Wakefield’s original 1998 paper, which led to the health scare over MMR vaccine driven by the UK media, was eventually retracted by ten of his co-authors. Another paper published by Wakefield is expected to be retracted by some important co-authors.
In 2002, Wakefield published a paper which is widely known as the O’Leary paper. The conclusion was that measles virus was present in childrens’ bowels, and associated with gut pathology and development disorders in children. This was taken as evidence that Wakefield’s theory on autism being linked to MMR vaccine had a plausible mechanism.
It has been know for some time that results from this study were fatally flawed because of problems with the laboratories involved in the studies. The measles virus they found was actually a contamination present in the laboratory. Additionally, other studies have failed to find the mythical measles virus (Afzal, D’Souza, and Baird).
Earlier this year the Hornig study was published. Hornig replicated the 2002 O’Leary paper and found no difference between the autistic and non-autistic children in terms of measles virus RNA in the bowel. As the author’s put it:
The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR and the onset of either GI [gut] complaints or autism. We also could not confirm previous work linking the presence of MV [measles virus] RNA in GI tract to ASD [autism] with GI complaints.
Interestingly, the O’Leary of 2002 (whose laboratories gave false positives due to contamination and the omission of a crucial step in the process to detect measles RNA) is the same O’Leary of 2008 who was involved in Hornig study. This has been seized upon by US anti-vaccinators and Andrew Wakefield who have used the fact that the Hornig study carefully checked the reliability of the laboratories performing their tests, to suggest that the Hornig study actually supports the conclusions of the 2002 paper by supporting the reliability of O’Leary’s laboratory. This is the direct opposite of the reality.
In a BMJ rapid response John Stone, of the UK’s leading anti-vaccine website JABS, puts this uber-bizarre debating point across neatly:
the study [Hornig et al] confirms the consistency of O’Leary’s results with two most higly rated labs in the US
Stone may therefore be surprised to read that O’Leary himself is expected to retract the 2002 paper. A letter from Professor Stephen Bustin in The Guardian notes the irony of the same laboratories being involved in both studies.
What makes this evidence wonderfully ironic is that it has been provided by the same individuals (Professor John O’Leary and Dr Orla Sheils from Trinity College Dublin) who reported the original evidence in favour in a 2002 publication.
[...]
It takes no scientific knowledge at all to realise that the reason for this discrepancy is that O’Leary and Sheils have taken exceptional care over their experimental protocols and improved their expertise so that contamination no longer affects their results. Clearly, O’Leary and Sheils have changed their mind on this subject and the expectation now is that both will publicly retract their 2002 publication.
My expectation, when/if this retraction is issued, is that the anti-vaccine movement will find themselves defending a paper which has been retracted by the authors. Not that this is a new experience for them. On the matter of MMR vaccine, faith surpasses reason.
14 Comments
Why limit it toonly the MMR? The vast cesspools of anti-vaccinators known as AoA and HuffPoop defend the untenable all the time. David Kirby has yet to back track on any idea that has been shown to be false.
What’s the betting that as and when this retraction happens, Stone and the rest of the anti-MMR activists will start promoting some kind of conspiracy theory – that O’Leary has in some way been “got at”? Or that just because he’s changed his views, it doesn’t make his previous views wrong (which, to be fair, is the same point that scientists make when confronted with the “Pasteur recanted germ theory on his deathbed” nonsense so often peddled by alt-medders)?
This is what the Hornig study says about its relation with the O’Leary paper:
“Our results differ with reports noting MV RNA in ileal biopsies of 75% of ASD vs. 6% of control children [10], [41]. Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports; furthermore, one of the three laboratories participating in this study performed the assays described in earlier reports. Other factors to consider include differences in patient age, sex, origin (Europe vs. North America), GI disease, recency of MMR vaccine administration at time of biopsy, and methods for confirming neuropsychiatric status in cases and controls.”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140
Presumably, if there had a big problem with false positives in the O’Leary study they would have turned up equally in the control group?
John,
You may want to read Professor Stephen Bustin’s [PDF] exhaustive comments on the Uhlmann/O’Leary paper which includes the statement.
and the conclusion:
Your continued attempts to cling to the Hornig study as some sort of vindication of the Uhlmann paper are pitiful.
