Too late to say sorry?

No. The anti-vaccination movement has never been about science. It's about mommy-sense, anecdotal evidence, and paranoia about conventional medical practices which offer little benefit to the individual but a large benefit to the general population.

People have long been clamouring for scientists to investigate the connections between vaccines and autism, and been unaware or dismissive of the fact that scientists have in fact done so, many times, and have found none. It has been as close to proven as possible: vaccines do not cause autism. It has been known for a long time that the initial study suggesting this connection is flawed in every way conceivable, and now we have medical societies backing that up as well. For many people, this will work, but for others, no amount of evidence or argument will ever change their minds. I can only hope that, with the continually rising numbers of individuals and organisations that point to both the studies showing no connections between autism and vaccines, and the increasingly obvious invalidity of the study that started things, the anti-vaccinationists will become increasingly ignored.

Jenny McCarthy once said "My kid is my science". That, right there and then, should have shown how much she knows about science itself. No science is based on a study group of one.
All the "proof" anti-vaccine movement had, other than this, now retracted study is - anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately no one told them than plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not data.
This retraction in my belief, will not do much to debunk the myth of the autism causing vaccines since these people will not change their mind easily, causing further damage.

Someone once said that even if it was true (and it's not) that vaccination causes severe adverse reaction in one out of 100.000 persons it is a risk well worth taking. What anti-vaccine movement needs to understand is that by not getting vaccinated they are not avoiding the risk, as they believe, they are just taking on a risk of another kind.

To the pro-vaccination group, this is a clear example of science once again disproving the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. To any of the informed anti-vaccination lobbyists, this is old news. Wakefield's study from the beginning was flawed, and the results fabricated. Regardless, staggering amounts of correlated data suggesting a relationship continues to outweigh any funded studies which have been equally as flawed as Wakefield's. In short, this has nothing to do with anything of the current anti-vaccine movement - and will not quell those opposed to vaccinations.

Furthermore, of course MMR is not solely responsible for causing autism, just as much as cigarettes are not the sole cause of lung cancer. Environmental factors, gene heritability and exposure all play role in the development of autism - the concern is MMR and likewise vaccines introduce harmful chemicals (preservatives, heavy metals) into the body and provide an extra push in that direction. Pretending medical science is infallible is foolish, and hypocritical of those in the field. History proves this again and again, Thalimide, Agent Orange, SV40 Polio vaccine - all with positive intent and none of the benefits.

Unfortunately this retraction will be seen as a great step forward in the crushing of the anti-vaccine theories, while in reality it couldn’t be more useless as a pro-vaccination weapon.

Just a comment about Catherine Holloway's post. Not sure what she means by "conventional medical practices which offer little benefit to the individual but a large benefit to the general population". Vaccination may not "benefit" a person who is never exposed to the disease but the for individual who avoids a serious consequence or even death, the vaccine has provided tremendous individual benefit. As an analogy, seatbelts don't "work" until one gets into a serious collision. Then they are lifesaving.

MMR vaccines are harmful to children! I know it's true because my aunt's homeopath's girlfriend once talked to a guy who overheard someone say that their autistic kid had been vaccinated! The FDA wants everyone to be autistic so that they'll be pliable and the government can keep hiding the truth that 9/11 was an inside job by the same people who faked the moon landing! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

@John

I was referring to herd immunity - i.e. if you are one parent out of a thousand in your immediate community who does not vaccinate your children, it is unlikely that your child will get sick, so it's easy to justify that there was no benefit to vaccination.

However, if you are the parent of a baby who died of a vaccine-preventable disease because the herd immunity was compromised, you'd probably see it differently.

Sorry for what? They did a study and those were the results. Science does not work by concensus, it works on experiment and observation. This is setting a dangerous precedent, people have to be allowed to dispute and discuss different theories in an open and free environment without the fear of being alienated by colleagues.

F.T.,
We know science does not work by consensus, but results mean nothing if the study was flawed.

It's the additives or filler to the vaccine - such as mercury and Formaldehyde that causes Autism. Cheap fillers that I don't want in my children's bodies.

@Monty,

There is no such thing as "filler". Each part of the vaccine serves a purpose. Mercury level in vaccines is less than what you would get from a pound of pacific salmon. Mercury in vaccines serves as a "booster", it elicits 20 times stronger reaction from the immune system with the same volume of vaccine. That means that your child needs to get 20 times less vaccine.

As for the formaldehyde... you have levels of formaldehyde in your bloodstream that are higher than the ones in vaccines. It is a normal product of human metabolism.

There are two sides to every story, but this makes me think of Freud changing his theory about child abuse into the Oedipus Complex as a result of social pressure and negative reaction to the reality of child abuse. If there is truth to the link between the MMR vaccine and Austism, a major corporation or two stands to lose alot of money. Hence the aggressive efforts to sue anyone who dares publish a study suggesting that vaccines might cause Autism or that burning fuel might contribute to climate change. Lots and lots of money potentially going down the drain. The scientific method is not a perfect science- all studies are flawed as others have said. often the results tend to reflect the interests of whoever is backing them. Just some thoughts.

I don't know. I don't have some nonsense paranoia about vaccines, but I wonder about retracting articles. I mean, regardless of whether it was flawed or dishonest, this was a published article and as such is simply a historical fact. Doesn't retracting an article seem like an effort to sweep a mistake under the rug?

But maybe I misunderstand. When they say the article is retracted, does that necessarily mean that it will be made unavailable from now on? If so, I don't approve. The appropriate way to deal with necessary updates to old literature is to attach an addendum explaining how the study has been discredited (with a reference). This way the article is still available as the historical document that it is, but with added information to new readers indicating why this article is problematic. I have seen old literature updated in this way. It's helpful and constructive, and honest.