Why myths around vaccines and autism are so persistent
The theory emerged three decades ago and caught fire after a study was published – and later retracted – in a major medical journal in 1998. While the theory has since been discredited in many studies from around the world, the myth still persists.
Today, anti-vaccine activists often point to aluminium, which is used in trace amounts in many childhood jabs to increase their effectiveness, to argue that the vaccines are unsafe.
Danish researchers investigated this in the latest study, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and included more than one million children born in Denmark between 1997 and 2018.
It found that aluminium-containing vaccines do not raise the risk of health issues such as autism spectrum disorder, asthma, or autoimmune disorders.
Dr Niklas Andersson, one of the study's authors and a vaccine researcher at Denmark's Statens Serum Institut (SSI), described the results as 'reassuring'.
'We have not found anything that indicates that the very small amount of aluminium used in the childhood vaccination programme increases the risk of 50 different health conditions in childhood," Andersson said in a statement.
The researchers said the findings should be used to dispel misinformation about vaccines, which have become a political flashpoint in recent years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Health authorities blame these falsehoods for driving an increase in the number of parents who opt out of routine vaccines, leaving an opening for preventable diseases such as measles and whooping cough to make a comeback in Europe and elsewhere.
Since 2010, vaccine coverage has fallen for at least one jab in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
Why the myth sticks around
The theory that vaccines cause autism gained ground in the early 2000s, after the British doctor Andrew Wakefield published an article in The Lancet, a leading medical journal, in 1998 speculating that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may cause autism.
The study was full of methodological flaws and falsified data, and was later retracted. Wakefield, who made money from lawsuits filed against vaccine manufacturers, was also stripped of his medical license.
But his ideas were compelling to parents who noticed that their children received the MMR vaccine around the same time they began showing signs of autism.
Later studies went on to show that this was effectively a coincidence. While all vaccines come with some risk of side effects, routine childhood jabs are safe and effective – and do not raise the risk of autism, these studies concluded.
The myth has stuck around, though, partly because much is still unknown about what actually causes autism, and because diagnoses have risen since the turn of the century.
Scientists believe the uptick is due partly to increased awareness around autism and a wider definition of the disorder. They have also been researching whether environmental factors, such as prenatal exposure to air pollution or certain pesticides, may play a role.
In April, US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr pledged to identify what causes autism by September as part of a massive research project. Kennedy said scientists would assess the food system, the environment, parenting approaches, and vaccines, in a move widely panned by independent researchers.
Anders Hviid, a vaccine researcher at SSI, said large studies like the recent Danish report 'are part of the bulwark against the politicisation of health knowledge, which can damage trust in vaccines'.
'It is absolutely crucial that we clearly separate real science from politically motivated campaigns – otherwise we risk that it is Danish children who pay the price,' Hviid said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
4 days ago
- Euronews
Healthy babies born in UK using DNA from three people
In a groundbreaking advance, eight healthy babies have been born in the UK using a revolutionary technique that combines DNA from three different people to prevent the inheritance of rare and often fatal genetic diseases. It's an innovation made possible by a 2016 change in British law. Though banned in the United States and many other countries, the technique is also permitted in Australia. The news 'marks an important milestone,' said Dr. Zev Williams, who directs the Columbia University Fertility Centre but was not involved in the work. 'Expanding the range of reproductive options will empower more couples to pursue safe and healthy pregnancies'. Why mitochondrial diseases are so dangerous Most of our DNA comes from the nucleus of a cell, inherited from both mother and father. But there's also some DNA outside of the cell's nucleus, in structures called mitochondria - tiny energy-producing structures that come only from the mother. When mitochondrial DNA carries dangerous mutations, it can lead to severe and often untreatable conditions in children, from seizures and muscle weakness to organ failure and early death. Screening embryos during IVF can sometimes detect these mutations - but not always. As a result of these rare and uncertain cases, scientists have been developing a pioneering workaround: replacing the mutated mitochondria with healthy ones from a donor egg. The mother's genetic material is extracted and inserted into a donor egg that has had its own nucleus removed, keeping the donor's mitochondria intact but none of her traits. The resulting embryo contains DNA from three people: the mother, the father, and a third-party mitochondrial donor. Outcomes and early results from the UK study Researchers from Newcastle University in the UK and Monash University in Australia, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, reported that they applied the technique to embryos from 22 women. Eight healthy babies have been born so far, and one woman remains pregnant. One of the babies showed slightly elevated levels of abnormal mitochondria - but not high enough to cause disease, experts say. Still, doctors will continue to monitor development. Dr. Andy Greenfield, a reproductive health expert at the University of Oxford, called the work 'a triumph of scientific innovation,' and said the method of exchanging mitochondria would only be used for a small number of women for whom other ways of avoiding passing on genetic diseases, like testing embryos at an early stage, was not effective. While the term 'three-parent baby' makes headlines, the amount of donor DNA involved is tiny - less than 1 per cent of the child's genome. "If you had a bone marrow transplant from a donor... you will have much more DNA from another person,' noted stem cell expert Robin Lovell-Badge. So far, 35 families in the UK have been approved to use the technique, which is closely regulated. Critics have voiced concerns over the long-term effects of heritable genetic changes, which is partly why the US currently prohibits clinical research into such methods. Federal restrictions have blocked the FDA from even considering applications involving embryos altered in this way But for families like Liz Curtis', the technique offers something they never had before: hope. Her daughter Lily died of a mitochondrial disease in 2006 at just eight months old. She said the diagnosis 'turned our world upside down, and yet nobody could tell us very much about it, what it was or how it was going to affect Lily.' Curtis later founded the Lily Foundation in her daughter's name to raise awareness and support research into the disease, including the latest work done at Newcastle University. 'It's super exciting for families that don't have much hope in their lives,' Curtis said.
