Re: Confused what's the truth behind Wakefield controversy?

[Guest guest]

It is very confusing.This may help you

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/landscaping-wakefields-grave.html

Or this

http://vactruth.com/2011/01/07/media-vultures-have-another-go-at-andrew-wakefields-research/

Most of the story can be found in full

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/vaccines-cause-autism-war-is-over/

This site carries the full story as does

http://www.cryshame.com/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=123 & Itemid=228

Read all of their links about the hearings on right hand side.

From: <ruszala4@...>Subject: Confused what's the truth behind Wakefield controversy?Vaccinations Date: Tuesday, 11 January, 2011, 15:10

I got this email from cousin who works at Merck. He knows I don't vaccinate. I think he's trying to tell me he was right and I'm wrong. I don't know how to respond. I don't know what the truth is anymore. Did Wakefield take money from a lawyer? Were there flaws? Have there been more investigators and couldn't come to same conclusion? Please someone explain to me what really happened with Wakefield. I'm getting so frustrated trying to find the real facts and truth. This write up by Oftit is very harsh. Has Wakefield tried to defend himself what has he said to combat all these attacks? And why is this coming out now? Thanks everyone. Need more facts before Irespond to the email.

Subject: FW: Morning Merck News Summary

Vaccines

Back ToTop

(1) Opinion: Junk Science Isn't A Victimless Crime

Vaccines Don't Cause Autism—And There Was Never Any Proof That They Do. Too Bad Kids Had To Die While We Figured That Out.

The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 11, 2011

By A. Offit

In 1998, a British surgeon named Wakefield published a paper claiming that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine might cause autism. To support his case, Dr. Wakefield reported the stories of eight children who had developed symptoms of autism within one month of receiving MMR. He proposed that measles vaccine virus travels to the intestine, causes intestinal damage, and allows for brain-damaging proteins to enter children's blood streams.

The problem with Dr. Wakefield's study—published in the Lancet, a leading medical journal—was that it didn't study the question. To prove his hypothesis, he should have examined the incidence of autism in hundreds of thousands of children who had or hadn't received MMR. This kind of study has now been performed 14 times on several continents by many investigators. The studies have shown that MMR doesn't cause autism.

As several different investigations—summed up in a British Medical Journal (BMJ) editorial this month—have shown, not a single aspect of Dr. Wakefield's notion of how MMR causes autism has proven correct. He wasn't just wrong, he was spectacularly wrong. Moreover, some of the children in his report had developed symptoms of autism before they had received the vaccine—and others never actually had autism.

In addition, as journalist Deer found, Dr. Wakefield received tens of thousands of pounds from a personal-injury lawyer in the midst of suing pharmaceutical companies over MMR. (After Mr. Deer's discovery, Dr. Wakefield admitted to receiving the money.) Last year, when the Lancet found out about the money, it retracted his paper. But it was far too late.

Dr. Wakefield's paper created a firestorm. Thousands of parents in the United Kingdom and Ireland chose not to vaccinate their children. Hundreds of children were hospitalized and four killed by measles. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.

Dr. Wakefield's claim sparked a general distrust of vaccines. In recent years—as more parents chose not to vaccinate their children—epidemics of measles, mumps, bacterial meningitis and whooping cough swept across the United States. The whooping cough epidemic currently raging in California is larger than any since 1955.

Although it's easy to blame Wakefield, he's not the only one with dirty hands. The editor of the Lancet, Horton, sent Dr. Wakefield's paper to six reviewers, four of whom rejected it. That should have been enough to preclude publication. But Mr. Horton thought the paper was provocative and published it anyway.

Many others in the media showed similar poor judgment, proclaiming Dr. Wakefield's paper an important study even though it was merely a report of eight children that, at best, raised an untested hypothesis.

Meanwhile, public-health officials and scientists were slow to explain in clear, emphatic terms that Dr. Wakefield's hypothesis didn't make a bit of sense.

Even today, important voices aren't drawing the right conclusions. The BMJ, for example, wrote in its editorial that "clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare." But it's not Dr. Wakefield's lapses that matter—it's that his hypothesis was so wrong.

Even if Dr. Wakefield hadn't been fraudulent, his hypothesis would have been no less incorrect or damaging. Indeed, by continuing to focus on Dr. Wakefield's indiscretions rather than on the serious studies that have proved him wrong, we only elevate his status among antivaccine groups as a countercultural hero.

