I well remember the angst my wife and I went through as the MMR controversy raged around us. With two young kids, we were right in the firing line. Added to which, probably by complete co-incidence, our previously healthy son became quite ill after his first MMR jab at 10 months, and it was around 4-6 months before he was fully well again. Given the storm of publicity raging at the time, we immediately suspected the vaccine. Probably incorrect, but when you're rushing a child to hospital, you're not always completely rational.
I heard on the radio yesterday that the Lancet have 'accepted' that the MMR study performed by Dr Andrew Wakefield was false. Reading the detail, it seems that their objection is to his methodology and his (lack of) ethics and standards in performing the research. They still haven't discredited the results, although plenty of other studies have done so.
Separately, I heard an item about stem cell research being blocked from publication. Whether that's true or not is not germane to my point here. What was interesting was that this article contained the information that all such publications send research articles for review by respected and senior peers, only publishing if these peers indicate that the article stands up to scrutiny.
So, here's my question: if all papers submitted to journals are peer reviewed before publication, who were the 'peers' who reviewed Wakefield's flawed MMR study? And what's their position now?
