice.



Edit: silvermist, I didn't imply any such thing. I cannot make you feel something you don't already feel. Non-vaxers believe the shots do more harm than good, so why would my statement somehow be an insult?? Besides, I NEVER said (nor do I think) that parents who vaccinate somehow love their children less than those who do not vaccinate. We simply disagree. Parents like me are the ones being called abusive, neglectful and stupid, so why are you so offended?

Answer 14

This is all old news. Here in the US they have done many studies on vaccines and know that they are not linked to autism (heard it on the news last week). Personally I think autism linked to something that us pregnant women are in contact with everyday and our bodies handle it differently. Even foods that we eat can cause issues. My ob even said the same thing, she doesn't think vaccines have anything to do with autism what so ever. Just another thing for them to make other people worry which is stupid because moms/dads are choosing not to get their child vaccinated because they "think" their child is going to have autism. It's stupid! Vaccines are important to get especially these days.



*Also I have 2 little cousins who both have autism. From the same parents and are 2 years apart. Boy and a girl. Even when they were just tiny you could tell something wasn't "right" with them and of course they were diagnosed with autism. Very behind on their learning on crawling/walking/talkng and so on. And to have that happening to both of your children is crazy I think. They lived out on a farm, so who knowssomething out there could of caused that to happen. Anything is possible.

Answer 15

Yes.



It has also been proven that he was acting unethically because he was gaining money from people not getting their children vaccinated!

Answer 16

I was aware , its something I have been following, and always read up on new evidence when the MMR time rolled around for each child.





Ѕɩᴌᴠᴇʀᴍɩѕᴛ -

► UK mother of 4 ◄

♥ 6y/o girl, 4y/o twin boys, 17m/o boy ♥





**** Irritated lactivist - you say "and our children's health and welll-being is why we keep them vaccine free". As a vaccinating mother i also want the best for my kids but your statment implies that we do not have their best interests in mind when we vaccinate. You are 110% entitled to your opinion but cleverly masking an insult is quite offensive

Answer 17

I was aware, and am also aware of countless publications since that have also disproved the supposed links. funny that the anti-vax movement in australia still cling to this article and 'Dr' wakefield like rats to a floating log

Answer 18

I was aware of this recent retraction and just want to say...THANK F***. I know morons that don't have their kids immunised based on this crappy research! Pro immunisation and get P***ED when my child has to be around others that are not. Particularly as she is still young and not completed all immunisations. Di**heads! Diseases actually maim and kill children...show me some genuine and credible research that has the same LEVEL of mortality and permanent disability from immunisations compared to not immunising. Aren't developing countries a good example of this?

Answer 19

This is old news, it was de-mythed a long time ago.



Get with it lol! ; )