Formally, the journal states that the paper was retracted because claims "...that children were "consecutively referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false," though I can't help but think that no one else has been able to replicate their findings might have a little bit to do with it as well.
BTW (and I had to look this up myself), "consecutively referred" means that patients are included in the study as they come in, not selected for sampling by the researchers. In other words, this is a roundabout way of accusing the authors of cherry-picking their subjects, something that is particularly problematic when you are claiming to find a causal link between two things after the fact. To put it mildly.
Now, as I've said before...go vaccinate your rugrats!