![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am concerned that the title of the article implies that the lancet was committing fraud, when they were actually duped into publishing Wakefield's paper. I don't recall any consensus to put "lancet" in the title. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, as you read this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ it is clear that Lancet was slow in retracting (12 years) and only published a small short paragraph -- Akrasia25 ( talk) 12:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@ PeterNSteinmetz: Firstly, I'd like to THANK YOU for what appears to be a GREAT (and well researched it appears) addition to this article! Thank you for building this!!!
One thing we have to be careful about in Wikipedia is not including Original Research WP:OR.
The paragraphs in the "Other types of fraud" sections: while well explained and accurate as far as my knowledge of criminal and civil fraud; the OPINIONS of whether Wakefield could be held accountable under those laws is not referenced. Are these your opinions, or do we have a source for these paragraphs? Thanks --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis".--- Avatar317 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I have prepared the first archive page and placed a link to the draft sub-page in the box. Editors may find this study of primary sources to be interesting. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 22:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
As you can see, I have tried to sort this page out, but I have not changed the content, apart from removals of repetitions which seem to be inherited from a past effort to split this topic from the general MMR-autism thing. I have also made a few small adjustments based mostly on facts in the Deer book, and added a quote from the British medical journal editorial. I am fairly confident that nothing has been lost. If you think you may have found something, please check for the same point in different words, as this had lots of repetitions. The main thing is that hopefully it is now in a logical order. Dreamwoven ( talk) 12:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC) It may help to read the article first so as to check it all makes sense, so as to get an idea of the reordering, before checking the edits. Dreamwoven ( talk) 12:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Overall, my impression this is a good restructuring and clearer. PeterNSteinmetz ( talk) 03:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
So there seems to have been a press scandal involving a person named Chris Malyszewicz at some point in the UK. Unfortunately the Bad Science article has no sources or even the year when this happened, the MRSA article doesn't mention the scandal at all, and Malyszewicz is otherwise unknown to Wikipedia. Mentioning "the MRSA hoax" without any explanation or source invites the interpretation that Goldacre thinks MRSA itself is a hoax. I haven't read his book and can't say if he does. Clarification needed.-- 2A02:8071:81C4:9A00:1CBB:E933:73FA:4344 ( talk) 04:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Tried to eliminate some of the passages that repeat the same points, but my wikipedia skills are not entirely up to it. I think one of the main confusions is the mixing together of the MMR vaccine general issues with this fraud. If I get time I will try to see how much of the MMR controversy paragraphs are covered with the references in the MMR controversy page. If it's all there it might be useful to shorten that here. SallyStAustell ( talk) 15:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
"There is no biological plausibility for vaccines to cause autism as autism is not an immune mediated disease. [1]
I deleted this peculiar sentence above for several reasons. The reference is an opinion/review article, not proof of the statement (the cited reference doesn't say there is no biological plausibility on these grounds, but only argues a case regarding immunity); this wikipage is about the lancet fraud, not whether MMR causes autism, which is a different wikipage; also autism is not a "disease." The editor might want to transfer this idea to the MMR/autism page, but I don't think it belongs on this page, which is about the lancet report and what followed. Dreamwoven ( talk) 17:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Throws the reader and adds no value or meaning to keep repeating 'fraudulent' 'false' and so on in the introduction, and the paper does not claim a causative link was found - only that it appeared to have been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sledgehamming ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Also, it is clear he's deregistered and discredited because it says the paper was withdrawn and he lost his license. Sledgehamming ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
This article needs to stay close to a dispassionate, factual, style. Adding angry emotional denunciations, repeating over and over 'fraud,' 'fraudulent,' 'nonexistent,' 'discredited and deregistered' 'the fraud centered... on a fraudulent' etc etc is v counter-productive and achieves the opposite of what's intended. Various editors have noted this. Sledgehamming ( talk) 09:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Various editors have notedthe opposite. Stop edit-warring. It's WP:BRD. Discuss after the first revert instead of reverting the revert. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Sledgehamming, it's hard to emphasize Wakefield's "fraud" too much as that's what RS do. There is universal acceptance that he is one of the greatest medical frauds in history. Wakefield's supposed "link" between MMR and autism works like this: These children were not a properly selected group for any legitimate study. Lawyers for a group of parents who wanted to blame someone for their child's autism worked with Wakefield to discredit the MMR vaccine and make a lot of money. It also would then enable him to market a vaccine he was developing as a replacement, with an unfathomable profit for himself. He would have become a billionaire.
