British website required to stop autism-MMR claims

Published on August 9, 2012 by Ted Purlain

A British vaccine-related website was recently ordered to remove a claim that the MMR vaccine is related to cases of autism.

Babyjabs.co.uk, a promoter of single vaccines, said that the MMR, which includes vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella, could be causing autism in up to 10 percent of children already susceptible to the disorder in United Kingdom, according to CTVNews.ca.

A link between autism and the MMR vaccine has been thoroughly discredited. The original study that sparked the rumor has been discredited as scientifically and ethically flawed, and its author, Andrew Wakefield, has been banned from practicing medicine in the U.K. He continues, however, to defend his research from the United States.

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Babyjabs.co.uk was making misleading claims and ordered that they must not appear again on the website.

The ASA also told the website that it cannot repeat the unfounded claim that the vaccine-strain measles virus has been found in the brain and gastrointestinal tract of autistic children, which suggests the MMR vaccine could be responsible for the disorder, CTVNews.ca reports.

An investigation into Babyjabs.co.uk began after an individual complained that the site was offering misleading and false information. The ASA concurred, but said that the site also made it clear that the medical establishment and U.K. government had rejected Wakefield’s study.

This story filed in Medical Countermeasures and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.facebook.com/nurseswhovaccinate MelodyRN

    Telling people that a consumer claim is false can make them misremember it as
    true. Numerous studies have demonstrated that exposing people to claims increases the perceived truth of the claim when it is seen again later. This effect occurs even for statements that are explicitly identified as false on initial presentation. There’s more information on this topic in the March 2005 issue of JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH. Research supports the decision made to remove the claim due to public susceptibility to misinformation.