The American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote that, "Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary evidence." Dr. Wakefield made an extraordinary claim backed by scant evidence. Undoubtedly, bad science will continue to be submitted for publication. Next time, one can only hope that journal editors and the media will be far more circumspect.

[Guest guest]

The issue involving Wakefield is long and complex and can't easily be responded to convincingly, and not at all to a Merck employee. Even I won't attempt it. So, unless you based your decision not to vaccinate on Wakefield's findings, you don't need to address it other than to say Wakefield had nothing to do with your decision and you don't know all the facts, other than you've heard he is pro-vaccine.

However, I would add that Dr. Offit has a huge conflict of interest when it comes to vaccines and you don't take anything he has to say seriously. At least that's what I would say.

Winnie

FW: Morning Merck News Summary> > > > > > > > Vaccines> Back ToTop > (1) Opinion: Junk Science Isn't A Victimless Crime> Vaccines Don't Cause Autism—And There Was Never Any Proof That > They Do. Too Bad Kids Had To Die While We Figured That Out.> The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 11, 2011> > By A. Offit> > In 1998, a British surgeon named Wakefield published a > paper claiming that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine > might cause autism. To support his case, Dr. Wakefield reported > the stories of eight children who had developed symptoms of > autism within one month of receiving MMR. He proposed that > measles vaccine virus travels to the intestine, causes > intestinal damage, and allows for brain-damaging proteins to > enter children's blood streams.> > The problem with Dr. Wakefield's study—published in the Lancet, > a leading medical journal—was that it didn't study the question. > To prove his hypothesis, he should have examined the incidence > of autism in hundreds of thousands of children who had or hadn't > received MMR. This kind of study has now been performed 14 times > on several continents by many investigators. The studies have > shown that MMR doesn't cause autism.> > As several different investigations—summed up in a British > Medical Journal (BMJ) editorial this month—have shown, not a > single aspect of Dr. Wakefield's notion of how MMR causes autism > has proven correct. He wasn't just wrong, he was spectacularly > wrong. Moreover, some of the children in his report had > developed symptoms of autism before they had received the > vaccine—and others never actually had autism.> > In addition, as journalist Deer found, Dr. Wakefield > received tens of thousands of pounds from a personal-injury > lawyer in the midst of suing pharmaceutical companies over MMR. > (After Mr. Deer's discovery, Dr. Wakefield admitted to receiving > the money.) Last year, when the Lancet found out about the > money, it retracted his paper. But it was far too late.> > Dr. Wakefield's paper created a firestorm. Thousands of parents > in the United Kingdom and Ireland chose not to vaccinate their > children. Hundreds of children were hospitalized and four killed > by measles. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was > declared endemic in England and Wales.> > Dr. Wakefield's claim sparked a general distrust of vaccines. In > recent years—as more parents chose not to vaccinate their > children—epidemics of measles, mumps, bacterial meningitis and > whooping cough swept across the United States. The whooping > cough epidemic currently raging in California is larger than any > since 1955.> > Although it's easy to blame Wakefield, he's not the only > one with dirty hands. The editor of the Lancet, Horton, > sent Dr. Wakefield's paper to six reviewers, four of whom > rejected it. That should have been enough to preclude > publication. But Mr. Horton thought the paper was provocative > and published it anyway.> > Many others in the media showed similar poor judgment, > proclaiming Dr. Wakefield's paper an important study even though > it was merely a report of eight children that, at best, raised > an untested hypothesis.> > Meanwhile, public-health officials and scientists were slow to > explain in clear, emphatic terms that Dr. Wakefield's hypothesis > didn't make a bit of sense.> > Even today, important voices aren't drawing the right > conclusions. The BMJ, for example, wrote in its editorial that > "clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the > door on this damaging vaccine scare." But it's not Dr. > Wakefield's lapses that matter—it's that his hypothesis was so wrong.> > Even if Dr. Wakefield hadn't been fraudulent, his hypothesis > would have been no less incorrect or damaging. Indeed, by > continuing to focus on Dr. Wakefield's indiscretions rather than > on the serious studies that have proved him wrong, we only > elevate his status among antivaccine groups as a countercultural hero.> > The American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote > that, "Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary > evidence." Dr. Wakefield made an extraordinary claim backed by > scant evidence. Undoubtedly, bad science will continue to be > submitted for publication. Next time, one can only hope that > journal editors and the media will be far more circumspect.> > > >

[Guest guest]

I found this one astounding.http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html--- On Tue, 1/11/11, <ruszala4@...> wrote:From: <ruszala4@...>Subject: Confused what's the truth behind Wakefield controversy?Vaccinations Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:10 AM

I got this email from cousin who works at Merck. He knows I don't vaccinate. I think he's trying to tell me he was right and I'm wrong. I don't know how to respond. I don't know what the truth is anymore. Did Wakefield take money from a lawyer? Were there flaws? Have there been more investigators and couldn't come to same conclusion? Please someone explain to me what really happened with Wakefield. I'm getting so frustrated trying to find the real facts and truth. This write up by Oftit is very harsh. Has Wakefield tried to defend himself what has he said to combat all these attacks? And why is this coming out now? Thanks everyone. Need more facts before Irespond to the email.

Subject: FW: Morning Merck News Summary

Vaccines

Back ToTop

(1) Opinion: Junk Science Isn't A Victimless Crime

Vaccines Don't Cause Autism—And There Was Never Any Proof That They Do. Too Bad Kids Had To Die While We Figured That Out.

The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 11, 2011

By A. Offit

In 1998, a British surgeon named Wakefield published a paper claiming that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine might cause autism. To support his case, Dr. Wakefield reported the stories of eight children who had developed symptoms of autism within one month of receiving MMR. He proposed that measles vaccine virus travels to the intestine, causes intestinal damage, and allows for brain-damaging proteins to enter children's blood streams.

The problem with Dr. Wakefield's study—published in the Lancet, a leading medical journal—was that it didn't study the question. To prove his hypothesis, he should have examined the incidence of autism in hundreds of thousands of children who had or hadn't received MMR. This kind of study has now been performed 14 times on several continents by many investigators. The studies have shown that MMR doesn't cause autism.

As several different investigations—summed up in a British Medical Journal (BMJ) editorial this month—have shown, not a single aspect of Dr. Wakefield's notion of how MMR causes autism has proven correct. He wasn't just wrong, he was spectacularly wrong. Moreover, some of the children in his report had developed symptoms of autism before they had received the vaccine—and others never actually had autism.

In addition, as journalist Deer found, Dr. Wakefield received tens of thousands of pounds from a personal-injury lawyer in the midst of suing pharmaceutical companies over MMR. (After Mr. Deer's discovery, Dr. Wakefield admitted to receiving the money.) Last year, when the Lancet found out about the money, it retracted his paper. But it was far too late.

Dr. Wakefield's paper created a firestorm. Thousands of parents in the United Kingdom and Ireland chose not to vaccinate their children. Hundreds of children were hospitalized and four killed by measles. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.

Dr. Wakefield's claim sparked a general distrust of vaccines. In recent years—as more parents chose not to vaccinate their children—epidemics of measles, mumps, bacterial meningitis and whooping cough swept across the United States. The whooping cough epidemic currently raging in California is larger than any since 1955.

Although it's easy to blame Wakefield, he's not the only one with dirty hands. The editor of the Lancet, Horton, sent Dr. Wakefield's paper to six reviewers, four of whom rejected it. That should have been enough to preclude publication. But Mr. Horton thought the paper was provocative and published it anyway.

Many others in the media showed similar poor judgment, proclaiming Dr. Wakefield's paper an important study even though it was merely a report of eight children that, at best, raised an untested hypothesis.

Meanwhile, public-health officials and scientists were slow to explain in clear, emphatic terms that Dr. Wakefield's hypothesis didn't make a bit of sense.

Even today, important voices aren't drawing the right conclusions. The BMJ, for example, wrote in its editorial that "clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare." But it's not Dr. Wakefield's lapses that matter—it's that his hypothesis was so wrong.

Even if Dr. Wakefield hadn't been fraudulent, his hypothesis would have been no less incorrect or damaging. Indeed, by continuing to focus on Dr. Wakefield's indiscretions rather than on the serious studies that have proved him wrong, we only elevate his status among antivaccine groups as a countercultural hero.

The American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote that, "Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary evidence." Dr. Wakefield made an extraordinary claim backed by scant evidence. Undoubtedly, bad science will continue to be submitted for publication. Next time, one can only hope that journal editors and the media will be far more circumspect.

[Guest guest]

This is GOOD stuff, thanks for sharing! Dr. Wakefields interview with Mercola last year is also very informative and puts things into perspective.

[Guest guest]

Offit either has no statistics background or he is taking great liberty with the free press. The 1998 Lancet publication was about a CASE STUDY. A CASE STUDY does not test a Hypothesis. It is a report of findings, that is all. Offit should not voice his opinion or whatever else unless he knows what he is talking about. There are loads of case studies published in medical journals. Medical professionals share their observations all the time. Unfortunately medical professionals will be very reluctant to share findings in the future for fear of being slaughtered on paper. This is the great pity. lFrom: <ruszala4@...>Subject: Confused what's the truth behind Wakefield controversy?Vaccinations Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:10 AM

I got this email from cousin who works at Merck. He knows I don't vaccinate. I think he's trying to tell me he was right and I'm wrong. I don't know how to respond. I don't know what the truth is anymore. Did Wakefield take money from a lawyer? Were there flaws? Have there been more investigators and couldn't come to same conclusion? Please someone explain to me what really happened with Wakefield. I'm getting so frustrated trying to find the real facts and truth. This write up by Oftit is very harsh. Has Wakefield tried to defend himself what has he said to combat all these attacks? And why is this coming out now? Thanks everyone. Need more facts before Irespond to the email.

Subject: FW: Morning Merck News Summary

Vaccines

Back ToTop

(1) Opinion: Junk Science Isn't A Victimless Crime

Vaccines Don't Cause Autism—And There Was Never Any Proof That They Do. Too Bad Kids Had To Die While We Figured That Out.

The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 11, 2011

By A. Offit

In 1998, a British surgeon named Wakefield published a paper claiming that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine might cause autism. To support his case, Dr. Wakefield reported the stories of eight children who had developed symptoms of autism within one month of receiving MMR. He proposed that measles vaccine virus travels to the intestine, causes intestinal damage, and allows for brain-damaging proteins to enter children's blood streams.

The problem with Dr. Wakefield's study—published in the Lancet, a leading medical journal—was that it didn't study the question. To prove his hypothesis, he should have examined the incidence of autism in hundreds of thousands of children who had or hadn't received MMR. This kind of study has now been performed 14 times on several continents by many investigators. The studies have shown that MMR doesn't cause autism.

As several different investigations—summed up in a British Medical Journal (BMJ) editorial this month—have shown, not a single aspect of Dr. Wakefield's notion of how MMR causes autism has proven correct. He wasn't just wrong, he was spectacularly wrong. Moreover, some of the children in his report had developed symptoms of autism before they had received the vaccine—and others never actually had autism.

In addition, as journalist Deer found, Dr. Wakefield received tens of thousands of pounds from a personal-injury lawyer in the midst of suing pharmaceutical companies over MMR. (After Mr. Deer's discovery, Dr. Wakefield admitted to receiving the money.) Last year, when the Lancet found out about the money, it retracted his paper. But it was far too late.

Dr. Wakefield's paper created a firestorm. Thousands of parents in the United Kingdom and Ireland chose not to vaccinate their children. Hundreds of children were hospitalized and four killed by measles. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.

Dr. Wakefield's claim sparked a general distrust of vaccines. In recent years—as more parents chose not to vaccinate their children—epidemics of measles, mumps, bacterial meningitis and whooping cough swept across the United States. The whooping cough epidemic currently raging in California is larger than any since 1955.

Although it's easy to blame Wakefield, he's not the only one with dirty hands. The editor of the Lancet, Horton, sent Dr. Wakefield's paper to six reviewers, four of whom rejected it. That should have been enough to preclude publication. But Mr. Horton thought the paper was provocative and published it anyway.

Many others in the media showed similar poor judgment, proclaiming Dr. Wakefield's paper an important study even though it was merely a report of eight children that, at best, raised an untested hypothesis.

Meanwhile, public-health officials and scientists were slow to explain in clear, emphatic terms that Dr. Wakefield's hypothesis didn't make a bit of sense.

Even today, important voices aren't drawing the right conclusions. The BMJ, for example, wrote in its editorial that "clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare." But it's not Dr. Wakefield's lapses that matter—it's that his hypothesis was so wrong.

