Can someone outline the flaws in the study? I know we here at
So why exactly should I not believe the original study? From where I stand (which is little to zero knowledge on the subject) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.
For the study, Dr. Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds each ($8) for their contributions and later joking about the incident.
From TFA. I don't think it's really necessary to explain why his sampling methods were ridiculous, but it easily casts a fair amount of doubt on most aspects of the study. I would guess at more if I could find the original study in question, but IANAD, either.
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe.