NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

Media lessons from the Wakefield autism controversy

Posted By


Journalists have much to learn in the wake of the Lancet’s retraction of a study it published 12 years ago making the case that autism could be caused by vaccines. The Wall Street Journal wrote:

“The journal finally issued a full retraction of a study it ran in 1998 linking measles-mumps-rubella vaccines to autism. The paper, with Dr. Andrew Wakefield as lead author, sent British parents fleeing from inoculations and fed U.S. alarm over preservatives in vaccines.

Even in 1998, overwhelming scientific evidence showed vaccines to be safe. Yet the press-savvy Dr. Wakefield had been getting headlines for his research, and the Lancet’s publication fed the controversy by giving him an aura of respectability.”

And here’s the CBS piece on the retraction: Study Linking Autism to Vaccine Retracted

Lessons for journalists and for the public:

• Publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal does NOT mean that the science is sound or that the finding is gospel truth.

• As the WSJ wrote, “The Lancet episode shows how even reputable publications can become conduits for junk science when political causes run hot. Especially amid the scandal over politically motivated climate science, the public needs professional journals to be scrupulous about their standards and honest about the science.”

• Journalists must learn to scrutinize evidence. They must see that the weight of evidence means something.

• Journalists and the public must learn from this example how much harm can be done by premature and imbalanced coverage of scientific claims.

• Finally, a good news story about journalism. Gutsy investigative journalism can make a difference. Some journalists – most notably Brian Deer – did the digging that exposed Wakefield and his flawed claims.


You might also like


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.