Not GL: MMR/autism

KlassyWithaK

This news came out yesterday. To summarize the article (and others I've read), the doctor that claimed that MMR shots caused autism has been found unethical, his data was falsified, and the journal that published it has retracted the article from publication.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html?iref=allsearch

Since this article, there has been a huge increase in the number parents have refused to vaccinate their children. Do you think we'll see a trend in the opposite direction in the next few years? Would this make you question other possible causes of autism as well?

Or am I just weirdly excited about this topic?

Tambcat

I think the people who have decided vaccines are suspect will continue to believe they are suspect, unfortunately. I do think this retraction will reduce the number of new mothers foregoing vaccination to some extent over time, though.

*speedracer*

that study has been known to be total crap for years now, and that hasn't deterred anyone in the antivax camp.  the media sensationalized the scary stuff for more than a decade, i don't think that can ever be undone.  i think in general dr wakefield hurt the credibility of science and skeptics will continue to be skeptical over any research that supports a conclusion they aren't comfortable with.

i'm glad the lancet retracted it but IMO it's too little too late.

KlassyWithaK

*speedracer*:

that study has been known to be total crap for years now, and that hasn't deterred anyone in the antivax camp.  the media sensationalized the scary stuff for more than a decade, i don't think that can ever be undone.  i think in general dr wakefield hurt the credibility of science and skeptics will continue to be skeptical over any research that supports a conclusion they aren't comfortable with.

i'm glad the lancet retracted it but IMO it's too little too late.

I actually like that he hurt the credibility of "science". Some parents (a handful at least) may look at this and wonder "What else did I think about autism that might not be true?" This study not only discredits the vaccination myth, but also discredits heavy metal poisoning and chelation therapy as well. It also might get parents to think objectively about gluten-casein free diets as well. And any other misguided therapy that they have reached out to in desperation to help their child. Even if that means that they question the work I do as well.

foundmylazybum

KlassyWithaK:

*speedracer*:

that study has been known to be total crap for years now, and that hasn't deterred anyone in the antivax camp.  the media sensationalized the scary stuff for more than a decade, i don't think that can ever be undone.  i think in general dr wakefield hurt the credibility of science and skeptics will continue to be skeptical over any research that supports a conclusion they aren't comfortable with.

i'm glad the lancet retracted it but IMO it's too little too late.

I actually like that he hurt the credibility of "science". Some parents (a handful at least) may look at this and wonder "What else did I think about autism that might not be true?" This study not only discredits the vaccination myth, but also discredits heavy metal poisoning and chelation therapy as well. It also might get parents to think objectively about gluten-casein free diets as well. And any other misguided therapy that they have reached out to in desperation to help their child. Even if that means that they question the work I do as well.

That may be true, but the way people "question" is completely bogus and I have seen it here with BPA. They believe media as well as crap science--have no idea how to find and evaluate the difference between good peer reviewed articles and bad peer reviewed articles, they don't know what a testing error IS let alone that there are many different kinds, and in general they have a distrust of science, the government or agency that pays to have research done..."Ohhh did you see that this work was done by someone who worked for so and so--can't be credible!" They then don't look at the study at all.  

Adb6283

I have to say, being PG I was thinking and wondering about this, but in one of my classes the teacher brought up some more recent, really interesting stuff that changed my mind.  I have my own opinions on what's causing the autism anyway (how about possibly the chemicals in our food that weren't there years ago...hmmmm?)

She mentioned a couple studies, but basically after they removed the mercury from the vaccines, the cases of autism still continued to rise.

Additionally, other studies showed that with babies, you could see signs of autism in utero in the brain development (In cases where they had to do scans of young babies if mom was in car accidents and such.  Also, when measuring the head circumference, in non-autistic babies, it's a linear line the first year growth wise.  In autistic children, it's a stair step pattern - rapid growth, plateau, rapid growth, plateau.  So they utlimately end up at the same place, but grow differently.

They still aren't sure how/why though, but I found that really interesting.

*speedracer*

foundmylazybum:

That may be true, but the way people "question" is completely bogus and I have seen it here with BPA. They believe media as well as crap science--have no idea how to find and evaluate the difference between good peer reviewed articles and bad peer reviewed articles, they don't know what a testing error IS let alone that there are many different kinds, and in general they have a distrust of science, the government or agency that pays to have research done..."Ohhh did you see that this work was done by someone who worked for so and so--can't be credible!" They then don't look at the study at all.  

yeah this is what i meant.  if the lancet is publishing crap studies, how do people know anything else they publish is going to be reputable or not?  i think it's good to have a healthy bit of skepticism, but in general, i've found that people are guided by their emotions moreso than the facts.  the media knows this and they prey on it.  How many times have we seen on these boards that parents "feel" that getting 2 or 3 shots is "too many" at one time - regardless of what the vaccines even are?  the data can't compete with that - a parent's intuition trumps it [almost] every time.

foundmylazybum

Thumbs up Speedy. I should have said from the beginning I was on the same page as you ;D. 

*speedracer*

we can share pages anytime you want

*mwah*

JewelsEF

Has anyone heard of the Jenny McCarthy Diet?  Basically she believes she cured her son's autism through his diet but there is no scientific data to confirms this.  She also thought vaccines might have something to do with it.  I do think diet can have a huge effect, especially considering GMOs.  I think diet could improve it but not cure it.

CurbsideProphet

KlassyWithaK:

Since this article, there has been a huge increase in the number parents have refused to vaccinate their children. Do you think we'll see a trend in the opposite direction in the next few years?

hopefully. I am not surprised that the original data is flawed/unethical.  From the little I read about it, it seemed questionable.