There's a lot of hate here for Wakefield's paper (much deserved) and for mainstream journalists (also much deserved), but the fact that it got published in the supposedly prestigious and rigorously peer-reviewed Lancet goes by nearly unmentioned.
Journalists notoriously screw up their interpretations of scientific papers, but that doesn't seem to be the case here -- they accurately reported what was published in the Lancet. The problem was that it was published in such a journal at all -- once that cat was out of the bag, the rumor had all the credibility it needed.
Surely you noticed the part of the article where Wakefield falsified data? That the paper he submitted to the Lancet was at odds with the actual clinical records at the hospital? And the fact that his damning financial connection was not disclosed to the journal?
What is the journal supposed to do? They certainly couldn't have predicted that a tiny 12-person study would blow up in the way it has. In the end, they retracted the paper, which is exactly how it should have worked. Sometimes bad papers get published--peer review can't catch everything.
I noticed the part where Wakefield falsified data, as well as the part where the author criticized his sample size and methodology... so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it? I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news. Why would the journal even consider publishing an article making claims as big as Wakefield's on the basis of a dozen study participants?
The "in the end" where they retracted the paper was like six months ago, right?
> so why didn't the journal's peer review process notice it?
Because peer review, like every other human endeavor, is not perfect?
> I find it hard to believe they couldn't predict that a study concluding that a poorly-understood but prevalent disease among children was caused by universal vaccination wouldn't be big news.
But the study did not conclude that. The paper stated "we did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described". It reported interviews with the parents talking about MMR, but did not conclude that itself. The conclusion was more about the relationship between gastrointestinal issues and autism (also false, but less obviously so).
No decent scientist would draw a sweeping conclusion like "autism is caused by universal vaccination" from this study. One study--especially one so small, with no controls and no randomization--does not demonstrate causation no matter how significant the correlation. The Lancet study (false, but still subtle enough) was misinterpreted due to Wakefield's spin machine and a gullible media.
And to be honest, I have no idea why they didn't retract sooner. I do hold them at fault for that.
Actually the mainstream press went beyond what was in the Lancet article, relying too much on spin supplied by Wakefield in press conferences. And that is noted in the cartoon submitted here on HN, as it has been noted by several critics of Wakefield's role in stirring up phony controversy on vaccines.
"Even though the study itself used the typical careful and relatively neutral language that we all expect from scientists, Wakefield himself was not nearly so circumspect. In a press conference announcing the Lancet study, he said:
"'He told journalists it was a "moral issue" and he could no longer support the continued use of the three-in-one jab for measles, mumps and rubella.
"'"Urgent further research is needed to determine whether MMR may give rise to this complication in a small number of people," Dr Wakefield said at the time.
"'And so began one of the most contentious health stories of this generation.'
"Wakefield’s Lancet paper, even interpreted as sympathetically as possible, concluded nothing that justified such language."
Journalists notoriously screw up their interpretations of scientific papers, but that doesn't seem to be the case here -- they accurately reported what was published in the Lancet. The problem was that it was published in such a journal at all -- once that cat was out of the bag, the rumor had all the credibility it needed.