No less a scientific powerhouse than the BMJ (British Medical Journal)

has said publicly that not only was the retracted article linking autism to vaccines bad science, but that the data was deliberately manipulated by the author.

Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

The article damaged public health initiatives perhaps irreparably by becoming the 'science' behind many parents' decision not to vaccinate their children over autism fears. Despite the retraction and the revocation of the researcher's medical licence, many doubts still remain over vaccines in the minds of parents, despite overwhelming evidence that autism is not linked to vaccines. As a result, cases of measles--a deadly disease that in itself can cause terrible and lasting complications--have gone up.

The researcher, Andrew Wakefield, insists that he's being attacked and that his data has been distorted. As far as I'm concerned, if one person dies of measles (and granted it's about 3 in a thousand) because of what he did, then the blood is on his hands. Although the parents are responsible for their children's health, most parents are not scientists and don't really know much about disease, and therefore react in sheep-like herds to this sort of 'ground-breaking' and much-publicised study. But Wakefield knows the science and knew the risks. Kudos to the Brits for taking away his licence, in my honest opinion.