Even if Dr. Wakefield hadn't been fraudulent, his hypothesis would have been no less incorrect or damaging. Indeed, by continuing to focus on Dr. Wakefield's indiscretions rather than on the serious studies that have proved him wrong, we only elevate his status among antivaccine groups as a countercultural hero.

The American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote that, "Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary evidence." Dr. Wakefield made an extraordinary claim backed by scant evidence. Undoubtedly, bad science will continue to be submitted for publication. Next time, one can only hope that journal editors and the media will be far more circumspect.

[Guest guest]

Yes you are right. Shame isn't it? Thanks everyone for your posts I'm reading all day.

FW: Morning Merck News Summary

Vaccines

Back ToTop

(1) Opinion: Junk Science Isn't A Victimless Crime

Vaccines Don't Cause Autism—And There Was Never Any Proof That They Do. Too Bad Kids Had To Die While We Figured That Out.

The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 11, 2011

By A. Offit

In 1998, a British surgeon named Wakefield published a paper claiming that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine might cause autism. To support his case, Dr. Wakefield reported the stories of eight children who had developed symptoms of autism within one month of receiving MMR. He proposed that measles vaccine virus travels to the intestine, causes intestinal damage, and allows for brain-damaging proteins to enter children's blood streams.

The problem with Dr. Wakefield's study—published in the Lancet, a leading medical journal—was that it didn't study the question. To prove his hypothesis, he should have examined the incidence of autism in hundreds of thousands of children who had or hadn't received MMR. This kind of study has now been performed 14 times on several continents by many investigators. The studies have shown that MMR doesn't cause autism.

As several different investigations—summed up in a British Medical Journal (BMJ) editorial this month—have shown, not a single aspect of Dr. Wakefield's notion of how MMR causes autism has proven correct. He wasn't just wrong, he was spectacularly wrong. Moreover, some of the children in his report had developed symptoms of autism before they had received the vaccine—and others never actually had autism.

In addition, as journalist Deer found, Dr. Wakefield received tens of thousands of pounds from a personal-injury lawyer in the midst of suing pharmaceutical companies over MMR. (After Mr. Deer's discovery, Dr. Wakefield admitted to receiving the money.) Last year, when the Lancet found out about the money, it retracted his paper. But it was far too late.

Dr. Wakefield's paper created a firestorm. Thousands of parents in the United Kingdom and Ireland chose not to vaccinate their children. Hundreds of children were hospitalized and four killed by measles. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.

Dr. Wakefield's claim sparked a general distrust of vaccines. In recent years—as more parents chose not to vaccinate their children—epidemics of measles, mumps, bacterial meningitis and whooping cough swept across the United States. The whooping cough epidemic currently raging in California is larger than any since 1955.

Although it's easy to blame Wakefield, he's not the only one with dirty hands. The editor of the Lancet, Horton, sent Dr. Wakefield's paper to six reviewers, four of whom rejected it. That should have been enough to preclude publication. But Mr. Horton thought the paper was provocative and published it anyway.

Many others in the media showed similar poor judgment, proclaiming Dr. Wakefield's paper an important study even though it was merely a report of eight children that, at best, raised an untested hypothesis.

Meanwhile, public-health officials and scientists were slow to explain in clear, emphatic terms that Dr. Wakefield's hypothesis didn't make a bit of sense.

Even today, important voices aren't drawing the right conclusions. The BMJ, for example, wrote in its editorial that "clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare." But it's not Dr. Wakefield's lapses that matter—it's that his hypothesis was so wrong.

Even if Dr. Wakefield hadn't been fraudulent, his hypothesis would have been no less incorrect or damaging. Indeed, by continuing to focus on Dr. Wakefield's indiscretions rather than on the serious studies that have proved him wrong, we only elevate his status among antivaccine groups as a countercultural hero.

The American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote that, "Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary evidence." Dr. Wakefield made an extraordinary claim backed by scant evidence. Undoubtedly, bad science will continue to be submitted for publication. Next time, one can only hope that journal editors and the media will be far more circumspect.

[Guest guest]

If you can get a copy of Wakefield's book, Callous Disregard " , he tells all with

references and everything. While there were several layers between Merck and

Glaxo Kline, it appears they may have been behind the smear campaign and

the creep called Deer...

Wakefield is a good doctor who dared to speak his mind. His observations have

been replicated in research in at least 5 other countries, including the US at

Wakeforest University.