Bearing in mind what Hornig said my point is reasonable. I don’t think aggressive language changes anything.
Your point is besides the point. No measles virus was detected in any of the samples. It was contamination. That’s it. Therefore any differences between the groups are utterly meaningless in the context of measles virus.
What is the point of citing Hornig as disproof of Uhlmann when it supports it? That’s what Bustin has done – he has quoted one bit of the paper but not the inconvenient bit. So, I think he is misleading Guardian readers.
John,
Are you being deliberately dense on this matter?
Bustin has not only drawn attention to the Hornig study, he has also meticulously gone over the PCR data from the O’Leary lab. His investigation showed that the positive results for measles virus were due to contamination. This conclusively undermines the 2002 paper.
Bustin is a leading expert on PCR. What are we to believe? His analysis in the paper I link to in comment 4, or your pathetic attempt to spin the Hornig study to support a failed hypothesis?
If O’Leary retracts from the 2002 study, will you still say that the Hornig study (which involved O’Leary himself) vindicates the 2002 study?
“Are you being deliberately dense on this matter?”
No, are you?
“Bustin has not only drawn attention to the Hornig study, he has also meticulously gone over the PCR data from the O’Leary lab. His investigation showed that the positive results for measles virus were due to contamination. This conclusively undermines the 2002 paper.”
That’s what he thinks.
“Bustin is a leading expert on PCR.”
So is O’Leary.
“What are we to believe? His analysis in the paper I link to in comment 4, or your pathetic attempt to spin the Hornig study to support a failed hypothesis?”
I didn’t spin the Hornig study, I quoted it.
“If O’Leary retracts from the 2002 study, will you still say that the Hornig study (which involved O’Leary himself) vindicates the 2002 study?”
I don’t think O’Leary will retract the 2002 study, but if he did it would leave unanswered the question that the study was looking at because it has not been replicated, certainly not by Hornig which had a very different selection of cases. Possibly the Wake Forrest study will.
Hark, is that the sound of straws being grasped by a drowning man that I hear?
I don’t think so.
Oh yes it is…
(Well, it is the panto season.)
John, you have painted yourself into a corner so many times now that I am amazed you are still even able typing this nonsense.
People would think far more of you and your integrity if you just accepted reality and moved on.
Reading this I make the following observations:
1) The first study was never retracted, the conclusions weren’t retracted. Even worse, the partial retraction of a minor interpretation in the study text was only retracted due to public reactions, not any scientific reason. The author of this article clearly didn’t read the details, didn’t comprehend the details, or is purposefully misleading everyone.
2) The only speculation about any O’Leary retraction is an interview quote (seemingly an offhand opinion) from Dr. Bustin, who is not connected to that study. Not exactly newsworthy.
3) The rest of this article is pure speculation and a personal swipe at Mr. Stone.
4) The comments degenerate into personal insult against Mr. Stone who responds by correcting insult or inaccuracies with quotes from actual articles or studies.
Conclusion: This site isn’t exactly a bastion of science or accuracy.
Anthony adds:
The automatic cut-off time for comments has closed comments on this article, but I will respond to your comments:
You are wrong. I am fully aware of the details of the retraction. The retraction was a retraction of an interpretation by 10 of the 12 original authors. They did not retract the findings of unexpected internal lesions in the children, but did retract what is now commonly seen as the key issue relating to the study. That is they specifically stated that:
“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.”
For the purposes of a discussion about MMR vaccine and autism, that can be considered a retraction by all but the most partisan supporters of Andrew Wakefield.
Well, we will see. Your comment that Dr Bustin was not an author is correct, however given that he performed an extensive review of the work, and described its failings, he is qualified to give an opinion. I suggest you read it [PDF].
If a “personal swipe” is considered to be pointing out the actual position of an individual on an issue and then noting how that position does not stand up to scrutiny then so be it. However, others might call that debating the issue. He is man enough to take it. There is no ad hominem directed at John Stone, unlike the comments his comrades make towards me (being in the pay of big pharma, being part of a conspiracy to cover up vaccine damage etc).
Again, you seem to be confused between personal insults and correcting inaccuracies that John Stone perpetuates. As for his quoting from studies, well it again continues to use the quotes selectively to prove his non-existant case.