(Thumbnail image: The Telegraph)
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is the British doctor whose controversial research on vaccinations and autism set off a firestorm of debate and caused vaccination rates to plummet.
Now the General Medical Council -- or GMC -- has ruled he showed a "callous disregard" for children's suffering and abused his position of trust.
We’ve got perspectives from the BBC, The Guardian, The Times Online, and MSNBC.
An article in The Guardian suggests the media is guilty of over-generalizing Wakefield’s initial findings.
“But the media repeatedly reported the concerns of this one man, generally without giving methodological details of the research, either because they found it too complicated, inexplicably, or because to do so would have undermined their story.”
A column in The Times Online cites the media’s initial lack of analysis of Wakefield’s research, which led to wrong conclusions for reporters.
“This was a case of a well-meaning but deluded doctor whose claims merited a beady-eyed skepticism. Instead there was an uncritical gush from commentators whose only qualification appeared to be that they themselves had children.”
A hoard of media surrounded the doctor after the panel's findings. In the press conference after the GMC’s ruling, Wakefield defended his work on the BBC.
“I invite anyone to examine the intent of these proceedings and come to their own conclusions.”
And some sources have done exactly that, now looking at facts surrounding the scientific process.
On the Today Show, Dr. Wakefield admitted to Matt Lauer that he was paid by plaintiffs who were part of a case against the MMR vaccine company -- and also that children at his son’s birthday party were paid for blood samples.
Laurer: “You’ll look at me in the eye and say at the time you were doing your research you were guilty of no conflict of interest whatsoever in either interest of dealing with those children you studied.”
Wakefield: “Not at all. And had I been it would have been disclosed.”
So now that the doctor's research has been fully exposed, should the media also review how it covered his research? And should all media outlets put in place standards -- for more critical reporting of science in the future
Writer: Amanda Klohmann
Producer: Newsy Staff
 |  |  |  |
