Not a surprise to anyone that had read it, but it was Bad Science. Much like the “science” used in Glowbal Warmening research, this was a study that used poor methodology to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
How many kids did not get vaccinated, and subsequently were sterile, or blind or in some other way harmed by preventable childhood diseases, all due to the doubt sown by this paper? How many kids died because of this? Even farther, how many kids or adults are at risk because they weren’t vaccinated as children? How many are carriers of these diseases today, and are spreading them, and acting as reservoirs of disease for the next generation?
Why do we trust such journals as “Lancet” and “Nature”, and “Scientific American”? Once they were truly peer reviewed scientific journals, where any paper submitted was reviewed based on their merits and the methods used. Now they are populist magazines, with articles that mention popular topics and follow the current popular line of thinking, rather than true science. I grew up reading Scientific American, learning a lot from the articles I read once my father had finished his monthly copy, When I moved out of his house, I got my own subscription. Then, about 10 years ago, when the Glowbal Warmening craze started, and SA published articles (not “papers”) on GW and I saw the lack of science, I wrote to them asking where the science was. They never replied, and I canceled my subscription.
I learned the “scientific method” in HIGH SCHOOL, for gods sake. Why cannot the folks at these once prestigious “scientific journals” see beyond the politics and temporary flash of a current fad, and REVIEW articles and papers for scientific validity before publishing them? Can they not follow the scientific method that most of us learned in high school? How can they allow such rubbish to be published? Why do they essentially lie to us and destroy our trust in their prestigious name?
Once a paper is allowed to be published in a journal such as these, the “facts” presented in the paper then become believed, especially by politicians (most of whom have nether the training nor the intellect to understand the conclusion, much less the methodology). Unfortunately, these folks then make policy based upon those “conclusions” and use the “data” to determine how that policy will be implemented.
“Scientists” in general are , due to these journals and scandals, becoming less and less trusted. Who knows what is true and what is fad?
Certainly the Lancet and it’s ilk seem not to.