Anti-vaccinators were relegated again
An article on the connection of the HPV vaccine with a decrease in fertility was withdrawn from the journal
Polina Loseva, N+1
An article was withdrawn from the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health , the author of which found a link between the spread of the HPV vaccine in the United States and a decrease in the birth rate. The reason for the review was the comments of critics who found flaws in the selection of data for analysis and errors in statistical calculations.
In 2019, WHO for the first time included the refusal of vaccinations in the list of ten global health threats. It is he who is considered one of the causes of sudden outbreaks of infections – for example, the recent measles epidemic in Europe. Many countries have begun to fight anti–vaccination movements - for example, Germany adopted a law on mandatory vaccination, and VKontakte began to show a disclaimer on the pages of anti-vaccination communities.
Often, the refusal of vaccinations is caused by the fact that people are afraid of side effects. Therefore, the scientific community is fighting for vaccination from its side – it is looking for evidence that vaccinations are really related or not related to certain diseases. So, the Danes recently refuted on a huge sample one of the frequent arguments against vaccination, according to which vaccinations at an early age can cause a child to have an autism spectrum disorder.
Fear can also affect vaccinations that are done in adulthood – for example, against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Scientists have already had to prove that HPV vaccination does not cause autoimmune diseases and brain damage.
In 2018, the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health published an article that talked about another possible danger of HPV vaccination. Its author, Professor of Economics and Finance Gayle Delong, reported that she studied data on eight million American women aged 25-29 and calculated that women vaccinated against HPV became pregnant less often than unvaccinated ones. The researcher did not study the mechanisms that could explain this connection, but suggested that it was aluminum, which is part of vaccines and could cause damage to the ovaries and menstrual cycle disorders.
According to Delong, about 35 percent of vaccinated American women became mothers, and 60 percent of unvaccinated women. Summing up, the author concluded that if all the participants in her study had been vaccinated, the number of women who managed to get pregnant would have fallen by two million.
However, after publication, the article was attacked by critics from several sides at once. The first speaker was an anonymous critic under the nickname Orac: he had questions about data analysis. In his calculations, Orac notes, Delong does not take into account whether the survey participants used hormonal contraceptives – while this fact could explain the presence or absence of their children, regardless of whether they are vaccinated or not.
Delong also calculated the risk of remaining childless in women who received one, two or three doses of the vaccine. Orac draws attention to the fact that it found significant differences (p<0.05) only in two cases: women who received one or three doses of the vaccine were more likely to be childless than unvaccinated women. At the same time, if the vaccine really destroyed the ovary, then one would expect that higher doses would have a stronger effect on the chances of getting pregnant.
Then Japanese doctors became alarmed and published their letter criticizing Delong's article. They noted that the decline in the birth rate in the United States may be due to the fact that young women began to work more. From 2000 to 2014, they remind, the average age of birth of the firstborn increased from 24.9 to 26.3 years – that is, the increase in employment could affect the very category of women that Delong studied.
Researcher Elizabeth Bick spoke next on the PubPeer website. She found that the groups that Delong compared – vaccinated and unvaccinated women – vary greatly in size: 118 and 582 people, respectively (and in total this sample does not equal the claimed 8 million). In addition, Delong did not take into account in her calculations that these groups also differ in the level of education. Among the vaccinated women, there were more of those who graduated from college – and, judging by the all-American statistics, they give birth later and less.
Finally, several critics simultaneously recalled that Delong had already spoken out against vaccination, which makes her biased in her conclusions. As a result, a year and a half after the publication of the article, the editorial board of the journal decided to withdraw it and indicated "errors in statistical analysis and interpretation of data" as the reason.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru