This should not be the first time that you read and / or hear about the (supposed) relationship between applying a vaccine and as a consequence, generating some variant of the broad spectrum of what receives a name that is apparently all-encompassing: autism.
Of course, whenever any such theory comes up, there were a first time Where did it come from? Where did it come from? Who wrote it and what was the basis for making such a claim? The damage that it has produced, the tremendous effect that that statement has generated it must have had an origin that exceeds the framework of the usual. Above, as the statement was made long before there were social networks, there is not even the possibility of talking about the fake news. Or in any case, it would serve to corroborate that fake news there was a lifetime, only now we find out faster and from many platforms that did not exist before.
That is why I wanted to search and find out (if possible) what that first time was. I cannot guarantee with one hundred percent certainty that what I am going to write down here was the first time, but in any case, join me in reading, and you will see that it is very likely it started that way.
It was 1998. Andrew Wakefield, an English gastroenterology physician, was the lead author (along with other colleagues) of the article referred to at the beginning of this note, published in the “Lancet” journal.
In the conclusions, there was a link between autism and the application of the vaccine that we call triple. In English, this vaccine is known as MMR after the initials associated with measles (measles), mumps (mumps) and rubella (rubella).
The enormous number of doctors (not only English) but in the world would never have paid attention or given credence to the reckless statement if the name had not been there Lancet linked to the article. In fact, if you have some spare time and are interested in the subject, another equally prestigious medical journal, the British Medical Journal,  published in his editorial: “The article (published in the Lancet in 1998) linking the triple vaccine with autism was fraudulent. Clear evidence of DATA FORGERY should close the door on this harmful fear of vaccines. ” Lapidary. However, even today, there are still an incredible number of people who declare themselves anti-vaccines, and his main (and only support) is the article by Wakefield (and his twelve colleagues in the criminal episode).
Fortunately, in Argentina this anti-vaccine movement does not have the traction that is observed in different parts of the world. In fact, in the United States and in many European countries, between a quarter and a third of the population is reluctant to be vaccinated against COVID-19! I still do not understand how more than 25 percent of health workers – no less – in hospitals, sanatoriums and geriatric institutions, including nurses who are those who have the greatest risk of contagion, they deny to get vaccinated in the US. I am writing this article in mid-October 2021 in the city of Chicago and I have been told by doctors from the most important hospitals (public and private) in Illinois, who have had to force to their workers (whatever their hierarchy), to be vaccinated before the end of the month, given the potential for lose your job if they don’t get at least one dose! Amazing.
In the original work Wakefield and the 12 co-authors claimed to have investigated a consecutive series (sic) (what does he mean consecutive series?) Of 12 children referred to the Royal Free Hospital and the School of Medicine with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder. The authors reported that the parents of eight of the 12 children associated their loss of acquired skills, including language, as a consequence of having received the triple vaccine.
The General Medical Council of Great Britain ruled that the children Wakefield studied, rather than being chosen at random, were carefully – and biased – selected and part of Wakefield’s research was funded by lawyers acting on behalf of parents who They were involved in lawsuits against the vaccine manufacturers! The Council described Wakefield’s behavior as unethical and criticized them for showing an indifferent disregard for the children in their study, who underwent invasive tests.
I am also interested in adding that in June 2020, in an article published in webMD , one of the most prestigious places of consultation for doctors and researchers in medicine, you can read: “The research is clear: vaccines do not cause autism. More than a dozen studies have tried to find a link. Each of them came out ’empty’ ” (It is the way I have to translate ’empty’ = empty). A few days ago I consulted with Dr Alberto Kornblihtt (I suppose that at this point he does not require an introduction, but I still need to say that he is one of my best friends and a researcher very recognized and prestigious in molecular biology), he told me that this year he had to evaluate more than 30 research projects of groups from North American universities on the molecular biology of autism and on NONE some of them mentioned any connection with vaccination.
But anyway, it is worth noting here that twelve years have passed! until “Lancet” retracted what it had published in 1998 . In a recognition (obviously late) it was expressed in these terms:
The Council of General Medicine, waited until 2010 and declared that the work was not only based on BAD SCIENCE, but was deliberately fraudulent and with false data. As a result, Wakefield (and his colleagues) had his enabling title revoked: he can no longer practice his profession in the British Isles.
To end: Wakefield He had to move to another country. Where do you live now? In Texas. Where can you practice medicine? In United States. In addition to having been one of Trump’s personalities invited several times to the White House, investigative journalists in England uncovered a Wakefield account. It contained a contribution that exceeded half a million dollars (to be precise: £ 435,000). Who had made the deposit? A lawyer working to find a link between vaccines and autism.
And in case something else was needed: the most important study, due to the number of children involved (660,000) and the time it took to implement it (11 years) could not find no link between autism and vaccines.
One final question: would you still think that vaccines produce or cooperate with autism considering that ALL the studies done looking for such an important connection could NEVER find anything?
For those who argue that all past times were better, it would be convenient to review some files (which our memory has trouble accessing). The problem is that before, we knew less about ourselves, if only because access to information is virtually instantaneous and platforms show us as we are: now, of course, but before too.