I'm afraid that the only accurate statement in Dr. Herbert H.
Nehrlich's response appears to be "I admit a degree of being underbriefed
on the subject matter".
Ms Godlee's editorial is an excellent summary of the work done by Brian
Deer.
Deer's key findings are that "not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998
Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and
that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with
the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal."
Further, "the discrepancies all led in one direction".
It is imperative that there be an investigation into all of Wakefield's
work to decide whether any more of his papers should be retracted.
Rapid Response:
Re:A Pleasant Place ?
I'm afraid that the only accurate statement in Dr. Herbert H.
Nehrlich's response appears to be "I admit a degree of being underbriefed
on the subject matter".
Ms Godlee's editorial is an excellent summary of the work done by Brian
Deer.
Deer's key findings are that "not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998
Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and
that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with
the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal."
Further, "the discrepancies all led in one direction".
It is imperative that there be an investigation into all of Wakefield's
work to decide whether any more of his papers should be retracted.
Competing interests: No competing interests