Journal retracts paper claiming neurological damage from HPV vaccine

[Underseer]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...aper-claiming-neurological-damage-hpv-vaccine

The authors of the paper object to the retraction. The methodology involved unusually large doses of vaccine combined with a toxin that makes the blood-brain barrier weak. One of the authors argued that the methodology is consistent with other similar studies.

I imagine that both anti-vaccine nuts and certain Christian groups would have latched on to this paper for ideological reasons. Anti-vaccine nuts seem determined to prove all vaccines are dangerous. Certain evangelicals have decided that protecting women from certain kinds of cancer will cause them to become sexually promiscuous. If so, they're going to continue citing this study even after the retraction.

 

[braces_for_impact]

So do we have any autistic dogs or not?

 

[Underseer]

So do we have any autistic dogs or not?

That's pretty much the connection I expect the anti-vaccine nuts to take. I don't expect them to make a distinction between "neurological damage" and "autism."

Never mind that the study involves a toxin known to mess with the brain. This must be the proof that vaccines cause autism, right? Sigh.

 

[bilby]

Apparently, if you blend the flu vaccine with paraquat it causes lung damage.

Therefore all vaccines are dangerous.

 

[ronburgundy]

I can imagine a defense of the method, by arguing that the strength of the blood-brain barrier is highly variable, both between people and within an individual depending upon medical conditions, drug treatments, and even diet (high sat-fats and simple carbs may degrade the BBB, which might explain the covariance between obesity and cognitive diseases like Alzheimer's).

Thus, it is important to examine how the vaccine impacts the brain under conditions when the barrier is weaker than typical.

It may not be that the research itself is bad science, but rather that fear-mongers (e.g., ideologues and all commercial media) will take the findings out of context, which would be enabled if the study authors did not clearly stress that the result do not suggest any harm of the vaccine when given under typical conditions, but merely potential harm under less common circumstances.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can imagine a defense of the method, by arguing that the strength of the blood-brain barrier is highly variable, both between people and within an individual depending upon medical conditions, drug treatments, and even diet (high sat-fats and simple carbs may degrade the BBB, which might explain the covariance between obesity and cognitive diseases like Alzheimer's).

Thus, it is important to examine how the vaccine impacts the brain under conditions when the barrier is weaker than typical.

It may not be that the research itself is bad science, but rather that fear-mongers (e.g., ideologues and all commercial media) will take the findings out of context, which would be enabled if the study authors did not clearly stress that the result do not suggest any harm of the vaccine when given under typical conditions, but merely potential harm under less common circumstances.

The HPV vaccine has been a major target of the religious types because it makes sex safer. Malice is to be expected.

 

[ronburgundy]

I can imagine a defense of the method, by arguing that the strength of the blood-brain barrier is highly variable, both between people and within an individual depending upon medical conditions, drug treatments, and even diet (high sat-fats and simple carbs may degrade the BBB, which might explain the covariance between obesity and cognitive diseases like Alzheimer's).

Thus, it is important to examine how the vaccine impacts the brain under conditions when the barrier is weaker than typical.

It may not be that the research itself is bad science, but rather that fear-mongers (e.g., ideologues and all commercial media) will take the findings out of context, which would be enabled if the study authors did not clearly stress that the result do not suggest any harm of the vaccine when given under typical conditions, but merely potential harm under less common circumstances.

The HPV vaccine has been a major target of the religious types because it makes sex safer. Malice is to be expected.

I'm not doubting there may be malicious motives, even by the researchers. I'm just arguing that it can be valid to examine the effects of a substance on the brain by combining it with something that simulates conditions when the BBB is weakened. In itself, that doesn't seem to be anything damning or invalid. How the author's interpreted the findings would determine whether it was a problem, and the reviewers and editor would have known that at the time they accepted the paper. Retracting a paper because the conclusions don't match the methods and results seems a glaring problem for the incompetence of the review process at that journal.

If the editor does their job to begin with, then outright fraud and misrepresentation by the authors should be the only basis for a retraction. This may be why it took so long, because they don't have good evidence of fraud, so retracting it makes the journal itself look pretty bad.