I have read them both. The editorial is forthright in endorsing Deer's article and accusing Wakefield of fraud. Given the plaintiff friendly nature of our libel laws they must be very sure of themselves. Having followed the MMR affair closely for years now, I support the BMJ in their opinion and have written about it on my blog. http://actionforautism.co.uk/2011/01/06/wakefield-and-the-mmr-autism-hoax/
There are other articles planned. I believe another one will be published in next week's BMJ. I know this has been a very emotive and divisive issue within the autism community. Whether or not Wakefield committed fraud should not be allowed to obscure the essential truth that Wakefield was wrong about MMR and autism.
I have read them both. The editorial is forthright in endorsing Deer's article and accusing Wakefield of fraud. Given the plaintiff friendly nature of our libel laws they must be very sure of themselves. Having followed the MMR affair closely for years now, I support the BMJ in their opinion and have written about it on my blog. http://actionforautism.co.uk/2011/01/06/wakefield-and-the-mmr-autism-hoax/
There are other articles planned. I believe another one will be published in next week's BMJ. I know this has been a very emotive and divisive issue within the autism community. Whether or not Wakefield committed fraud should not be allowed to obscure the essential truth that Wakefield was wrong about MMR and autism.