Euronews
4 days ago
- Euronews
Danish universities increasingly rejecting foreign researchers
Growing scrutiny against espionage is leading higher institutions of learning in Denmark to reject foreign researchers, as officials report threat levels as high. University authorities in the Nordic nation say they are particularly vigilant when researchers come from Russia, Iran, and China, as sensitive Danish research must not fall into the wrong hands. At Aarhus University, one of Denmark's foremost institutions of higher education, at least 24 foreign researchers have been rejected this year. This equates to one in twelve applicants from China, Russia, and Iran, the institution said. According to Brian Vinter, vice-dean of Aarhus University's Faculty of Engineering, the applicant researchers were rejected on the basis that they would have access to material that could lead them to divulge information to a third party. The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) says there are four ways in which foreign states can exploit and pressure researchers into becoming spies. Bribery or buying access to knowledge, blackmail, threats, coercion, digital influence campaigns, and simple methods such as surveillance, theft, and burglary are among the ways it mentions. At the University of Southern Denmark, André Ken Jakobsen, associate professor at the Centre for War Studies, warns that advanced technology can be applied by many powers. "And that makes the interest bigger, the intensity bigger, the competition bigger, and thus the threat is also bigger," he said, adding that a lot of unwanted attention may arise, especially in the areas of quantum technology and the green transition. This is what has informed the need for caution, according to Professor Jakobsen. Denmark's security and defence agenda The tightened rules on this also come in light of Denmark's security and defence agenda when it took over the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union. On 3 July, Denmark marked the takeover of the Presidency of the Council of the EU with an official opening ceremony in Aarhus. While analysts believe this may particularly be geared to rearmament efforts, as the Scandinavian country tends to do with defence as a priority, associate professor Jakobsen notes that the threat of cyber espionage is real. The Danish Emergency Management Agency reports that the threat of cyber espionage and cybercrime against Danish universities is very high. That's why screenings are necessary, according to Jakobsen. Despite the efforts to mitigate risks, there are fears the situation may have some impact. "Of course, I think that's super sad because we want the best people to come in and work for us. This is also why we do everything we can to avoid overimplementation," said Vinter of the Aarhus University Technical Faculty. "But there is no doubt that we say no to some people who probably could have had employment at Aarhus University without anything going wrong with it, but we have assessed that the risk is too high," he explained. Several other Danish universities have also rejected foreign researchers for fear of espionage, but they have said they don't keep count of the number of rejections. To screen applicants, the University of Copenhagen told local media it has employed two staff members in addition to using a third-party consultancy. The majority of the screenings have been carried out in the natural and health sciences, although the university told DR, the official Danish broadcaster, that they do not have statistics on how many applications have been refused.
Euronews
4 days ago
- Euronews
Why some countries' healthcare spending is more wasteful than others
Wealthy countries spend trillions of euros on health care every year, but not all of them are getting their money's worth, a new analysis has found. Higher levels of health spending are linked to better outcomes, but after a certain point, more money may not be efficient or practical. The more a country spends on medical care, the more it must pay to continue boosting citizens' health, according to the study published in The Lancet Global Health journal. In countries that spend $100 (€85) per capita on health care, for example, spending another $92 (€79) per person earns them an additional year of healthy life. But in countries that spend $5,000 (€4,272) per capita, another healthy year would cost $11,213 (€9,580). 'Countries around the world have made significant progress in converting dollars into health,' wrote the researchers from the US-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). 'However, more reductions in inefficiency need to be made in an era of tightening health-care budgets [and] to maximise the returns on their health care spending'. The researchers determined health spending inefficiency by comparing a country's total health spending – including the amount they spend and how they spend it – to the number of years people there can expect to live in good health. The study included 201 countries and territories, and covered a 28-year period from 1995 to 2022. Drivers of efficient and wasteful spending Globally, health spending became more efficient between 1995 and 2019, but this progress was disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it began to recover in 2022, there are still major 'inefficiency gaps' between countries, the analysis found. The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other wealthy country. But its system is not particularly efficient, which costs Americans 6.2 years of healthy life. China was the most efficient country with zero waste, meaning it optimised its spending to deliver the best possible health outcomes for its citizens, according to the analysis. Most European countries were considered fairly efficient. Exceptions included Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and to a lesser extent, the Netherlands, Belgium, Belarus, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Beyond their actual budgets, the most efficient countries tended to have better governance, greater uptake of primary care, infrastructure that makes it possible for people to access medical services, and more public spending on health care compared with the private sector. Notably, the study does not take into account health care quality, but rather tracks how well a country scores among those with similar levels of spending. The study authors said policymakers could use the findings to maximise their investments in health, which could be particularly important given many countries are facing pressure on their budgets. 'Expanding government-provided health-care coverage would decrease the inefficiency of the health care system,' the researchers argued. 'Countries should also focus on strengthening democracy, building infrastructure, and increasing the use of, and access to, preventive care,' they added.
