It took 12 years for the paper to be retracted, so I wouldn't necessarily say "suddenly". Also, I think fraud is easier to miss (which may seem as it being tol

It took 12 years for the paper to be retracted, so I wouldn't necessarily say "suddenly". Also, I think fraud is easier to miss (which may seem as it being tolerated) if it's something people expect or is not such a big change from the norm. For example, I don't remember the specifics but there's a story of some constant that was estimated a long time ago, and as people tried to measure it more accurately, those who calculated a value too different from the previous estimate were rejected. I bring that up because in this case, Wakefield's claim may have been so outlandish as to provoke intense scrutiny, which, as the paper you linked to says, led to findings of fraud.