Wakefield's Disciple

In order to investigate more about Wakefield’s study, Brian Deer, a journalist of British Medical Journal, carefully talked to the parents of all children who were participated in the study. Interestingly enough, he revealed the fraud behind Wakefield’s research. The Lancet, the journal that reported Wakefield’s study, retracted the paper soon afterwards (Deer). However, the real trouble still exists. Though it has been proved by many researchers that the MRR doesn’t cause autism, many people perceive the vaccine as a threat. Dr.Nemeroff once said “it is quite difficult to get the cognitive sewage out of the water even after the real sewage is gone” (Greene).

Andrew Wakefield is a former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was discharged from his medical register in the UK, because of his dishonest research paper he released back in 1998, that analysed a possible link between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the presence of autism and bowel disease (Godlee, F., et al, 2011). Wakefield's research generated a substantial scare for the MMR vaccine and MMR vaccination rates began to drop because parents were concerned about the risk of autism after vaccination (DeStefano, F., Chen, R.T., 1999). After the paper was published by the Lancet medical newspaper, other reviews were trying to repeat Wakefield's conclusions,

In 1998, the British medical journal called The Lancet published a controversial research paper written by Andrew Wakefield. In the research paper “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, ” Andrew Wakefield et al. attempted to link MMR (Mumps, Measles, Rubella) vaccinations and autism. Nevertheless, the paper seemed to successfully do that. However, this was not known was at the time was Wakefield had tampered with the findings. Furthermore, this was brought to light in 2004 by British journalist Brian Deer. In 2011, thirteen years after The Lancet published the paper, and seven years after Brian Deer exposed the paper. The Lancet finally retracted the article. A common theory

The topic of childhood vaccinations and the dangers that accompany them has been a topic of controversy in contemporary times. At the near edge of the twenty-first century, a man named Doctor Andrew Wakefield released a study which created a mass uproar in both parents and health professionals alike. Parents were panicked as to whether or not they should have their young child vaccinated (in fear of their acquiring autism), and health professionals fearful that the population percentage of people acquiring measles, mumps, or rubella (for it was the M.M.R. vaccination that the parents feared in particular) would rise to a number which would lead to a mass risk of disease. Despite Wakefields’ study, the truth persists in all types of experiments related to vaccination. Whether being tested in a replication of Wakefields’ study or in any other, vaccines have been proven to work at preventing disease and display no causation of autism.

In fact, The BMJ, or the British Medical Journal, chimed in on Wakefield’s paper. “By the time the paper was finally retracted 12 years later, after forensic dissection at the General Medical Council’s (GMC) longest ever fitness to practise hearing, few people could deny that it was fatally flawed both scientifically and ethically” (Godlee, “Wakefield’s”). Furthermore, Wakefield’s license to practice medicine was stripped away by Britain’s General Medical Council because of misconduct, including the time Wakefield paid his son’s friends £5 each to take blood samples during his son’s birthday party (Burns, “British”). More recent studies also prove that the vaccine-autism link is nonexistent. One study, performed by the Journal of Pediatrics, found that, “ … of MCO members, increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines during the first 2 years of life was not related to the risk of developing an ASD” (Destefano, “Increasing”). In other words, having a young child exposed to the ingredients of vaccines does not result in the child developing autism (Destefano, “Increasing”).

Andrew Wakefield’s research and the movie “Vaxxed” has provoked skepticism about vaccines’ safety and generated a lack of vaccinated children. Wakefield has tried to spread false

Andrew Wakefield was the lead researcher on a study that linked autism to certain vaccines given to children. The study was later retracted and Wakefield lost his medical license. From a strictly ethical standpoint, if Wakefield did the things he was accused of, there are several issues with how the research was reported. Scientific misconduct occurs when a researcher purposely fabricates data or alters a study in some way that is not reported (Schweigert, 2012). Wakefield is accused of falsifying medical histories of children in the study and framing the data to confirm the information he wanted to portray (Cohen & Falco, 2011). If Wakefield did change or alter medical histories used in the study, this would be scientific misconduct on his

One such factor helping to manifest these large-scale epidemics is a study from 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, which claimed that there was a direct link between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine (Smith 1). As a result, many parents refused to vaccinate their children out of fear, and vaccine-preventable diseases like measles began reappearing more in both America and Britain, the place where Wakefield conducted his study (Cohen 2). Although a later investigation by the British Medical Journal discovered that Wakefield had distorted or altered the medical records of all twelve of the study’s participants and that he had been paid $674,000 USD by lawyers attempting to sue vaccine manufacturers, the atmosphere of apprehension surrounding vaccines is still strong among many individuals, and especially parents (Cohen 1-2). But despite all the controversy and the scientifically unsupported arguments of anti-vaccine sympathizers,

