Paper Linking Vaccine to Behavioral Changes Removed

The editor in chief of Vaccine has “temporarily removed” a study, published on the journal’s website in January, which suggested the aluminum adjuvant in an HPV vaccine caused behavioral changes in mice.

By | February 16, 2016

WIKIMEDIA, NCIA paper claiming to report a link between behavioral changes in mice and the aluminum adjuvant in a vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) has been temporarily removed from the website of the journal that published it a month ago, according to Retraction Watch. The paper, “Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil,” was appeared online in Vaccine January 9. But now, the page that used to display the paper’s abstract has been replaced by a message that reads: “The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.”

Two of the paper’s coauthors—Christopher Shaw of the University of British Columbia and Lucija Tomljenovic of the University of British Columbia and the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel—published a 2011 study suggesting a link between aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and autism. Those findings were criticized by the World Health Organization (WHO), which called the work “seriously flawed,” according to Retraction Watch.

One of the Vaccine paper’s coauthors, Yehuda Shoenfeld of Tel Aviv University, forwarded Retraction Watch an email he sent to the journal upon learning that the paper was temporarily removed. “This morning we tried to access it through PubMed and we found that there has been a TEMPORARY REMOVAL,” the email read. “We will like to know the reason or if this happened because you are uploading the last version of the paper after the Corrected Proofs; and if this is the case when it will be available again.”

Shoenfeld also shared an emailed response from Vaccine’s managing editor, who wrote: “The article in question has been temporarily removed as requested by Vaccine’s Editor-in-Chief Gregory Poland. In addition, Dr. Poland has recommended the article be further reviewed.”

Retraction Watch is awaiting comment from Poland.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


Avatar of: SteveCA7


Posts: 2

February 16, 2016

Christopher Shaw of the University of British Columbia and Lucija Tomljenovic of the University of British Columbia are so correct and help us to out the truth about this vaccine.

Yehuda Shoenfeld of Tel Aviv University is also most supportive in his work.

This vaccine has never been proven to prevent a single case of cancer. Instead it is known to cause thousands of serious side effects which are ruining lives. 



Avatar of: SteveCA7


Posts: 2

February 16, 2016

In the UK there have been 20,507 adverse reactions reported by Yellow Card, 32% of them are classified as serious. The information is being suppressed by the government but the truth will prevail.   

Avatar of: dmarciani


Posts: 55

February 17, 2016

One question that comes to mind is: Where were the reviewers of this paper? This issue of alum is not new, thus, why the reviewers did not challenge the results? While alum is neurotoxic, the amounts needed for toxicity are well beyond of those used in vaccines. Moreover, what are the special conditions that made the HPV vaccine so damaging, compared with other vaccines containing alum, which are practically all of the vaccines? All of these questions should have been answered before accepting the paper for publication.

Avatar of: tim.lundeen


Posts: 1

February 17, 2016

There is abundant evidence that the aluminum in vaccines is harmful and causes brain damage. Please see and the rest of the articles on this topic. ( includes free full-text copies of all the research they cite.)

Avatar of: twangcn


Posts: 5

February 17, 2016

The editor in chief did a wrong thing. Reasons for pre-retraction of an accepted paper should be sufficient, but where?

Popular Now

  1. Secret Eugenics Conference Uncovered at University College London
  2. Like Humans, Walruses and Bats Cuddle Infants on Their Left Sides
  3. How Do Infant Immune Systems Learn to Tolerate Gut Bacteria?
  4. Scientists Continue to Use Outdated Methods