Should MMR doctor be struck off?

[jake-the-peg]

Last Week the General Medical Council found Dr Andrew Wakefield who started the MMR scare did not act in the best interests of his patients.

Now the Lancet says the claims in the paper were false
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8493753.stm

And he was in the pay of solicitors working for famillies

Should further sanctions be taken against him?

[Old_Geezer]

I'd rather the authorities released information on things that were disputed than assume they know best. Full marks for bringing it to the attention of those who don't find such stories on the Net. It looks probable the claim was wrong this time. It might not be next time there is a dispute. He should not be penalised for doing the right thing.

[Old_Geezer]

By the way, the BBC article seems to be incorrect. It states that the publication caused vaccination rates to plummet. Not so. What caused vaccination rates to plummet was the bloody-minded, attitude of the government who said to parents, "Either you take the triple jab or you have nothing", and parents, wanting single jabs for peace of mind said, "In that case I'll assume the risk is low enough for me to take the nothing option then"; resulting in a rise in measles. The rise is down to the government.

[Kakuro1]

What are you basing your opinion on, Old_Geezer? The fact that rates of MMR vaccination fell considerably from around 80% to just over 60% in England over the course of the few years after the Andrew Wakefield study surely speaks for itself.

Yes, he should he should be struck off in my opinion - his methods and findings were flawed.

[Old_Geezer]

Based on watching the story unfold in the media, and common sense. No one disputes the rate of MMR vacination fell due to the news leaking out, but this should not have been a problem as there was an alternative, which the authorities decided not to offer.

[jake-the-peg]

Yes but I wouldn't call it "news" - the research appears to have been deeply flawed and it was publicised by people who were trying to use it to claim compensation.

Offering the alternative would have been seized on as an admission that there was something wrong.

For my money it appears that his actions promoted a health scare which has been as detrimental to public health as if he'd released viruses into the water supply.

If he promoted them knowing or if he ought to have had a reasonable belief that his work was unreliable I'd think criminal charges ought to be available