Vaccine-autism study retracted
Had you heard that a study linked vaccination during pregnancy with autism in offspring?
A paper originally published 10 January 2024 in Neurochemical Research that was said to show a causal link between vaccinations during pregnancy and autism in the offspring of the vaccinated mothers has been retracted. The journal’s editor ordered that “Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations” by Mumin Alper Erdogan, Orkun Gurbuz, Mehmet Fatih Bozkurt, and Oytun Erbas be retracted because “a post-publication review found inconsistencies in the number of subjects reported in the Methods and raw data. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.”
Although the report was retracted for what some might consider technical reasons, sensible readers might have had questions about it anyway. The pregnant rats were given a dose of the vaccine that was appropriate for human-sized organisms.
At the best, the reason for the retraction is that the paper represented sloppy research. Subsequent investigations may reveal other reasons for the errors. Readers should be aware, however, that this is the second paper by Professor Erdogan that has been retracted.
I am sorry to note that the article had already been discussed on the Intertubes repeatedly. The Altmetric score for the study as of 16 August 2025 was 143 with 189 Tweets. Some of you, Dear Readers, may have already seen reference to it.
Marta Hill of The Transmitter, posted an extensive analysis of the retraction. In “Contested paper on vaccines, autism in rats retracted by journal: The editor-in-chief cited ‘inconsistencies in the number of subjects’ as the reason for the retraction,“ she reported
This is the second retraction for Mümin Alper Erdoğan, associate professor in the department of physiology at İzmir Katip Çelebi University. It is the first retraction for each of the other three authors, according to the Retraction Watch database. Only Erdoğan replied to The Transmitter’s emailed requests for comment. “I believe this decision was unjust and warrants open discussion,” he wrote, referring to the vaccine study retraction. Erdoğan did not respond to a follow-up request for an interview.
Ms. Hill mentioned an excellent source for tracking retractions (sounds funny?) is the Web site, Retraction Watch. It provides not only news about retractions but also a database that aggregates evidence about studies that have been retracted. I haven't found notes about the study of prenatal exposure to COVID-19 vaccine on RW yet.
Those who have followed the saga of a connection between vaccination and autism will likely remember that much of the concern about the connection was predicated on fraudulent research that later had to be retracted. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues published a paper in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, that linked measles-mumps-rubella vaccination with Autism. The Wikipedia entry about the matter, Lancet MMR autism fraud, provided a pretty good summary.
As editors of Exceptional Children, I remember Bill Therrien and I discussing and agreeing that one of our greatest fears was that we would approve for publication some article that we would later have to retract. As an author of papers, I would make every effort to assure that any report I published was squeaky clean. A retraction may not be the worst thing in the world, but it would be right right up there at the front of the pack!
The current an earlier cases about vaccination connections with autism illustrates why I advocate for open science practices in special education (see, for example, Cook et al.: “Promoting Open Science to Increase Trustworthiness of Evidence in Special Education”).