Ask HN: What really happened with Andrew Wakefield?
Some parents noticed that after giving their child the MMR vaccine the child developed autism. This came out in a paper and lead to over 100 failed attempts to replicate this study. Eventually Wakefield was accused of fraud, stripped his medical license in the UK, and the paper got retracted. A legal process went on and on until (iirc) 2010.
On one side scientists couldn't reproduce the study. On the other parents had a kid that was ok before the MMR and now has autism.
This seems to me like a very strange data point, and strange data are the most interesting data. Wakefield believes there is a link between the MMR and autism, but there isn't scientific data to support it. Except parents. As if some truth is revealed only to humans and can't be reproduced in the lab.
There is some speculation of a coverup from the pharmaceutical companies around the dangers of the MMR vaccine (e.g using placebos that contained aluminum, so the placebo behaved like the vaccine). And there are data that show an increase in autism since the MMR was introduced. But the main thing here isn't (so much) the coverup.
In short, why is this data point neglected? If true, it's increasing autism! Why did a scientist who tried to help, acted ethically and disclosed his data, ended up having his career end?
Fake news is one thing. But is this a new phenomenon where we should also worry about disclosing data that are hard to get?
*btw: Wakefield's recommendation isn't to end the vaccine, but to give each one separately, ideally one year apart.