The Observer has been accused of fabricating comments with regard to today’s front page story about autism and MMR vaccine. Here is the email Ben Goldacre received from Fiona Scott.
I can respond to your question in terms of the following which will be the formal press release available from the National Autistic Society: The Cambridge University Autism Research Centre have not yet released the findings from their prevalence study, as the study is not yet complete. The Cambridge researchers are surprised that an unpublished report of their work was described out of context by the Observer. They are investigating how this report was made available to the Observer. They are equally surprised that the Observer fabricated comments attributed to their team. They do not believe there is any link between rising prevalence and the MMR, or chemical toxins. It is untrue that Prof Baron-Cohen “was so concerned by the 1 in 58 figure that he proposed informing public health officials in the county “. Such journalism raises anxiety unnecessarily and is irresponsible.
Absolutely astounding.
2 Comments
This turns up in the Tel today. She says, more directly, that MMR can indeed cause problems: but at no higher rate than any other vaccine. Which is correct, as far as anyone knows.
So they’ve run an unfounded front page scare story about MMR by misrepresenting an unpublished study they shouldn’t have seen and attributing views to people they don’t hold. Surely they should both get a rap on the knuckles from the PCC and they should investigate who is behind this story – didn’t they learn anything about science/health reporting last time around?