New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Journal Retracts Paper Linking "Swine Flu" Vaccine and Narcolepsy

The retraction represents a setback for those trying to explain a puzzling cluster of sudden-onset narcolepsy reported in 2010 in Europe

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Originally posted on the Nature news blog. 

A paper that once promised to help unravel a medical mystery — why some children developed narcolepsy after receiving an influenza vaccine — has been retracted.

Narcolepsy is a disorder that causes extreme sleepiness, sometimes inducing uncontrollable ‘sleep attacks’ that can strike at any time of day. In 2010, a puzzling cluster of sudden-onset narcolepsy cases was reported in Europe among children vaccinated with GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix flu vaccine against the H1N1 ‘swine flu’ that had caused a pandemic in 2009.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


On December 18, 2013, researchers reported a possible connection between the vaccine and narcolepsy. In a paper published in Science Translational Medicine, they showed that people with narcolepsy produce immune cells called T cells that recognize hypocretin, a neurotransmitter that regulates wakefulness. People with narcolepsy tend to have low levels of hypocretin in neurons that control wakefulness, and the results supported the notion that autoimmune responses could be destroying the neurotransmitter.

The authors, led by immunologist Elizabeth Mellins and narcolepsy researcher Emmanuel Mignot of the Stanford School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, went on to demonstrate that pieces of a flu protein often used in vaccines stimulated immune cells that recognize hypocretin. This suggested a mechanism by which the vaccine could contribute to narcolepsy in some people.

But on July 31, the authors announced that they have been unable to repeat a key finding: that immune cells from people with narcolepsy respond to hypocretin more so than immune cells from people who do not have narcolepsy. “Because the validity of the conclusions reported in the study cannot be confirmed, we are retracting the article,” the team wrote.

The retraction is a setback for a field struggling to find an answer. “We continue to believe that the original scientific hypothesis remains a valid one that needs to be further explored,” said GlaxoSmithKline, a London-based pharmaceutical firm, in a statement. The company says that it is supporting research, including in its own labs, to explore the possible link between its vaccine and narcolepsy, and particularly to learn more about interactions between the vaccine and other risk factors in the people who developed the condition.

Those risk factors were a mystery even before the retraction. And although the paper suggested a possible link between flu vaccines and narcolepsy, it did not clarify why Pandemrix, in particular, would be problematic. The original study was also conducted in a relatively small number of people.

Given such small numbers, the retraction comes as little surprise, says immunologist Outi Vaarala of the Finland National Institute for Health and Welfare in Helsinki. Vaarala, who praises the authors for openly addressing the problems with their paper, also notes that the methods use to assay immune responses are difficult to reproduce, and says reviewers should demand that researchers repeat their experiments using multiple methods. “If you can show differences in T-cell reactivity between patients and controls when different read-outs are used,” she says, “the findings are likely to be reliable.”

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on July 31, 2014.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe