Lancet retracts MMR link to autism
By Andrew Jack in London [FT]
Published: February 2 2010 21:03 | Last updated: February 2 2010 21:03
The research paper that triggered claims linking autism to the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella was yesterday formally retracted by the Lancet, the medical journal that published it more than a decade ago.
Following a ruling last week by the General Medical Council that Dr Andrew Wakefield had breached his professional duties, the Lancet said in a statement on its website that he had made false claims in his 1998 paper and concluded: “We fully retract this paper from the published record.”
With Dr Wakefield until now able to boost his credibility by citing the Lancet paper, the journal’s action marks a symbolic step in the saga, which led many parents to refuse the MMR vaccine for their children and sparked a surge in infections and health problems.
But it also raises broader questions about the way in which Dr Wakefield’s research was originally scrutinised by an ethics committee at the Royal Free Hospital in London where he then worked, and the fact that a subsequent investigation into his work by the hospital concluded the investigations conducted on children were “appropriate”.
The original Lancet paper made only the cautious link that parents “associated” behavioural symptoms of their children with MMR, balanced by a critical editorial comment at the time and a subsequent series of letters, as well as a partial retraction of the original paper by some of Dr Wakefield’s co-authors.
However, Dr Wakefield’s subsequent calls for separate vaccines for the different infections – including an experimental product under development by a company in which he had an interest – came under sharp scrutiny as MMR vaccination rates fell sharply in some parts of the UK, and infections rose.
Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, said he had decided in 2004 not to retract the paper after the Royal Free investigation concluded it was “entirely satisfied” with its ethical scrutiny.
“The big flaw is that everyone takes the whole system on trust and if trust breaks down, everything collapses,” he said, adding that the Lancet now imposed much tougher peer review on controversial papers, withholding those judged likely to spark public misinterpretation.
University College London, which is responsible for the Royal Free, said: “The statement in 2004 reflected our view in the light of the information then available.” <snip>
===============================================================
The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 2 February 2010
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-7Cite or Link Using DOI
Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children
Original Text
The Editors of The Lancet a
Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.2 In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were "consecutively referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.
References
1 Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637-641. Summary | Full Text | PDF(758KB) | CrossRef | PubMed
2 Hodgson H. A statement by The Royal Free and University College Medical School and The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust. Lancet 2004; 363: 824. Full Text | PDF(37KB) | CrossRef | PubMed
|
