

Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds - there
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

======
johngalt
I don't understand the Anti-Vaccine crowd. I see no possible way for what they
espouse to be morally responsible. Without vaccines the mortality rate of
children to these diseases would be higher than the total rate of autism. This
means that you would have more kids die than get autism even if _every_ case
of autism was directly caused by a vaccine.

This leaves us with two options for the beliefs of the anti-vaccination crowd.

1\. They believe that a dead child is better than one with autism.

2\. They are comfortable letting everyone else's children take the "risk" of
getting a vaccine while they sit back and rely on herd immunity.

~~~
Mz
Those aren't the only two options. But I mostly avoid discussions like this on
HN because the atmosphere here is pretty openly judgmental and hostile (a la
your remark) so I don't see any real good coming out of trying to discuss it.
It doesn't help that anyone here who is anti-vax tends to post in these
threads in a manner that just promotes the view that we are all extremist
nutcases, unfamiliar with basic logic, etc. So posting the type of remark you
have just posted (in a forum that is already pretty biased on the topic) is
highly unlikely to get you a real explanation of a third option. Thus you get
your own "confirmation bias" stuff going on.

Peace.

~~~
pharrington
The reason people are so hostile about this is because the anti-vaccination
belief is objectively wrong and literally fatal. It is directly analogous to
believing AIDS isn't spread by HIV.

~~~
Mz
I don't think it's quite that simple. Most scientific views boil down to
"belief" -- by that I mean that most people are essentially taking the word of
some expert or other without themselves genuinely understanding it and, also,
the lovely drawings of the solar system, tectonic plates, etc that you find in
scientific materials are basically made up fantasies. If you used any kind of
meaningful scale for the solar system, it would not fit on the pages of any
book. In 8th grade, the entire class was asked to do a model of the solar
system. I was sick and missed a bunch of school and turned mine in late. The
teacher was trying to ding me hard for not having a scale. Then I explained
that I had run the calculations and if I used 1mm = approx 33 million miles,
then Mercury would be about 1mm from the sun, Venus would be about 2mm from
the sun, Earth would be about 3mm from the sun and Pluto would be about 100
meters plus 8 millimeters and the model wouldn't even fit in the classroom.
Tectonic plate drawings are basically a mental model and while you can find
geologic evidence of them, they don't look as nice and clean as the drawings
suggest and it was a very controversial theory for like the first 50 years,
IIRC.

So I think most arguments like this boil down to "belief" on both sides and it
is usually pointless to try to sway the other side. I didn't stop vaccinating
based on "scientific" anything. I stopped because the people who had
information that was getting me healthier all were anti-vax. So I stopped
based on "social proof", so to speak -- which isn't really any different than
most folks who believe their scientists and doctors are correct but they think
it is vastly different, so my "social proof" only damns me as it is viewed as
further evidence that I am a fruitcake.

So I generally make no effort to argue the science involved.

Peace.

~~~
pharrington
Your "social proof" has a name, its called anecdotes. While occasionally
reasonable in the small scale, it is absurd to believe local observations have
any merit in the grand scale.

"Most scientific views boil down to 'belief'" this almost sounds like your
saying that nothing can truly be knowable. This is the path of nilism, not
reason.

Science has a rigorous process, peer review being part of it. One does not
have to be an _expert_ in the field to read numerous studies, evaluate their
methodology, reason as to whether the conclusion actually matches the
data+experiments, and see if the results across the studies were consistent.
This isn't an act of faith.

~~~
Mz
Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life for introducing a
new concept. It took many years for Einstein's theory to get sufficient proof
as to be accepted. Einstein himself said something like "You cannot solve a
problem from the same level of consciousness that created it". I think it is
reasonable to assume that our current medical assumptions are part of the
problem when it comes to autism, which has reached "epidemic proportions"
according to some articles.

I am not suggesting a path of nihilism. I am only suggesting that I recognize
that the reasons I do things and the thinking I use to make such decisions
doesn't look very "logical" to quite a lot of people. This is highly likely to
be true for people arguing from the "scientific" position. Yet, we are all
human, even scientists, and thus even they have their biases, shortcomings,
etc. I made the choice I made not due to anecdotal evidence but due to a track
record of success: These people were helping me get concrete results in terms
of a health problem for which "science" would like to write me off and consign
me to a slow, torturous death as my only due in life. These same people had
strong negative views of vaccines. I went with the folks who were getting me
positive results. My other choice is to go along with conventional treatments
for my condition. Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker
until they die, usually at a young age. Science claims it is not killing them,
it is their genes that is killing them.

To me, that position lacks logic -- but the overwhelming belief is that it is
true, so that makes me a lone nutcase. And it is usually a hopelessly lost
cause to attempt to point this out when everyone "just knows" they are right,
science and doctors are on their side, and I am "objectively" wrong, nevermind
the results I am getting. Those results can be easily dismissed as
"anecdotal". I didn't get well to impress anyone or make any kind of point. I
only did this to get my life back (and give my kids a life of their own). So
it is mostly not worth arguing about. Those folks who do not believe me cannot
be convinced. The fact that it is a done deal weighs nothing in their minds.

Peace.

