[quote]The medical journal which originally published the discredited research linking autism and MMR has now issued a full retraction of the paper.
The Lancet said it now accepted claims made by the researchers were "false".
It comes after Dr Andrew Wakefield, the lead researcher in the 1998 paper, was ruled last week to have broken research rules by the General Medical Council.
The publication caused vaccination rates to plummet, resulting in a rise in measles.
The Lancet had already issued a partial retraction.
In 2004, editors argued they had been right to publish it as the journal was there to "raise new ideas".
But they accepted that, in hindsight, they may not have after accusations of a conflict of interest - Dr Wakefield was in the pay of solicitors who were acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR.
But this move goes further by accepting the research was fundamentally flawed because of a lack of ethical approval and the way the children's illnesses were presented.
The statement added: "We fully retract this paper from the published record."
Last week, the GMC ruled Dr Wakefield had shown a "callous disregard" for children and acted "dishonestly" while he carried out his research. It will decide later whether to strike him off the medical register.
The regulator only looked at how he acted during the research not whether the findings were right or wrong - although they have been widely discredited by medical experts across the world in the years since publication.
After the hearing, Dr Wakefield, who now lives and works in the US, said the findings were "unjust and unfounded".
Dr David Elliman, consultant in Community Child Health at Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children, said the Lancet's decision was a reasonable one.
"To be fair to the Lancet, they did publish a commentary at the time urging caution that wasn't picked up.
"I think the reality of the world today is that academic papers on major public health issues do not remain the property of academia.
"Therefore it is incumbent on us all in science, in journals and in the media to be very certain of the strength of a study before rushing to publish, and to be aware of the potential effects."[/quote]
Source: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493753.stm[/url]
i dont get it :saddowns:
[QUOTE=KanonieR;19994008]i dont get it :saddowns:[/QUOTE]
Quick gaze over it : Parents with biased interest pay the researcher -> Surprise surprise the research came out just as the parents hoped for, but was the researcher faking the results in one way or another?
I did about this last year as coursework
A bit late eh?
[QUOTE=radioactive;19994568]A bit late eh?[/QUOTE]
On a news that BBC released today?
Everyone with half a brain called their claims fake when they were published, nothing went wrong with people that were given the MMR jab.
The claims were discredited the moment they were published but this is cool too.
Unfortunately the damage is already done. European and American measles and rubella eradication projects have been stalled because of this study, both regions were supposed to be completely free of the diseases by 2010.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
