The pseudo-scientific topic of the relation between vaccines and autism starts with the publication in The Lancet in 1998 the misleading research paper. In particular, that article discussed the linkage between the autism spectrum disorders and the MMR vaccine (combined one for measles, mumps, and rubella).
After the first publication following multiple epidemiological studies. Works of such professional institutions as the UK National Health Service, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others did not give the proof for the initial publication.
The final scientific consensus on the MMR vaccine relation to the autism spectrum deceases states that there is no link between the vaccine and autism. The original paper on the topic was described as fraudulent, and all used improper practices were discussed in more details in the British Medical Journal.
The outcome of the paper publication become a drop in vaccination. The sharp decrease of MMR application in the Ireland and UK in its turn leads to the growth of the incidence rate for mumps and measles and then to many serious permanent injuries and deaths.
The investigation of the case shown that the paper author (Andrew Wakefield) have had some conflicts of interests. As a result, he broke the number of ethical codes including evidence manipulation. As result of the next investigation, the Lancet journal retracted the paper partially (2004) and then fully (2010). The General Medical Council blamed Wakefield in the serious professional misconduct in 2010 and forbidden him to have the doctor's practice in the UK struck off the Medical Register.
Pseudoscientific thinking problems
As it is clear from the negative outcomes of the pseudo-scientific materials publishing and taking actions based on them, it is very important to distinguish the scientific and fraudulent research. The understanding of the research information quality allows the reader to avoid making wrong decisions and other negative outcomes such as misleading thoughts and believes. The way to distinguish materials is the critical thinking and the most efficient it can be done through the application of the ten problems technique provided by Sharmer (2001).
The first problem of the fraudulent research is the reliability of the claim’s source. While mistakes are possible even in the properly done research, the average number of mistakes in pseudo-scientific works is much higher. They include such problems as facts distortion, taking them out of context, and fabrication (Shermer, 2001).
The other often issue of the fraudulent research is making the similar claims that are not related to the scientific knowledge and has the aim to persuade the reader just by often repeating of the thesis. Stating the idea that conflicts with the current scientific consensus itself are the main way of the scientific development, however, it should be tested properly. In the case of the fraudulent research, the data to get the outcome the researcher wish usually is distorted or ignored.
The pseudo-scientific works usually lack the verification of the independent sources. Thus, the understanding where from comes the support to the stated position and if there are any conflict of interests may help a lot in the evaluation of the paper quality. Also, the independent verification should be done before the publication to avoid the possible negative outcomes, and to save the reputation of authors so they will not need to protect their mistakable position.
The next criteria are the fitting of the claim to the currently existing knowledge about the world. The extraordinary claims are suspicious by definition. However, the way critically thinks about it is to put the claim into a larger context and check the other related details, thus giving the systematic picture.
Also, the claim should be checked for the attempt to disprove it to avoid the confirmation bias. Thus, for real scientific work should exist the polemic and the reflection on the not confirmatory evidence. The attempt to falsify, replicate, and to recheck the study makes it much more reliable.
Next parameter to check is the preponderance of the evidence. For the scientific claims, the support may come from the thousands of independent details and lines of inquiry. Moreover, such supports may be found naturally and in various fields of the science. At the same time for the pseudo-scientific research, the arguments for the conclusion made by the claimant require specific search as the ones taken randomly can disapprove it.
The choice of the research method also should be questioned on the neutrality. The scientific research supposed to use for the data analysis and collection the most predictable and expectable methodologies. The basic rules and concepts of the scientific research such as null hypothesis testing should be employed to prove the extraordinary claim rather than disapprove it. The application of rare methodology may sign the artificial adjustment of it to get the wished results.
The other required element of the truly scientific research is the attempt to explain the already existing phenomena. On the other hand, for the president study, the probable strategy includes the criticizing of the existing explanation. This way the work does not give any positive vision on the problem, but also destroy the existing models, leaving decision makers with the unuseful and fusing information.
The case the new explanation is provided to exchange the other one may also be misleading. Pseudo-scientific research can mask its low quality by the limiting the area of discussed data. Thus the paper will contain the well-organized explanation but only for those part of facts that match the idea authors want to prove. The other part of the data that conflict with the conclusion authors wants to make will be just excluded from the research.
Finally, the personal biases and beliefs of the claimant should be checked on the neutrality. Some of the ideological, political, or social beliefs of scientists may affect their way of the data interpretation. The system allowing to avoid such biases is the peer review, but in the case, the people examined the work are also biased in the same direction the paper may contain significantly misleading conclusions.
Ten problems in application to the case
In the paper by Wakefield (1998) the data and interpretation show some signs of the intentional distortion, as Deer states (2009) the evidence were manipulated. As Horton said, the work was utterly false, deceiving the journal that published it (Boseley, 2010). Finally, the author has had the personal reasons to make such conclusions as having some conflict of interests.
Within the paper, the structure is the traditional one so the claims about the relationship between vaccination and autism done in the section where they should be. However, the source makes the same claims in the less formal version in the correspondence (Wakefield, 1999) that shows the author ready to search any arguments to support its claim.
The Wakefield conclusions of the relation between vaccination and the autism specter diseases have no verification by the other independent institution research, in opposite results of many studies conducted after his publication shows that there is no relation between vaccination and the deceased.
The position of the Wakefield’s article was at the moment of publication in conflict with the current state of deals as soon as that braked the process of vaccination. That means the previous medical studies supported the quality of MMR vaccine and found it safe and possible to use it for UK population as positive outcomes of vaccination were more important and better presented than the negative ones. At the same time, the autism spectrum diseases could be missed in the studies of such outcomes thus the hypothesis proven by Wakefield could have no previous test results and any common position. On the other hand, some previous works on the side effects of the vaccines also existed. In this part, the research idea was fitting the scientific field discussion.
Attempts to replicate and verify the Wakefield’s research gave no positive results, none of them support the initial claim about the linkage exists between the vaccination and the autism disease.
The data in the Wakefield research has weak points such as the usage of the parent's opinion rather than the factual information on the MMR vaccination. The sample of 12 children is very small for the application of the regular parametric methods. Such size of the dataset may be related to the relatively rare decease that been studied. But on the other hand, such size is more convenient for the data manipulation as the number of cases disapproving the study findings may be left outside the 12 cases put in the study focus.
The arguments done by the paper’s author comes from the study of the small groups of people that makes the thesis and conclusion vulnerable for the checking on the other samples.
The methodology used in the research on the vaccination and autism was the regular one. However, it was weakened by the small sample, giving the space for the data manipulation as the little changes could make the wished results.
The work by Wakefield address the existing phenomena of the vaccination side effects, as the subject got some study early. On the other hand, the relation between vaccination and diagnoses that study participants have had as the initial hypothesis were quite subjective and made on the parents believes rather than strong scientific evidence.
The paper on vaccination and autism works with the limited data it tests only 12 cases while to make the reliable research in the medicine authors usually need at least 30 participants (for application of parametric methods of hypothesis testing).
The work by Wakefield has been reviewed. However, the peer review journal published the paper later reported its mistake that makes the quality of the review suspectable.
Works cited
Boseley, S. (2010). Lancet retracts 'utterly false' MMR paper. The Guardian. London. Acessed 13 March 2018.
Deer, B. (2009). MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism. The Sunday Times. London. Acessed 13 March 2018.
Shermer, M. (2001). Baloney Detection. How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience. Part I https://michaelshermer.com/2001/11/baloney-detection/ and Part II https://michaelshermer.com/2001/12/more-baloney-detection/ Acessed 13 March 2018.
Wakefield, Andrew J. "MMR vaccination, and autism." The Lancet 354.9182 (1999): 949-950.
Wakefield, Andrew J., et al. "RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children." (1998): 637-641. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673697110960 Acessed 13 March 2018.
