Lancet not only fakes number people killed in Iraq....

MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism
Brian Deer

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.

The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.

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.

Despite involving just a dozen children, the 1998 paper’s impact was extraordinary. After its publication, rates of inoculation fell from 92% to below 80%. Populations acquire “herd immunity” from measles when more than 95% of people have been vaccinated.

Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.

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

Link

That story goes with this more detailed article describing the fraud:

Hidden records show MMR truth
A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination

Link

Read it if you a little time on your hands. It shows just how far some people will go to try and make people embrace their beliefs... Just like Lancet did with their George Soros funded Iraq fraud.

I think your anger is misdirected here.

The doctor faked results, and he faked them well enough that he was able to convince two or three adjudicators for the paper that they were real. He will never be able to publish anything ever again, and he will never hold a position at any credible institution.

If the research appears credible, and comes from a credible source, they will publish it, regardless of whether it supports vaccines or opposes them. This is a perfect example of a journal that has published both, and it's also a perfect example of the scientific method at work. This doctor published a study showing that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism (which it's not). Since that work, dozens (if not hundreds) of papers have been published in the same journal showing that it's not true. So exactly what belief are they trying to force people to embrace?

I'm not angry. I was just pointing out how another Lancet study was published based on a personal agenda, using bogus data.

Grim17 wrote:I'm not angry. I was just pointing out how another Lancet study was published based on a personal agenda, using bogus data.

Yea, right..."Lancet not only fakes number people killed in Iraq...." It was'nt a Lancet study, Grim. It was an independent study. Lancet was scammed. I'm sure you know the difference, no?


Obviously NO!