In the aftermath of the Observer debacle, one of those described in the original piece as being an MMR believer responded in the comment thread of The Guardian readers editor page. Her words are very telling and show, once more, what a shoddy and deliberately misleading piece of work this was:
DrFJScott. July 16, 2007 11:31 AM
I feel, given that I was one of the two ‘leaders in the field’ (flattering, but rather an exaggeration) reported as linking MMR to the rise in autism, that I should quite clearly and firmly point out that I was never contacted by and had no communication whatsoever with the reporter who wrote the infamous Observer article. It is somewhat amazing that my ‘private beliefs’ can be presented without actually asking me what they are. What appeared in the article was a flagrant misrepresentation of my opinions – unsurprising given that they were published without my being spoken to.
It is outrageous that the article states that I link rising prevalence figures to use of the MMR. I have never held this opinion. I do not think the MMR jab ‘might be partly to blame’. As for it being a factor in ‘a small number of children’, had the journalist checked with me it would have been clear that my view is in line with Vivienne Parry of the JCVI. The ‘small number’ was misrepresented by being linked inappropriately and inaccurately with ‘rise in prevalence’, leading readers to arguably infer that it is in fact NOT a small number!
I wholeheartedly agree with Prof Baron-Cohen, and many of the posts and responses received to date, that the article was irresponsible and misleading. Furthermore I reiterate that it was inappropriate in including views and comments attributed to me and presented as if I had input into the article when I had not (and still have not)ever been contacted by the journalist in question. I am taking the matter under advisement.
It is frankly incredible that The Observer ever though they could get away with reporting the ‘private thoughts’ of a person when that person had never actually been interviewed. Shame on them for playing autism for their own private games.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Good on ya, Fiona, and thanks Kev for blogging this.
Fiona did the work up on my daughter.
This whole story is becoming more and more of a fiction as the days pass……. including the reporting [=”creating”] of the private thoughts of others.
You have a national press complaints office, or something like that, I understand. I wonder how many people will complain about the Observer’s horrible treatment of the prinicpals involved in that story. They didn’t contact SBC, they didn’t contact Dr. Fiona Scott. The misrepresented Carol Stott. They stirred up fear over a vaccine for no good reason at all. And they still haven’t really straightened the mess out.