Fraud Behind the MMR Scare

BMJ Calls Wakefield’s Study Linking MMR Vaccine to Autism ‘Fraudulent’

In a special series of articles published in 2011 by BMJ, author Brian Deer exposes the data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and revealed how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school. In an accompanying editorial, Fiona Godlee and colleagues say that Andrew Wakefield’s article linking the MMR vaccine and autism was based not on bad science but deliberate fraud. In addition, Brian Deer analyzes the similarities between the MMR scare and the “Piltdown Man” case.

BMJ Series of Articles

PART 1: Secrets of the MMR Scare: How The Case Against the MMR Vaccine Was Fixed

January 5, 2011

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and revealed how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school.

Additional Information: Tables contrasting the Wakefield et al paper with NHS records of patient diagnoses and histories.

PART 2: Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Vaccine Crisis Was Meant to Make Money

January 11, 2011

Now author Brian Deer follows the money. Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced “MMR doctor” who claimed a link between MMR and autism, planned secret businesses intended to make huge sums of money in Britain and America from his now-discredited allegations. The Wakefield scheme is exposed in the second part of the BMJ series of special reports.

PART 3: Secrets of the MMR Scare: The Lancet’s 2 Days to Bury Bad News

January 18, 2011

In the third of the series, author Brian Deer reveals how the medical establishment closed ranks to protect Wakefield after he raised concerns with the Lancet in 2004. A series of denials and a failure to formally investigate allegations of misconduct in Andrew Wakefield’s MMR research meant the public was misled about the credibility of the paper for six years. Deer thought the editor, Richard Horton, would say that an investigation was needed. Instead, he reports that “within 48 hours, and working with the paper’s three senior authors, the journal was to publish 5,000 words of denials, in statements, unretracted to this day.”