Ten of the original 13 authors of a controversial 1998 medical report which implied a link between autism and the combined MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, have retracted the paper鈥檚 interpretations.
The retraction will be printed in the 6 March issue of The Lancet, which published the original paper. One author could not be reached and two others, Peter Harvey and lead author Andrew Wakefield, refused to join the retraction.
鈥淲e wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient,鈥� write the 10 authors in their retraction. 鈥淗owever, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health.鈥�
Advertisement
The original paper, which was based on parental and medical reports of just a dozen children, suggested a 鈥減ossible relation鈥� between autism, bowel disease, and MMR. The paper added it 鈥渄id not prove an association鈥�.
However, Wakefield argued in a press conference at the time that there was a case for giving children separate injections for measles, mumps, and rubella instead of a single shot for all three. This triggered a collapse in parental confidence in MMR, and uptake rates of the vaccine in the UK fell.
The retraction 鈥渋s to be strongly welcomed鈥�, says Brent Taylor, head of pediatrics and child health at the UK鈥檚 University College London. 鈥淭here is overwhelming evidence that MMR vaccine does not cause autism,鈥� Taylor told 快猫短视频, citing several of his own studies. 鈥淭his disputed paper is the only evidence in the mainstream medical press that it might.鈥�
Unpopular thinking
In the six years since the paper鈥檚 publication, MMR vaccination rates in the UK have dropped from more than 90 per cent to less than 80 per cent. 鈥淲e are expecting outbreaks of measles and mumps and a return of congenital rubella,鈥� says Taylor.
In a commentary accompanying the retraction, the journal鈥檚 editor Richard Horton emphasised the retraction is partial and that the possible link between bowel disease and autism raised in the original paper 鈥渋s a serious scientific idea 鈥� that deserves further investigation鈥�.
He defends forums that 鈥渞aise new and sometimes unpopular thinking鈥� but says 鈥渉ow we discuss this new thinking then becomes the central question to answer, not whether we should publish it or not鈥�. He suggests a neutral, non-governmental organisation such as the UK鈥檚 Consumers鈥� Association might provide a trusted and impartial public health forum.
The Lancet has been embroiled in what Horton calls an 鈥渆normously confusing鈥� debate in recent weeks after media reports revealed Wakefield did not disclose financial and professional conflicts of interest in the original paper. The UK鈥檚 medical oversight body, the General Medical Council, is considering an investigation of these charges. They include the fact that Wakefield received 拢55,000 from the UK鈥檚 legal aid board for another study to investigate whether parents had a basis to sue over a possible connection between MMR and autism.
Journal reference: The Lancet (vol 363, p 747)