![]() Translational Science charged Mawson et al $2,000 to publish their study.Īdditionally, both journals' commitment to the peer-review process is questionable at best. These types of journals profit from academia's relentless focus on publication by charging large publishing fees in lieu of editorial oversight. The journals that published the study are just as a problematic as the donors, though for different reasons: both journals have been accused of predatory practices. Web sites such as Age of Autism ran ads calling for donations to Generation Rescue, containing an explicit statement that the money would go toward funding the study. Mawson’s vaccine study was funded by two anti-vaccine groups: Generation Rescue, founded by anti-vaccine activist Jenny McCarthy, and the Children's Medical Safety Research Institute, founded by vaccine skeptic Claire Dwoskin. Mawson, who signed a petition called "We Support Andrew Wakefield," alleged in a 2011 lawsuit that he lost an academic post due to his views on vaccine safety. Wakefield had also filed a patent for a replacement MMR vaccine that he hoped to develop. At the time of the study, Wakefield was working with a lawyer to create a class-action lawsuit against makers of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Wakefield first proposed the connection between vaccination and autism in a 12-child case study built with data that was misrepresented and collected without ethical approval, a work that has since been retracted. Though hailed by some blog posts as a truly “independent” research project, the lead author of the study, Anthony Mawson, is far from an impartial player in this debate: he is a vocal supporter of Andrew Wakefield, a controversial doctor who is arguably the the father of the anti-vaccine movement. The Researchers, Their Funding, and the “Peer-Reviewed” Journals As of, however, the study reappeared on that journal's website with no public comment for why it was removed or returned.Īs we will describe below, these de facto retractions and high level of scrutiny stem not from a conspiracy to silence work critical of the medical establishment, but from the myriad ethical, methodological, and quantitative problems inherent in the study and to the research group behind it. This Translational Science version, as well, was pulled from the website with some reports that it had been retracted as well. The only problem? The paper is a identical version of a paper briefly published in Frontiers in Public Health in 2016 before being disowned by the publisher. The anti-vaccine website Age of Autism, which also helped raise money for the study, reported its findings in glowing terms:Īs parents have long expected, the rate of autism is significantly higher in the vaccinated group, a finding that could shake vaccine safety claims just as the first president who has ever stated a belief in a link between vaccines and autism has taken office. Using an online survey of 415 mothers of homeschooled children, the study concluded that vaccines can increase the risk of neurological developmental disorders, particularly in cases of preterm birth. Children") neatly solved the problem of withholding vaccines by surveying parents who had already chosen not to vaccinate their children. The study (titled "Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-Year Old U.S. Released to heavy promotional fanfare on anti-vaccine websites and social media, a 24 April 2017 study published by the Journal of Translational Science claimed to be that Grail. ![]() Vaccine skeptic groups, who reject the wide body of scientific literature refuting that link between vaccines and autism, have long sought such a study, but they’ve been hampered by practical concerns, most notably the ethical implications of withholding vaccines from a large group of children. In April 2017, anti-vaccine groups seemed to have finally gotten what amounted to the Holy Grail for their cause: an allegedly large-scale, peer-reviewed study showing the links between vaccines and autism among a large population of children.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |