Scientific Researches With Wrong Conclusions; MMR Vaccine ad Autism

Have you tried submitting a research work the publications do their best to ensure that the study being posted on their journal isn't crap or shoddy and if scientist manage to pass their strict measures getting the study posted, it is often retracted and at this point, we know that the journal doesn't support the conclusions of the paper.

There are a lot of papers that when you read through them and see their conclusions, you begin to wonder why they are still there even when we know the truth now, or other publications have proven them wrong. For me, one of the reasons why those papers are still left is for educational purposes like what I am about to do today. I want to look into some studies that we thought were correct as a result of their conclusion but today we have see that they are not in anyway correct.

nzherald

Autism spectrum is estimated to be a health problem in about 1 in 100 children and a lot of people still believe till date that vaccines are the cause of autism when there are a lot of research that shows other wise. First, Vaccination of children do not cause autism in them but due to a paper published in 1998 that wasn't retracted until 2010, a lot of people believe that vaccination causes autism.

A doctor, Andrew Wakefield was responsible for this misinformation. He led a research into measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and autism causation. He then came to a conclusion that the onset of autism was linked to a gut disorder which was caused by the MMR vaccine administered to children. A lot of people believed the study and this was because people were looking to blame something for the cause of autism which was on the rise.

The study had red flags and scientists and the scientific community were not going to leave it easily. It received a lot of backlash just like almost every study published. The doctor only looked at 12 children whose parents suspected already that vaccination could have been the cause of their children getting autism. The research was leading wrongly because the purpose of the research was because the parents believed that the vaccine was responsible for their children developing autism.

birminghamdispatch

The paper also did a lot of wrong things like the values of gut inflammation which was presented for adult and not for children, which indicated that the researchers didn't do their due diligence with the research. The study was published on The Lancet and it will never be forgotten for publishing it.

Things started to take a different turn when The British Medical Journal in 2011 published an investigation by a journalist Brian Deer where he mentioned that the doctor who performed the study in 1998 was paid to perform the study as they wanted to sue vaccine companies and needed a scientific backing. This was ethically wrong and the children were just placed under different procedures for the purpose of a research that was only motivated for the purpose of making money.

freemalaysiatoday

Meta-analysis in 2014 of 10 observational studies on childhood vaccines with 5 cohort studies and 5 case–control studies were looked at and 2 cohort studies and 4 case–control studies showed something different and didn't associate the MMR vaccine to autism. In 2010, The Lancet retracted the journal and Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license due to the unethical behavior of his.

After the meta-analysis, studies have been done that have proven the previous research wrong. A study in 2019 with over 650,000 children came with a conclusion that there was no relationship between MMR vaccine (which is 97% effective against against measles, 88% effective against Mumps, and 97% against Rubella) and autism.

The science world is filled with papers that might have been released at the time when people wanted it or needed something to blame and one of such was the MMR vaccine and autism. A lot of these papers end up not being what they when other researchers decide to carry out the same study again. I will be sharing different paper like this that have been proven to be wrong.

---

---

^Reference

---

---

^{https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6768751/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/}