>

>

>

> I got this email from cousin who works at Merck. He knows I don't vaccinate. I

think he's trying to tell me he was right and I'm wrong. I don't know how to

respond. I don't know what the truth is anymore. Did Wakefield take money from a

lawyer? Were there flaws? Have there been more investigators and couldn't come

to same conclusion? Please someone explain to me what really happened with

Wakefield. I'm getting so frustrated trying to find the real facts and

truth. This write up by Oftit is very harsh. Has Wakefield tried to defend

himself what has he said to combat all these attacks? And why is this coming out

now? Thanks everyone. Need more facts before Irespond to the email.

>

> Subject: FW: Morning Merck News Summary

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Vaccines

> Back ToTop

> (1) Opinion: Junk Science Isn't A Victimless Crime

> Vaccines Don't Cause Autism†" And There Was Never Any Proof That They Do. Too

Bad Kids Had To Die While We Figured That Out.

> The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 11, 2011

>

> By A. Offit

>

> In 1998, a British surgeon named Wakefield published a paper claiming

that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine might cause autism. To support his

case, Dr. Wakefield reported the stories of eight children who had developed

symptoms of autism within one month of receiving MMR. He proposed that measles

vaccine virus travels to the intestine, causes intestinal damage, and allows for

brain-damaging proteins to enter children's blood streams.

>

> The problem with Dr. Wakefield's study†" published in the Lancet, a leading

medical journal†" was that it didn't study the question. To prove his

hypothesis, he should have examined the incidence of autism in hundreds of

thousands of children who had or hadn't received MMR. This kind of study has now

been performed 14 times on several continents by many investigators. The studies

have shown that MMR doesn't cause autism.

>

> As several different investigations†" summed up in a British Medical Journal

(BMJ) editorial this month†" have shown, not a single aspect of Dr. Wakefield's

notion of how MMR causes autism has proven correct. He wasn't just wrong, he was

spectacularly wrong. Moreover, some of the children in his report had developed

symptoms of autism before they had received the vaccine†" and others never

actually had autism.

>

> In addition, as journalist Deer found, Dr. Wakefield received tens of

thousands of pounds from a personal-injury lawyer in the midst of suing

pharmaceutical companies over MMR. (After Mr. Deer's discovery, Dr. Wakefield

admitted to receiving the money.) Last year, when the Lancet found out about the

money, it retracted his paper. But it was far too late.

>

> Dr. Wakefield's paper created a firestorm. Thousands of parents in the United

Kingdom and Ireland chose not to vaccinate their children. Hundreds of children

were hospitalized and four killed by measles. In 2008, for the first time in 14

years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.

>

> Dr. Wakefield's claim sparked a general distrust of vaccines. In recent

years†" as more parents chose not to vaccinate their children†" epidemics of

measles, mumps, bacterial meningitis and whooping cough swept across the United

States. The whooping cough epidemic currently raging in California is larger

than any since 1955.

>

> Although it's easy to blame Wakefield, he's not the only one with dirty

hands. The editor of the Lancet, Horton, sent Dr. Wakefield's paper to

six reviewers, four of whom rejected it. That should have been enough to

preclude publication. But Mr. Horton thought the paper was provocative and

published it anyway.

>

> Many others in the media showed similar poor judgment, proclaiming Dr.

Wakefield's paper an important study even though it was merely a report of eight

children that, at best, raised an untested hypothesis.

>

> Meanwhile, public-health officials and scientists were slow to explain in

clear, emphatic terms that Dr. Wakefield's hypothesis didn't make a bit of

sense.

>

> Even today, important voices aren't drawing the right conclusions. The BMJ,

for example, wrote in its editorial that " clear evidence of falsification of

data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare. " But it's not Dr.

Wakefield's lapses that matter†" it's that his hypothesis was so wrong.

>

> Even if Dr. Wakefield hadn't been fraudulent, his hypothesis would have been

no less incorrect or damaging. Indeed, by continuing to focus on Dr. Wakefield's

indiscretions rather than on the serious studies that have proved him wrong, we

only elevate his status among antivaccine groups as a countercultural hero.

>

> The American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote that,

" Extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary evidence. " Dr. Wakefield

made an extraordinary claim backed by scant evidence. Undoubtedly, bad science

will continue to be submitted for publication. Next time, one can only hope that

journal editors and the media will be far more circumspect.

>