Andrew Wakefield

[Monkeytrousers1]

scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/why_am_i_not_surprised_it_looks_as_thoug.php

Well I knew his results were c**p, but I didn't realise there were suggestions he deliberately falsified them, just that he hadn't got a clue how to do research properly...

classy...

really quite frightening isn't it? the repercussions of the Wakefield data were enormous. and it was based on half truths and self serving hypotheses? interesting article.

I remember clearly that DS was due to have his MMR when the wakefield furore blew up, and I did delay giving him his MMR as we have a history of IBD in the family. it was impossible to find out any impartial info re the MMR or single jabs. in the end he had the MMR at around 18 months

Richard Horton in his book "MMR science fact or fiction" on why he regreted including the wakefield paper on the Lancet.One of the things he covered was the fact that the medical records all showed there was cause for concern before the children had their MMR.