> What we do know is the original paper by Wakefield that purported the vaccine/autism relationship was fraudulent- contained false information - and more impor

> What we do know is the original paper by Wakefield that purported the vaccine/autism relationship was fraudulent- contained false information - and more importantly, similar studies that were not fraudulent (to the best of our knowledge) did not replicate the results. And all of that led to a number of trials where a great deal of evidence of Wakefield's actions (which include close to half a million pounds in payments from a vaccine manufacturer) was presented and Wakefield was found guilty. The Wakefield red herring as usual. Did anyone mention that the MMR was derived from a vaccine that was banned by the Japanese Govt, and that it was one of the reasons that prompted Wakefield to research it? There are more than enough papers showing a correlation between vaccines and autism, even a case where the CDC prompted its researchers to distort and remove evidence which indicated a correlation between a vaccine and autism in black boys. The Wakefield paper was written with with 12 other co-authors. 3 of the authors Wakefield included were struck off by Britain's GMC. They all fought their case in court and 2 of them were reinstated except Wakefield which is why it is called the Wakefield case. The primary case of the GMC concerned the ethics of the research not its findings but the papers don't focus on that. The authors of the paper still stand by the clinical conclusions no matter what. The Lancet withdrew the paper not because of its clinical conclusions but because of the ethics. Go figure.