No, you don't.  At all.

They told you the method, the hypothesis, and the data.  Don't trust them?  Check it yourself.  Scientists do this _all the time_.

Science isn't magic.  A single experiment, or report, is not Gospel.  But it is in no way faith-based - it's making predictions, seeing how accurate they are, and _refining your theory_.  Newtonian mechanics is good, but not perfect.  Relativity is better, but not perfect. Quantum mechanics is a refinement at small scales, and they're working to integrate the two.


&gt; Isn't that what went wrong here with Wakefield?
&gt; 
&gt; The Lancet had faith in him and was wrong.

No, that's not what went wrong.  Here's a quote, from Wakefield's paper.  The bolding is mine:

&gt;**We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described**. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.

&gt;If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence
or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.
A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins.

What went wrong, was this:

&gt;Although the paper said that no causal connection had been proven, before it was published, Wakefield made statements at a press conference and in a video news release issued by the hospital, calling for suspension of the triple MMR vaccine until more research could be done.

Press conference statements were the problem, not published, peer-reviewed and confirmed research.  Dude had a hunch but told it to people as if it were a fact.