There was nothing scientifically valid about this "identified association" or the candidate selection process. Wakefield, as a scientifically trained physician, knew that association does not prove causation, and that experiments should include blinding and control groups, yet he placed his own financial interests ahead of his ethical obligations. The claimed link was indeed "not a hypothesis" but a fraudulent claim that he continues to perpetuate to this day. In the beginning, he could have claimed to have misunderstood things and made mistakes, but instead he doubled down on his deception, described as an "elaborate fraud". Wakefield is listed among the Great Science Frauds. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
On 5 August 2021, User SallyStAustell edited the article to add the subsection 'Support for Wakefield'. Along with Melanie Phillips, SallyStAustell twice quotes Ben Goldacre, but takes him out of context (apparent if the linked articles are read in full):
https://www.badscience.net/2005/09/dont-dumb-me-down/
https://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/
At times tongue-in-cheek, both articles were published originally by The Guardian, 'Don't Dumb Me Down' (8 September 2005) and 'The MMR Hoax' (30 August 2008), retitled 'The Media's MMR Hoax' on Goldacre's website.
Why do I mention this? Because in 2003, Goldacre had already voiced his scepticism of any link between the MMR vaccine and autism in his article 'Never Mind the Facts' (The Guardian, 11 December 2003) https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/dec/11/science.highereducation.
That's almost two years before SallyStAustell's first citation, and almost five years before the second. Far from being specifically supportive of Wakefield, both articles detail Goldacre's disdain for how the supposed MMR vaccine-autism link was reported in the media. The quotes referring to Wakefield are merely asides.
Goldacre has been critical also of others who still purvey this misinformation, namely Melanie Phillips, in his article 'The MMR sceptic who just doesn't understand science' (The Guardian, 2 November 2005) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/nov/02/health.science.
In other words, if Goldacre was already unconvinced by the paper's findings (as published by The Lancet), and if Goldacre was critical of people (non-scientists especially) who still insisted the findings were correct, how was he ever supportive of Wakefield whose findings they were?
Hence my removing Goldacre's name and his out-of-context quotes from the 'Support for Wakefield' subsection. 78.150.12.79 ( talk) 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
perfectly good small case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more than thatbecause he did not know about Wakefield's multiple undeclared conflicts (money from lawyer who wanted exactly this result, patent for his own measles vaccine) or about the hand-picking of test subjects (children of people the lawyer worked for) or about the faking of the time differences.
In December 2003, Goldacre had already voiced his scepticism of Wakefield's findings. But as a small case series, it seemed OK to him.
a perfectly good small case series report. Clear now? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
After making the topic a hot potato that few would touch some 40+ researchers have taken the trouble to investigate the idea of a link of some sort between autism and the gut microbiome and have come away convinced.
Andrews research may have been inadequate to draw conclusions but the correlation does seems to be there.
Multi-level analysis of the gut-brain axis shows autism spectrum disorder-associated molecular and microbial profiles
Idyllic press (
talk)
12:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The article is long and poorly written, and the lede doesn't contain a proper summary of why it was determined to be 'fraud' as opposed to him simply having a conflict of interest or conducting shoddy research. No one is going to read this full article to determine what the nature of the fraud is.
Seriously, read the lede. It is almost completely devoid of content. All it says is "bad man did bad thing and got punished". If he had a conflict of interest, faked ethical consent, manipulated data, misinterpreted his results, etc. (as suggested in the "Newspaper investigation" section), that belongs in the lede. But it appears from reading the article that not all of these allegations have been substantiated (e.g., by court findings)? For example, the "Manipulation of data" subsection doesn't seem to reach a conclusion on whether he actually manipulated data or not. Since the article is also called 'autism fraud', not 'autism scandal', the lede also needs to explain how it was determined that it was intentional. (Also, why is there a "Newspaper investigation" section? Shouldn't the section be dedicated to his actual malfeasance, not to a series of newspaper articles?)
The GMC subsection says: "Wakefield was found to have acted 'dishonestly and irresponsibly' and to have acted with 'callous disregard' for the children involved in his study, conducting unnecessary and invasive tests." If you're going to write an article that calls this fraud, as opposed to scandal, then the finding of the GMC that got him deregistered should be front and centre and properly explained in the lede. Why exactly did they find this?
