UBC defends academic freedom over contentious vaccine study

I actually agree with both UBC and WHO on this. If there is a possibility of a link between anything in vaccines and any serious disease or condition then that link needs to be investigated, and a university scientist should have the freedom to do that investigation...

... in a responsible way. That means that the results of the study need to be fairly and completely presented such that they study can be evaluated by other scientists. If the study is found to be flawed then that discussion needs to happen in the correct forums and appropriate follow-up investigations need to be completed in a manner that avoids the drawbacks of the flawed study.

That is how science is done. In the open, peer reviewed, and scientifically debated with the ultimate arbiter being reality.

Christopher Shaw, a professor in the university’s department of ophthalmology and visual science, has produced research that implies there may be a link between autism and the aluminum found in some vaccines. His studies relied on animal models as well as correlations between aluminum content in vaccines and autism rates in a number of countries.

The WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety in 2012 reviewed two papers co-written by Shaw and found them to be “seriously flawed” by implying there is a causal link, rather than just a correlation, between autism and vaccines, according to a committee report.