~~~
rimantas
Galileo did not introduce the new concept. And he was put under house arrest
by scientists. Your point about Einstein just confirms that science is not
about belief, but about proof. Your reference to science in quotes is really
off-putting.

    
    
      Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker until they die,
      usually at a young age.
    

Sounds like you know everyone and their condition. Can it be? Your position is
based on logical fallacies. Does not look like you are even trying to
understand why people do not believe you.

Orange.

~~~
Mz
I put a great deal of effort into trying to understand why people do not
believe me. I am well aware that many don't because they are basically
incredulous -- what I am saying flies in the face of everything they know to
be true. It is not only hard to believe, it is very upsetting to believe
because it calls into question the trustworthiness of their doctor, which is
very threatening when you have a deadly medical condition.

Currently, the average life expectancy in the US for people with CF is about
37. I have talked to quite a few people online -- there are only about 30,000
diagnosed cases of CF in the US and some lists have hundreds of members, some
of whom have more than one family member with CF. I don't know "everyone" but
it is a small enough community to know quite a good cross section of such
people via the internet. The folks who are doing better than expected
generally make a lot of dietary and lifestyle changes and do a lot of
research. The details of what they do and what they think may vary from what I
do and what I think, but dietary changes are a very consistent aspect of what
I have seen work for this population.

~~~
eitally
Anecdotally, most people -- whether they have CF or not -- would be well
served to make significant dietary and lifestyle changes. Having a life
threatening disease just provides more incentive for this to take precedence
over many people's personal mantra of immediate gratification and lack of
serious introspection.

This doesn't really have any bearing on the efficacy of vaccines, though.
Perhaps certain lifestyle changes do dramatically reduce susceptibility to
certain diseases, but that doesn't mean one should also rule out current
scientific literature.

~~~
Mz
I don't rule out current scientific literature. I just keep in mind that it
has its own biases and that view informs my interpretation and use of it.

For example, I am not aware of any studies concerning making dietary changes
to control inflammation in people with CF. However, I am aware of many drug
studies that show that controlling inflammation in people with CF does reduce
incidence of infection. Those studies are generally conducted by drug
companies, whose agenda is to develop products to sell (in this case, drugs).
The detail that reducing inflammation in people with CF also reduces infection
is useful information to me. The fact that they only seem to study which drugs
can be useful in this regard while apparently completely ignoring diet and
lifestyle is something I view as inherent bias in the source.

I am not a drug company with an agenda to develop a product and/or find a good
reason to sell high doses of an existing product to very ill people. I am an
individual who was once extremely ill and wanted to suffer less. (I had no
goal of "getting well" initially. I just wanted to take less medication and be
less miserable.) So I parse out which pieces of such studies are useful
neutral information and which pieces smack of bias and agenda. "Reduce
inflammation to reduce infection" is valuable information. "Take boatloads of
our drugs (such high doses they have to run liver tests and closely monitor
you)" smacks of agenda and bias and, frankly, callous disregard for my welfare
in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Peace.

------
philk
The sad thing is even though the study has been thoroughly discredited[1], it
continues to hang around and be cited by anti-vaccine activists.

[1] Even sadder is that they cite Wakefield being exposed as a fraud as
evidence of tampering by "Big Pharma".

~~~
hartror
I get the impression that the tide has turned in the battle, and we should
start seeing an improvement in vaccination rates over the next few years. Pity
there will be a large lag as children who weren't immunized grow up and
continue to get sick from these preventable diseases.

~~~
jerf
There doesn't have to be a lag; if you have not gotten or spread the disease
but get your immunization late, no concrete damage has occurred. It's not like
the immunizations _only_ work when you're two, they'll work anytime.

~~~
hartror
Absolutely, but once a child has left the normal cycle of immunization either
the parents or the government need to make an effort to get them up to date.
IMO this by and large won't happen without either policies in place or a large
public interest campaign directed at it.

~~~
yardie
Are children still accepted into schools without their vaccinations? I know
when I was a kid I had to bring a card with all my shots or they wouldn't
enroll me. So has this requirement been dropped?

And to get a VISA for some countries you need to bring that card.

~~~
bm98
In most US states, a parent can apply for a religious exemption that will
allow them to enroll their child in school without one or more of the required
immunizations. Some states even offer "philosophical" exemptions.

The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a list of exemption
statutes by state:

<http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14376>

------
jdp23
The study's author "misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12
of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study." Oh, and he
was paid by a law firm which was looking to sue vaccine manufacturers.

The net result: vaccination rates dropped, and measles cases have gone up
sharply.

------
jerf
Poking around a bit, the British Medical Journal itself has a much more in-
depth and interesting article on the web, which the CNN story is but a pale
reflection of: <http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full>

~~~
jdp23
great link, definitely worth reading the full BMJ article.

Here's a quote from the senior clinician on the project, after the journalist
presented information from one of the parents that conflicted with the data in
the study: “Well I can’t really comment,” he said. “You really touch on an
area which I don’t think should be debated like this. And I think these
parents are wrong to discuss such details, where you could be put in a
position of having a lot of medical details and then try to match it with
this, because it is a confidential matter.”

no wonder why so many people are losing trust in science ...

------
carey
This isn't particularly new; here’s an article with more details from August
2008, from Ben Goldacre’s book _Bad Science_ :
<http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/>

Also worth reading is Roald Dahl’s account of his eldest daughter’s measles
infection at <http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=715> .

~~~
hartror
The latest developments being reported are new. Previously the study had been
found to be erroneous, it is now been decided parts of the study are outright
fraudulent.

There is a big difference between fraud and making mistakes. Mistakes in study
methodology or in drawing conclusions are expected to happen in science, hence
the peer review process. Fraud on the other hand usually ends a scientist's
career.

------
jayzee
Wow. It boggles the mind that somebody, a physician no less, would jeopardize
children all over the world for half a million dollars. It is beyond
comprehension.

~~~
philwelch
In two respects, really--first, that it's reprehensible for a physician to
jeopardize people's lives in this way, and second, that the magnitude of the
motive (only half a million dollars) is nowhere close to the magnitude of this
evil.

------
apedley
These conversations never go well.

They are valid arguments to either side and nothing is conculsive. I think it
is best to do your own research from medical journals/studies etc and do what
you think is best for your children.

I think that is one thing everyone here has in common, we all want to do what
is best for our children.

~~~
neworbit
Seems like the summary of the research is that there is a BLATANTLY FRAUDULENT
argument on one side.

Erroneous consensus or agreement to disagree is NOT superior to objective
truth.

------
IvarTJ
This has been known for several years by people who have followed Brian Deer’s
investigations and the Autism Omnibus Proceedings.

At the same time there have been massive targeting of parents of autistic
children by quack therapists.

------
yannk
What's the name of the law firm? This is criminal.

