Dear Science,

Are you as shocked as I am about the horrifying fraud behind the original vaccines-cause-autism story? The way I understand it, Science, is the researcher behind this study was part of a lawsuit against the vaccine makers and literally made up data. Despite all this now being known, a crazy relative of mine insists that vaccines cause autism and recently made me aware of an argument claiming that in the original vaccines-cause-autism study, fraud could NOT have happened. What do you think of all this? Is the fraud as bad as the news reports seem to claim? Is my crazy relative really crazy?

Vaccinator

Your crazy relative is really crazy. The connection between vaccination and autism was and is a complete fraud—preying on the (understandable) fears of new parents to make a quick buck. It's quite possibly the most shameful scientific fraud of our time—putting at risk an entire generation of children and swallowing up vast sums of precious pediatric research dollars chasing after a connection that does not exist.

The fraud perpetrated by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and a few coconspirators—ultimately resulting in a now-retracted article in the Lancet—is the grandpappy lie behind the entire vaccines-cause-autism movement. Brian Deer, via the British Medical Journal, has dug into this story, providing us with a detailed description of the how and why behind it. Getting a paper into the Lancet isn't easy; the fraud carefully made up and manipulated data to ensure entry. The fraud fabricated a connection between "regressive autism," enterocolitis (gut irritation), and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) to support a lawsuit being pushed forward by Wakefield and conspirators against the manufacturers of this vaccine. The original paper described 12 patients who developed regressive autism shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine.

For 9 of the 12, the diagnosis of regressive autism was made up; the patients did not have the disease being associated. Five of the children had developmental problems before receiving the vaccine. Seven of the patients who the paper claimed developed symptoms days after receiving the vaccine in truth didn't develop symptoms with any relation to the time of vaccination. Thanks to the excellent scientific journalism done by Deer, this all has been clearly established.

In the years following the publication of this study, scientists have struggled and failed to demonstrate the connection, with good reason—the connection was fake. Science can take some small comfort in this: The process of self- regulation and correction eventually worked, and the fraud was uprooted and exposed. What remains, unfortunately fueled by fear and ignorance, is the continued distrust of vaccines. It will take people such as yourself—and millions of conversations with crazy relations—to undo that damage.

Respectfully Yours,

Science

Send your science questions to dearscience@thestranger.com.