3 ms·

Surely you noticed the part of the article where Wakefield falsified data? That the paper he submitted to the Lancet was at odds with the actual clinical recor

Surely you noticed the part of the article where Wakefield falsified data? That the paper he submitted to the Lancet was at odds with the actual clinical records at the hospital? And the fact that his damning financial connection was not disclosed to the journal? What is the journal supposed to do? They certainly couldn't have predicted that a tiny 12-person study would blow up in the way it has. In the end, they retracted the paper, which is exactly how it should have worked. Sometimes bad papers get published--peer review can't catch everything.

jdminhbg 16y ago
I noticed the part where Wakefield falsified data, as well as the part where the author criticized his sample size and methodology... so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. Why would the journal even consider publishing an article making claims as big as Wakefield's on the basis of a dozen study participants? The "in the end" where they retracted the paper was like six months ago, right?
- nollidge 16y ago
  > so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? Because peer review, like every other human endeavor, is not perfect? > I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. But the study did not conclude that. The paper stated "we did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described". It reported interviews with the parents talking about MMR, but did not conclude that itself. The conclusion was more about the relationship between gastrointestinal issues and autism (also false, but less obviously so). No decent scientist would draw a sweeping conclusion like "autism is caused by universal vaccination" from this study. One study--especially one so small, with no controls and no randomization--does not demonstrate causation no matter how significant the correlation. The Lancet study (false, but still subtle enough) was misinterpreted due to Wakefield's spin machine and a gullible media. And to be honest, I have no idea why they didn't retract sooner. I do hold them at fault for that.

jdminhbg 16y ago

I noticed the part where Wakefield falsified data, as well as the part where the author criticized his sample size and methodology... so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. Why would the journal even consider publishing an article making claims as big as Wakefield's on the basis of a dozen study participants? The "in the end" where they retracted the paper was like six months ago, right?

nollidge 16y ago
> so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? Because peer review, like every other human endeavor, is not perfect? > I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. But the study did not conclude that. The paper stated "we did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described". It reported interviews with the parents talking about MMR, but did not conclude that itself. The conclusion was more about the relationship between gastrointestinal issues and autism (also false, but less obviously so). No decent scientist would draw a sweeping conclusion like "autism is caused by universal vaccination" from this study. One study--especially one so small, with no controls and no randomization--does not demonstrate causation no matter how significant the correlation. The Lancet study (false, but still subtle enough) was misinterpreted due to Wakefield's spin machine and a gullible media. And to be honest, I have no idea why they didn't retract sooner. I do hold them at fault for that.