LightNews — News, ranked by scholars

Steve Lombardi

@smlombardi.bsky.social

Helmut Newton / Thierry Mugler AW98

January 24, 2026 at 3:16 PM

Richard M. Carpiano, PhD, MPH

@rmcarpiano.medsky.social

(cont'd) “It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize research activities that focuses gaining scientific knowledge on why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment...Therefore, the award is terminated.”

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

Fig 1. from study in the weblink in post:

Fig. 1. MMR VAERS reports pre/post AW98 (Wakefield 1998 retracted study).

Panel a presents yearly MMR VAERS reports before/after the publication of AW98 (dashed vertical line). Panel b presents RD estimates of the effect (B) and two-tailed significance (p) of AW98 on weekly report counts before/after AW98 (dashed vertical line), across several RD estimation strategies (see: Materials & Methods). All RD estimates are calculated as linear effects; which is appropriate given the high degree of consonance between the locally weighted polynomial trend line (dashed lines) and linear trend line (solid line) fit to the monthly data.

Both panels show increases in VAERS claims after AW98 was published despite the evidence of no new risks from MMR vaccination and AW98 being retracted for data issues and ethical concerns (with better studies finding no association).

March 10, 2025 at 11:36 PM

Matt Motta

@mattmotta.bsky.social

Such an important piece from @caulfieldtim.bsky.social.

I was happy to share our work w/@stecula.bsky.social quantifying the *causal* impact Wakefield's retracted research had on laying the foundation for contemporary vaccine hesitancy in the US.

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

February 20, 2025 at 9:59 PM

Pete Birkinshaw

@binaryape.bsky.social

"Vaccine skepticism increased following the publication of AW98, which was potentially made possible by increased negative media coverage of MMR."

Quantifying the effect of Wakefield et al. (1998) on skepticism about MMR vaccine safety in the U.S.

Background Efforts to trace the rise of childhood vaccine safety concerns in the US often suggest Andrew Wakefield and colleagues’ retracted 1998 Lancet study (AW98)–which alleged that the MMR vaccine...

journals.plos.org

June 25, 2025 at 6:51 AM

Don van Win / WideBlick

@toberg.bsky.social

(788) C̤a̤pt̤a̤i̤n̤ B̤e̤e̤f̤h̤e̤a̤r̤t̤ and the Ma̤gic Ba̤nd - Doc At The Radar Station *** full album *** - YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW98...

C̤a̤pt̤a̤i̤n̤ B̤e̤e̤f̤h̤e̤a̤r̤t̤ and the Ma̤gic Ba̤nd - Doc At The Radar Station *** full album ***

YouTube video by CAPTAIN BEEFHEART

www.youtube.com

June 1, 2026 at 7:34 AM

PinkTweets

@pinktweets.bsky.social

Yes, it was highly influential thanks to the ultimate GIGO database known as VAERS.
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

Quantifying the effect of Wakefield et al. (1998) on skepticism about MMR vaccine safety in the U.S.

Background Efforts to trace the rise of childhood vaccine safety concerns in the US often suggest Andrew Wakefield and colleagues’ retracted 1998 Lancet study (AW98)–which alleged that the MMR vaccine...

journals.plos.org

September 1, 2026 at 12:56 PM

Dominik Stecuła

@stecula.bsky.social

with @mattmotta.bsky.social we quantified the causal effect Wakefield's retracted paper had on vaccine hesitancy in the US. journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...