12 years on, MMR scare story is quietly declared to be false.

04 februari 2010 i Forskningsförtroende, Nyheter av Esther | 3 kommentarer | Bokmärk eller dela

Back in 1998, the media was dominated by the “news” that the MMR vaccine can cause bowel disease and autism.
The result was panic and a steep drop in the number of vaccinations and a dramatic rise in the incidence of measles.
The story has resurfaced numerous times over the years with each new “development” generally making the front pages.
So it was with some surprise whilst browsing the BBC news website, I found tucked away in the Health news section, a short article announcing the Lancet (who originally published the paper) has finally accepted the research findings to be false.
Finally? Has it taken this generally esteemed journal all this time to reach this decision? And I see they are not trumpeting this particular news story from the roof tops.
It seems “Scare story not true” is not a headline thought to be of much interest to the public.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493753.stm

Tags: , ,

  1. Karin’s avatar

    Karin den 04 februari 2010 at 4:18 e m

    Intressant! Jag tror att jag såg eller hörde någon liten notis om detta i svensk nyhetsmedia alldeles nyligen också, men kan inte hitta det nu. Någon som vet var det var någonstans?

  2. mjn’s avatar

    mjn den 05 februari 2010 at 3:32 e m

    Men det är ju skillnad på att publicera en artikel vars resultat inte låter sig upprepas eller på något annat sätt visar sig felaktiga. Om forskningen följt god sed dras sådana artiklar inte tillbaka. Det var väl så Wakefields artikel behandlades åtminstone till 2004.

    Att dra tillbaka en artikel är ett ganska drastiskt steg och görs i princip bara efter att det visat sig att den bygger på förfalskade eller på annat sätt manipulerade data. Det var ju nu fallet med Wakefield när GMC kom fram till att han handlat oetiskt. Först då fanns det ju egentligen klara skäl att dra tillbaka artikeln.

  3. Esther’s avatar

    Esther den 10 februari 2010 at 10:42 f m

    As a general point I completely agree with you – it is indeed a serious thing to withdraw a research paper and should not be undertaken lightly. But research publications do not operate in a vacuum and this was a piece of research that had very serious implications for public health.
    The rules of the media are unfortunately different from the rules of the scientific press. The question is, how can we make sure we protect the integrity of the scientific publishing process, as you suggest, but also protect the public from ”bad science”?
    I think in this case the Lancet should have assumed more responsibilty much earlier for the consequences of the paper it printed, and the damage it caused.