By 2011, the editors of the BMJ, a prominent medical journal, were calling the study fraudulent and Wakefield had lost his licenses to practice

He was also told that he would receive more compensation after the lawyer wins the lawsuit. However, he never disclosed this information to the journal publisher or the board. Falsifying data is an unprofessional and despicable research ethic. Research studies should use data that are actually collected during the experiments. No one should ever alter the data in favor of a certain side. Such action will show biased in a study, making it unreliable to use for future investigations. In Wakefield’s scenario, his inability to uphold his integrity as a researcher created more issues to the general public by providing misleading information to the society. Doing a research that has public interests should be treated more seriously. In his study, Wakefield only used 12 participants to draw his conclusion about the correlation between MMR vaccine and autism. Disregarding the biased part, this small amount of sample was not reflective to the whole population, locally and globally. As a researcher, he failed to disclose any conflicting interests that arose during the

What Dr Wakefield did is really disastrous and I can't blame you for calling him a monster. Furthermore, I do agree with you that his colleagues could have stand against it. I am still hoping for the best with regards to the implications that this unethical research caused.

This news terrified many parents and they stopped vaccinating their children. Now many people are arguing whether or not the government should be able to force parents to vaccinate their kids. Senator Rand Paul stated, "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn't own your children; parents own their children and it is an issue of freedom." However, it is the governments job to protect the majority population from any threat, including disease. During the 2013 Flu season 105 minors died of the flu, and over 90% of them were unvaccinated. Many parents were still frightened by the study conducted by Andrew Wakefield. However the study was discredited in 2010 when Brian Deer, an investigative reporter, discovered that his research was being funded by lawyers trying to sue drug companies that produced the MMR vaccine in a $56 million lawsuit. Wakefield lied about the 12 patients used in his study; it was later revealed that 5 of the children studied already had preexisting mental development problems. Wakefield also claimed that 9 of the children showed symptoms of regressive autism, which affects later in childhood, but in fact only 1 child showed the signs. In May of 2010 the General Medical Council in the UK revoked Wakefield’s medical license stating that he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly”. Many other studies have been conducted testing this claim however none have been able to reproduce the same research as

According to NBC News, 1 in 4 parents believe that vaccines can cause autism in healthy children. The CDC has refuted this claim time and time again, but despite this, parents still believe that inoculation is the culprit for America’s increasing autism rate. While many blogs and books have been written regarding the correlation between the two, the hoax really took off in 1998, when former medical researcher Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent article about the results from his unethical experiment, where he examined 12 children who had exhibited signs of autism and bowel issues after receiving MMR vaccines. The problem with his tests, however, was that he meddled with the numbers, in order to have them better fit his theory. In reality, only eight out of the twelve kids developed autistic symptoms, and even so, in seven of those cases, the medical records and general practitioner records proved that the autistic symptoms were never present, and that Wakefield had fabricated most of his Lancet reports. The repercussions of this faulty journalism have been destructive, to say the

Live Science Contributor, Stephanie Pappas tell us that, “Wakefield was getting money from lawyers planning on suing vaccine makers, and he owned a patent on an alternative to the MMR (measles) vaccines,” [2] this statement is clear evidence of fraudulent activity and proves that Wakefield had corrupt reasons for undergoing this study in the first place. The second flaw to Wakefield's paper was the questionable practises of his study, for starters he based his study on twelve children that he “cherry picked,” and “although the paper claimed that cognitive problems developed a few days after the MMR vaccine, a simple investigation of hospital records revealed that wasnt so; and in several cases parents reported problems before the vaccine,” [2]. In summary, the investigation was sloppy and provided no tangible evidence that links autism to the MMR vaccine. Furthermore, it should be noted that the the link between autism and vaccines is purely coincidental, the symptoms of autism typically appear at around the age that vaccines are administered, in fact director of the Vaccine Education Centre at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Dr Paul Offit confirms this says, “Children get their first dose of the MMR vaccine at 12 to 15 months, the age at which autism symptoms typically

published a controversial study in British journal Lancet where he linked MMR vaccination to autism. (Should I include what his study was based on and results?) Years later, many other studies proved it wrong but mistrust of science and mistrust of government is still there (2011). For example, Phea Paul study stated that there is no evidence that autism is cause by any vaccine and therefore no reason for parents to deny a child protection in today’s vaccines offered (2009). His study shows that if comparing risks mathematically of death or disability as a result of not vaccination a child which are small, to the risks of causing an autism spectrum disorder by immunizing it increases significantly.