In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield published his observations in The Lancet that 8 out of 12 children diagnosed with autism had received the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine just days before they began experiencing symptoms.
This report triggered a global reaction. Despite the conclusion made by expert scientific panels and from numerous well-designed, scientific studies that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the scare has caused many fearful parents to not vaccinate their children with MMR and other vaccines.
An investigation by The Sunday Times and reported by Brian Deer here and here reveals that Andrew Wakefield falsified data for the 1998 paper.
Wakefield's 1998 paper was a case series; therefore it lacked a comparison or "control" group and causality could not be inferred from those data alone. Nevertheless, Wakefield said:
"It’s a moral issue for me," he said. "I can’t support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination, until this issue has been resolved."
Fueled by a long-standing skepticism of vaccines by some and the devastation felt by parents of autistic children, the supposed link observed by Wakefield and colleagues sparked a 10+-year battled between public health experts and anti-vaccine advocacy groups with parents caught in the middle.
This paragraph in article summarizes the findings of the The Sunday Times investigation:
However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.
Two co-authors of the original paper stand by their colleague:
With two professors, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, Wakefield is defending himself against allegations of serious professional misconduct brought by the GMC. The charges relate to ethical aspects of the project, not its findings. All three men deny any misconduct.
Through his lawyers, Wakefield this weekend denied the issues raised by our investigation, but declined to comment further.
If Andrew Wakefield engaged in scientific misconduct, he is responsible for millions if not billions of dollars spent by numerous agencies, governments, and groups in response to his falsified data. He is also responsible for every child who suffered or died from measles because of not being vaccinated by their fearful parents.
Failure to vaccinate sufficient proportion of the population has caused epidemics:
With less than 95% of the population vaccinated, Britain has lost its herd immunity against the disease. In 1998 there were 56 cases reported; last year there were 1,348, according to figures released last week that showed a 36% increase on 2007. Two British children have died from measles, and others put on ventilators, while many parents of autistic children torture themselves for having let a son or daughter receive the injection.
For those who are interested, herd immunity refers to the resistance of a group or population to infection. It is achieved when a high enough proportion of individuals in a population is properly vaccinated and, thus, immune to measles. Herd immunity (HI) is calculated with the formula, HI=[1-(1/Ro)], where Ro is the basic reproductive number or the average number of secondary infectious cases that arise following exposure to a single index case in completely susceptible population.
Measles is very infectious. It is estimated that if a single infectious case of measles entered a population of individuals who are all vulnerable to measles (i.e., no immunity from natural infection or vaccination), then up to 18 people would become infected by that single infectious case during the infectiousness period. Thus, 1-1/18=94%.
This estimate assumes many things including "random mixing" in the population; that is, each individual in the population has an equal probability of interacting with each and everyone else in the population. Clearly, the assumption of random mixing is never met so an adjustment to the estimate of herd immunity has to be made.
I digress.
I have not seen this reported by major U.S. news sources. I await their interpretation. As a member of the scientific community, I am momentarily outraged and await more information.