------
aj700
can someone get Jenny McCarthy's view on this. She was a believer.

~~~
ceejayoz
It'll be something along the lines of "Big Pharma did a hit job on him".

------
davidj
Vaccines do cause autism. Here is a peer reviewed paper in the journal of
Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, the abstract:

Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity,
degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level
exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds Authors: D. A. Geiera; P. G.
Kingb; M. R. Geierc

Abstract Thimerosal (ethylmercurithiosalicylic acid), an ethylmercury
(EtHg)-releasing compound (49.55% mercury (Hg)), was used in a range of
medical products for more than 70 years. Of particular recent concern, routine
administering of Thimerosal-containing biologics/childhood vaccines have
become significant sources of Hg exposure for some fetuses/infants. This study
was undertaken to investigate cellular damage among in vitro human neuronal
(SH-SY-5Y neuroblastoma and 1321N1 astrocytoma) and fetal (nontransformed)
model systems using cell vitality assays and microscope-based digital image
capture techniques to assess potential damage induced by Thimerosal and other
metal compounds (aluminum (Al) sulfate, lead (Pb)(II) acetate, methylmercury
(MeHg) hydroxide, and mercury (Hg)(II) chloride) where the cation was reported
to exert adverse effects on developing cells. Thimerosal-associated cellular
damage was also evaluated for similarity to pathophysiological findings
observed in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (ADs). Thimerosal-
induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent
mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular
degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model
systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced
significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-
induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies.
Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal
compounds examined. Future studies need to be conducted to evaluate additional
mechanisms underlying Thimerosal-induced cellular damage and assess potential
co-exposures to other compounds that may increase or decrease Thimerosal-
mediated toxicity. Keywords: autism; glial; lead; mercury; mercuric;
neurodevelopmental

[http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~...](http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~db=all~jumptype=rss)

The PDF of the paper is on the page.

This is a peer reviewed article.

Here is another one:

"Vaccines May Cause Brain Changes Found in Autism" - Journal Acta
Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 2010

[http://www.autismny.com/2/post/2010/08/vaccines-may-cause-
br...](http://www.autismny.com/2/post/2010/08/vaccines-may-cause-brain-
changes-found-in-autism-journal-acta-neurobiologiae-experimentalis-2010.html)

Nether of these papers were written by Wakefield. Just because we have a bad
scientist doesn't mean the science is flawed.

In fact, the "vaccine doesn't cause autism" scientist have been caught
creating fruad as well: Scientist who "debunked mercury vaccines" caught in
fraud, steals $2 Million, skips town A Danish scientist who was a key
researcher in two studies that purport to show that mercury used in vaccines
and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine do not cause autism is believed to
have used forged documents to steal $2 million from Aarhus University in
Denmark according to reports in the Copenenhagen Post Online and a statement
from Aarhus University.

Poul Thorsen, MD PhD, headed up a research unit at Aarhus University that was
hired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prepare a series of
studies that would exonerate thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative and
adjuvant used in vaccines, and the MMR vaccine from any role in causing
autism. The veracity of the two studies he co-authored is now in doubt.

These studies formed the foundation for the conclusions of several Institute
of Medicine reports that claimed that it was highly unlikely that thimerosal
or MMR were implicated in autism.

In a statement Aarhus University officials said that believe Thorsen forged
documents supposedly from the CDC to obtain the release of $2 million from the
University. Thorsen resigned abruptly in March 2009 and left Denmark. Since
then Thorsen has held several jobs in the US, first at Emory University in
Atlanta and then at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Documents show that as
late as January 22, 2009. Thorsen was employed at Drexel. Any reference to
Poulsen has now been deleted from the Drexel website. [http://info-
wars.org/2010/03/11/researcher-who-said-mercury-...](http://info-
wars.org/2010/03/11/researcher-who-said-mercury-in-vaccines-do-not-cause-
autism-forged-documents-to-steal-2-million-from-university/)

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Don't just vote him down, folks...he's posting links and support for his
position. Surely someone on HN is knowledgeable enough on this subject to
respond with something more detailed than clicking a down arrow...

~~~
nl
It's pretty clear this is a troll account (ie, one that exists to post
controversial statements in order to cause grief). Here are some examples:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1782355>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935416>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994504>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2041013>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2027532>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018434>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018405>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1881991>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935387>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1919731>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1914963>

I think the best response here is to down-vote and not engage beyond the
sensible rebuttal that has been posted.

~~~
davidj
those posts are my honest replies. I don't invoke name calling and try to
backup everything with sources. I do get downvoted a lot here, I do not have
multiple accounts or use my account "as a troll account." My postings are
sincere and I honestly have a dissenting viewpoint in general both online and
offline. My friends often remark that I like debates. If you disagree with me,
let me know. My philosophy in debating is that I either abandon my argument by
learning new facts about what I was wrong about, or my argument stands. I live
in the Portland Oregon area and if you would like to meet me for a beer I can
attest to this. Thanks

~~~
nl
Debate is pointless if you ignore contrary evidence.

For example, it's pretty clear that you are anti-vaccine. It's fine to hold
that opinion, but as I'm sure you've seen the overwhelming evidence against
your point of view I don't see any need in re-hashing the arguments.

In cases like this you may not be consciously trolling, but in my view arguing
a dissenting view in the face of such overwhelming evidence exhibits the same
damaging behavior patterns that a troll engages in. Given that, I think the
appropriate response is exactly the same as the response to a troll, ie: a
perfunctory link to counter evidence on Wikipedia (for the sake of casual
readers), and a downvote.

