> 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

> 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.