Institutional and editorial misconduct in the MMR scare

BMJ 2011; 342 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d378 (Published 19 January 2011)
Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d378

This article has a correction

Please see: Institutional and editorial misconduct in the MMR scare

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ
  1. fgodlee{at}bmj.com

This week, in the last of his series of three articles on the secrets of the MMR scare (doi:10.1136/bmj.c7001), Brian Deer describes the events of 2004 when he first raised concerns about Andrew Wakefield’s research with the Lancet’s editor. Rather than calling for an investigation as Deer had expected, Richard Horton moved quickly—with Wakefield, his co-authors, and their former institution—to publicly deny all but one of Deer’s allegations. Six years later, at an estimated cost of £6m, the General Medical Council found all the allegations to be true.

In his observations column, Harvey Marcovitch asks again why it took so long to uncover Wakefield’s fraud (doi:10.1136/bmj.d284). He compares it with other major …

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

Article access

Article access for 1 day

Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

* Prices do not include VAT

THIS WEEK'S POLL