Yes, this. His epidemiology was very sloppy. If his study had been conducted to show vaccine safety, this board would have had it ripped to shreds in two minutes.
But, more importantly, he also acted irresponsibly and did not comply with the ethical standards of his field. For example, he did not have his research plan reviewed by an institutional review board, which is a minimum standard for ethical medical research. He subjected autistic children to highly invasive and risky medical procedures, which may be justifiable in limited situations where the potential benefits outweigh the risks, but not until MUCH more data was available to support his hypothesis. We're talking lumbar punctures (spinal taps), biopsies, colonoscopies, etc. Since this is a board where most people hate to give their kids tylenol, I always expect people to be more outraged about this. He also was not a pediatrician, and thus did not have the professional credentials to order such invasive procedures. Before you just start testing on real humans willy-nilly (especially children!) you have to have a significant body of evidence (laboratory, epidemiologic, animal studies, for example) showing support for your hypothesis. He didn't have this, his results were never replicated and his hypothesis was ultimately nullified. There's more, including evidence of actual falsification, but the above is what bothers me the most.
Originally Posted by kellyrenee
He is discredited because he falsified some scientific data. He did not follow the scientific method for his research, I do not have my sources for this, but I did read this somewhere reputable, but I did not bookmark it. I agree any progress made by the vaccine safety movement has been set back significantly by his work b/c now anyone questioning vaccine safety will be associated with his work