3 ms·

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not here, so this is the genuine answer to your question. Peer-reviewed, published research does not support any kind of lin

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not here, so this is the genuine answer to your question. Peer-reviewed, published research does not support any kind of link between vaccines and autism: not a link by correlation, not a link by cause. There was a paper a long time ago where the guy who wrote it committed fraud to get published. This paper, which was founded on lies, did claim a link, and did so in a highly influential medical journal - so a lot of people paid attention to what the article said, even though its claims were never true. Retraction is a very definitive way to signal to scientists not to pay attention to a particular paper. Problem is, the retraction took more than 10 years, and in those years the internet was becoming social and available to everyone. So there was kind of a perfect storm of misinformation propagation about this particular topic. Fact remains: many many studies have re-examined the possibility of link between vaccines and autism and there just isn't one.

JPLeRouzic 2y ago
The problem is not only about that author in 1998, it is two-pronged: - Despite numerous failures in the integrity of the peer review and editorial process (Deer, 2020), the predicted high impact of this article influenced the Lancet decision to publish [0] - There is no shortage of authors willing to publish weird stuff in scientific journals. Search for example articles about religious content in scientific papers such as these ones: [1-3] [0] https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.14058 https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.14058 [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38756930/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38756930/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38952642/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38952642/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39152043/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39152043/

JPLeRouzic 2y ago

The problem is not only about that author in 1998, it is two-pronged: - Despite numerous failures in the integrity of the peer review and editorial process (Deer, 2020), the predicted high impact of this article influenced the Lancet decision to publish [0] - There is no shortage of authors willing to publish weird stuff in scientific journals. Search for example articles about religious content in scientific papers such as these ones: [1-3] [0] https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.14058 https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.14058 [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38756930/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38756930/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38952642/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38952642/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39152043/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39152043/