Woolie
Senior Member
Thought this was an interesting example of a situation where papers can be retracted, even when there's no major error or hint of fraud.
A paper reporting adverse effects associated with the use of HPV vaccine has been retracted from Scientific Reports:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...aper-claiming-neurological-damage-hpv-vaccine
This study seems to have been retracted for "soft" reasons. Concerns that the there may have been artefacts in the methodology, meaning conclusions were unjusitified.
The paper, which concluded that there are harms associated with the HPV vaccine, does look like total rubbish. It was an animal study, used massive doses of HPV vaccine, which by the looks of it, was delivered using some substance that may have been harmful in its own right.
I understand that the implications in this case were quite big - the paper appears to have influenced health policy in Japan.
But then, that would be true for CBT/GET in MECFS as well, wouldn't it?
A paper reporting adverse effects associated with the use of HPV vaccine has been retracted from Scientific Reports:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...aper-claiming-neurological-damage-hpv-vaccine
This study seems to have been retracted for "soft" reasons. Concerns that the there may have been artefacts in the methodology, meaning conclusions were unjusitified.
The paper, which concluded that there are harms associated with the HPV vaccine, does look like total rubbish. It was an animal study, used massive doses of HPV vaccine, which by the looks of it, was delivered using some substance that may have been harmful in its own right.
I understand that the implications in this case were quite big - the paper appears to have influenced health policy in Japan.
But then, that would be true for CBT/GET in MECFS as well, wouldn't it?
Last edited:
