Joined

·
5,094 Posts

From the Journal

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/...-vaccine-to-behavioral-issues-gets-retracted/This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article. Review by the Editor-in-Chief and evaluation by outside experts, confirmed that the methodology is seriously flawed, and the claims that the article makes are unjustified. As an international peer-reviewed journal we believe it is our duty to withdraw the article from further circulation, and to notify the community of this issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oral-problems-to-gardasil-has-been-retracted/

Along with co-author Lucija Tomljenovi, Shaw has previously been blasted for two studies suggesting that the aluminum content in vaccines could be linked to autism. Those studies were also deemed "seriously flawed" and condemned by the World Health Organization.

This is the author members here said they found credible by the way.

Orac (Dr. David Gorski) went over the many issues of the study before it was officially retracted. Here is the link if anyone is interested in reading an in depth analysis (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/17/no-gardasil-does-not-cause-behavioral-problems/)

The shortish version from the link is this:

He noted some huge issues with the study. First, the experiment was not blinded to the observers. This is a HUGE problem in this kind of study. The observers must not know which mice received the vaccine and which didn't in order to remain objective. Next issue is that they only looked at the brains of 5 mice from each group, which is a really small sample.So, basically, the investigators injected mice with either saline (negative control), adjuvant only, Gardasil, or Gardasil and pertussis toxin (presumably the positive control), and there were 19(!) animals per experimental group, which is a huge number for most animal studies. The various injections were scaled down from an estimated 40 kg teenaged girl to a 20 g mouse (a 2000-fold difference). The mice received three injections, spaced one day apart. The behavior of the mice, as measured by the parameters above, was then examined at three and six months.

Biggest problem is that they didn't use the correct statistical analysis for the study. As Gorski explains:

He concluded:Take a look at the statistics section:

Results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. The differences inmean for average immobility time in the FST, the staircase testparameters (number of rearing and stair-climbing events), novelobject recognition and Y maze tests were evaluated by t-test. Significant results were determined as p < 0.05.

Those of you unfamiliar with basic statistics (and, believe me, the problem with this passage is very, very basic) won’t recognize the problem, but those of you who’ve taken a basic statistics course will recognize immediately what the problem is here. What is the t-test? No doubt the authors are referring to Student’s t-test, which is a test designed to look for differences between two groups. Now, how many groups are being tested? Yes, indeed! It’s four. In other words, it’s a number of experimental groups for which Student’s t-test was never intended. What is the significance of this? Basically, it means that the authors must have compared, pairwise, all the groups. So what? you might ask. Here’s the problem. The more comparisons you make, the greater the chance of finding a “statistically significant result” by random chance alone. That’s why other statistical tests were developed, specifically the ANOVA test, which would have been the correct test to use to analyze these data. That’s another thing I would have insisted on the authors redoing, if I had been a reviewer.

Basically, this study is worthless, as it’s unblinded and doesn’t use the correct statistical analysis. Had I been a reviewer, I would have pointed these issues out and recommended rejecting the paper. I can see why Dr. Poland was probably horrified to discover that this paper was published in his journal. Perhaps he should ask himself how such a travesty could have been published in his journal.