Tag: retracted

Who Is Romain Gherardi?

Have you noticed that anti-vaccine folks like to elevate the status of anyone who says things that they agree with?

So a scientist or researcher who suggests that vaccines are dangerous is all of a sudden a leader in their field or the very best in the world.

In the real world, it doesn’t work like that…

You have to earn your reputation.

Who Is Romain Gherardi?

Well, I guess that works both ways.

Most of the researchers that anti-vaccine folks praise have indeed earned a reputation, just not the kind they would like.

So who is Romain Gherardi?

Gherardi thinks that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines may be associated with autism.

He is basically a French researcher who thinks that the aluminum in vaccines is bad and scares folks with his poorly done studies and his book, Toxic story: Two or three embarrassing truths about the vaccine adjuvants.

“Gherardi is a fierce advocate for the existence of a causal relationship between containing aluminum adjuvants and a clinical condition which he first called ‘Macrophagic Myofasciitis (MMF)'”

Gherardi : a media story (2 or 3 embarrassing truths about his research)

But what about Macrophagic Myofasciitis (MMF), isn’t that a real disease?

“There is no evidence to suggest that MMF is a specific illness.”

WHO on Questions and Answers about macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF)

Nope.

That’s not to say that some people do not get some inflammatory changes at vaccine injection sites that could be caused by the aluminum in a vaccine.

But these are local reactions. They are not part of a disease.

As far as his research, consider the critique of one of his recent papers that he co-authored with Christopher Shaw, Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: selective low dose neurotoxicity.

“The article states that it was supported by grants from CMSRI. What is not stated is that CMSRI (Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute) is funded by the vaccine-critical Dwoskin Family Foundation. It is also worth noting that three of the authors of this manuscript, Exley, Shaw and Gherardi, sit on the Scientific Advisory Board for CMSRI, with Shaw as the Chair and Gherardi as the Vice-Chair. Whilst it is unknown if any of these authors receive financial compensation for their role at CMSRI it is clear that these competing interests should have been disclosed.”

David Hawkes et al on Questions about methodological and ethical quality of a vaccine adjuvant critical paper

In addition to the funding issue, they found problems with the methods of the study and ethical problems.

Gherardi's letter was retracted.

Amazingly, the response to Hawkes’ letter had to be retracted by the journal!

At least one of Gherardi's papers was peer reviewed and edited by the same person.

It is not hard to find other criticism and complaints about his research either.

More on Romain Gherardi

Andrew Wakefield Is Not A Fraud?

Most folks have a good idea of who Andrew Wakefield is and what he did.

Who's to blame for low immunization rates and continuing outbreaks?
Who’s to blame for low immunization rates and continuing outbreaks?

Still, some folks seem to be pathologically optimistic that he didn’t actually do anything wrong.

Andrew Wakefield Is Not A Fraud?

You remember Andrew Wakefield, right?

“To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one.”

J. B. Handley

He is the guy who published the 1998 paper in Lancet in the UK that started folks thinking that the MMR vaccine is somehow associated with autism.

In 1998, a major medical journal based in the UK, The Lancet, published a report headed by Andrew Wakefield, who was at that time a gastroenterological surgeon and medical researcher. The report implied a causal link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the development of autism combined with IBD in children, which Wakefield described as a new syndrome he named “autistic entercolitis”.

Andrew Wakefield’s Harmful Myth of Vaccine-induced “Autistic Enterocolitis”

But he didn’t actually say that the MMR vaccine caused autism in that paper, did he?

No, he saved that for the press conference for the paper.

If not for the press conference, which in itself was unusual, and all of the media attention over the next few years, his small study, which was “essentially a collection of 12 clinical anecdotes,” would have gone nowhere.

But there was no “Wakefield Factor” on immunization rates in the UK, was there? Didn’t measles cases continue to go down in the 10 years after his Lancet paper was published?

MMR vaccination rates had dropped below 80% by 2003, when the first measles outbreaks in the UK began. They didn't fully recover until 2012.
MMR vaccination rates had dropped below 80% by 2003, when the first measles outbreaks in the UK began. They didn’t fully recover until 2012.

Despite the heroic efforts of some folks to manipulate the data, it is clear that MMR vaccination rates dropped and measles cases jumped in the years after Wakefield’s MMR scare.

But even if his paper scared people away from vaccinating and protecting their kids, he was never really found guilty of fraud, was he?

While the findings of the General Medical Council panel that took away Wakefield's medical license never used the word 'fraud,' they described things that are fraudulent.
While the findings of the General Medical Council panel that took away Wakefield’s medical license never used the word ‘fraud,’ they described things that are fraudulent. The words dishonest and misleading come up a lot too.

How do you define fraud?

“The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.13 Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No.”

Fiona Godlee on Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

Brian Deer wasn’t the only one calling Wakefield a fraud.

But those charges from the General Medical Council were later all overturned, weren’t they?

While charges against John Walker-Smith, a co-author of Wakefield’s study, were dropped on appeal, that doesn’t exonerate Wakefield in anyway. Remember, John Walker-Smith was actually against blaming the MMR vaccine and unlike Wakefield, he and another co-author actually published their own press release stating continued support of the use of the MMR vaccine.

But the other coauthors have stood by the results of the paper, haven’t they?

“We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.”

Retraction of an Interpretation

They stood by the idea that it is important that research be done so that gastrointestinal problems in autistic children can be recognized and treated. Almost all of them retracted Wakefield’s interpretation of the paper though.

Yeah, but other studies have proven Wakefield to be right though, haven’t they?

No, they haven’t. In fact, other labs could not even replicate Wakefield’s original study.

Why wasn't Wakefield ever charged in a criminal court?
Why wasn’t Wakefield ever charged in a criminal court?

But Wakefield’s Lancet paper wasn’t retracted because it’s findings were wrong…

Yes it was!

“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 al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. 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.”

Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children

Still think Andrew Wakefield isn’t a fraud?

Every time there is a measles outbreak, anti-vaccine folks pop up to defend Andrew Wakefield. The problem is that they get virtually everything about him wrong!

Their false narratives and myths attempt to rewrite history and make you forget that he doesn’t just scare parents away from vaccinating and protecting their kids, he hurts autistic kids and their families.

More on Andrew Wakefield Myths

Retracted Anti-Vaccine Studies

Everyone knows that Andy Wakefield‘s fraudulent MMR study was retracted.

Andrew Wakefield was the lead author on his retracted paper.
Andrew Wakefield was the lead author on his retracted paper.

That’s the study that got folks scared into thinking that vaccines are associated with autism.

Surprisingly, it’s not the only one…

Retracted Anti-Vaccine Studies

Actually, it shouldn’t be surprising at all.

Most studies that are touted by the anti-vaccine movement are poorly done and often flawed.

And they include these other papers and studies that have been retracted:

Is it a coincidence that all of the researchers who have had papers retracted seem to get funding from the CMSRI?

What else has been retracted?

The “Deadly Immunity” article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

And the survey, “Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports,” was originally retracted by Frontiers in Public Health before finding a home at another journal under a different name. That journal quickly retracted it too, but they then published the “fatally flawed” paper for some reason.

What to Know About Retracted Anti-Vaccine Studies

Many of the heroes of the anti-vaccine movement have published fatally-flawed studies that have been later retracted.

More on Retracted Anti-Vaccine Studies

Using Pubmed to Do Research About Vaccines

A lot of the vaccine research that folks do is on PubMed.

Using PubMed to Do Research About Vaccines

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

“PubMed comprises more than 27 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.”

All of the studies that say that vaccines are safe, that vaccines work, and that vaccines are necessary are in PubMed.

So are the studies that show that vaccines are not associated with autism, SIDS, and other so-called vaccine induced diseases, like ASIA.

Unfortunately, there are also poorly done studies in PubMed that do purport that vaccines are associated with autism and that ASIA is a real thing.

Can You Use PubMed to Do Research About Vaccines?

Kelly Brogan didn't make history in getting a case report published in a low impact journal who's editorial board includes a Reiki Master, chiropractors, and naturopaths.
Kelly Brogan didn’t make history in getting a case report published in a low impact journal who’s editorial board includes a Reiki Master, chiropractors, and naturopaths.

Just like anyone can put up a website or Facebook page and say whatever they want, almost anyone can get a study or article published in a journal and get it indexed in PubMed.

While PubMed is an index with over 27 million citations, it doesn’t do anything to evaluate those citations to see if they include studies with design flaws, conflicts of interest, or are simply fraudulent.

That means that you need to know that a study does not get a badge of legitimacy for simply being in PubMed!

And it does not automatically mean that the evidence and conclusions from the article are of high quality just because it is listed in PubMed.

So use PubMed to find articles to help you do research about vaccines, but then read the article from beginning to end, not just the abstract, and make sure it is an article you can trust:

  • Was it published in a legitimate journal, like Vaccine or Pediatrics, and some of these high-impact journals? (good)
  • Was it published in a predatory journals?  (bad)
  • Does it involve simply looking at VAERS data?  (usually bad)
  • Is it written by folks with a conflict of interest that makes the article biased?  (bad)
  • Has it already been refuted by other people because it wasn’t designed properly or had other major flaws?  (bad)
  • Is it written by people who have expertise on the topic they are writing about? (good)
  • Has it been retracted?  (very bad)
  • Is it a case report (a glorified anecdote), case series, or animal study (lowest quality evidence) or a systemic review or meta analyses (highest quality evidence)?
  • Is it a case control study, cohort study, and randomized controlled trial, which lie somewhere in between case reports and reviews on the hierarchy of evidence scale?

Are you ready to get educated about vaccines?

That’s great, but PubMed shouldn’t be your first stop, or your only stop.

As you do your research or get bombarded with a list of links or abstracts from PubMed, remember that there is a hierarchy of evidence to consider before deciding if a paper or study is really evidence of anything. And finding a case report, study on rats, or an invitro study won’t win you an argument about vaccines when there are randomized control trials and systemic reviews on the other side.

What to Know About Using PubMed to Do Research About Vaccines

PubMed is a giant index of journal articles, but simply being in PubMed doesn’t mean that an article or study is reliable or of high quality, whether it is about vaccines, a vaccine-preventable disease, or any other medical topic.

More on Using PubMed to Do Research About Vaccines