The lede should describe the allegations, which ones have been substantiated (by GMC, etc.), which ones actually constitute fraud (i.e., intentionality) as opposed to shoddy research. A conflict of interest by itself isn't fraud, but faking ethical consent and manipulating data would be.
Bueller 007 ( talk) 10:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Would someone please punctuate this or reword it to make it unambiguous and clear?
In the event, Wakefield did not pursue his complaint, which Deer published with a statement saying he and The Sunday Times rejected it as "false and disingenuous in all material respects", and that the action had been suspended by the PCC in February 2010. [1]
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
References
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am concerned that the title of the article implies that the lancet was committing fraud, when they were actually duped into publishing Wakefield's paper. I don't recall any consensus to put "lancet" in the title. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, as you read this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ it is clear that Lancet was slow in retracting (12 years) and only published a small short paragraph -- Akrasia25 ( talk) 12:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@ PeterNSteinmetz: Firstly, I'd like to THANK YOU for what appears to be a GREAT (and well researched it appears) addition to this article! Thank you for building this!!!
One thing we have to be careful about in Wikipedia is not including Original Research WP:OR.
The paragraphs in the "Other types of fraud" sections: while well explained and accurate as far as my knowledge of criminal and civil fraud; the OPINIONS of whether Wakefield could be held accountable under those laws is not referenced. Are these your opinions, or do we have a source for these paragraphs? Thanks --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis".--- Avatar317 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I have prepared the first archive page and placed a link to the draft sub-page in the box. Editors may find this study of primary sources to be interesting. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 22:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
As you can see, I have tried to sort this page out, but I have not changed the content, apart from removals of repetitions which seem to be inherited from a past effort to split this topic from the general MMR-autism thing. I have also made a few small adjustments based mostly on facts in the Deer book, and added a quote from the British medical journal editorial. I am fairly confident that nothing has been lost. If you think you may have found something, please check for the same point in different words, as this had lots of repetitions. The main thing is that hopefully it is now in a logical order. Dreamwoven ( talk) 12:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC) It may help to read the article first so as to check it all makes sense, so as to get an idea of the reordering, before checking the edits. Dreamwoven ( talk) 12:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Overall, my impression this is a good restructuring and clearer. PeterNSteinmetz ( talk) 03:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
So there seems to have been a press scandal involving a person named Chris Malyszewicz at some point in the UK. Unfortunately the Bad Science article has no sources or even the year when this happened, the MRSA article doesn't mention the scandal at all, and Malyszewicz is otherwise unknown to Wikipedia. Mentioning "the MRSA hoax" without any explanation or source invites the interpretation that Goldacre thinks MRSA itself is a hoax. I haven't read his book and can't say if he does. Clarification needed.-- 2A02:8071:81C4:9A00:1CBB:E933:73FA:4344 ( talk) 04:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Tried to eliminate some of the passages that repeat the same points, but my wikipedia skills are not entirely up to it. I think one of the main confusions is the mixing together of the MMR vaccine general issues with this fraud. If I get time I will try to see how much of the MMR controversy paragraphs are covered with the references in the MMR controversy page. If it's all there it might be useful to shorten that here. SallyStAustell ( talk) 15:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
"There is no biological plausibility for vaccines to cause autism as autism is not an immune mediated disease. [1]
I deleted this peculiar sentence above for several reasons. The reference is an opinion/review article, not proof of the statement (the cited reference doesn't say there is no biological plausibility on these grounds, but only argues a case regarding immunity); this wikipage is about the lancet fraud, not whether MMR causes autism, which is a different wikipage; also autism is not a "disease." The editor might want to transfer this idea to the MMR/autism page, but I don't think it belongs on this page, which is about the lancet report and what followed. Dreamwoven ( talk) 17:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Throws the reader and adds no value or meaning to keep repeating 'fraudulent' 'false' and so on in the introduction, and the paper does not claim a causative link was found - only that it appeared to have been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sledgehamming ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Also, it is clear he's deregistered and discredited because it says the paper was withdrawn and he lost his license. Sledgehamming ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
This article needs to stay close to a dispassionate, factual, style. Adding angry emotional denunciations, repeating over and over 'fraud,' 'fraudulent,' 'nonexistent,' 'discredited and deregistered' 'the fraud centered... on a fraudulent' etc etc is v counter-productive and achieves the opposite of what's intended. Various editors have noted this. Sledgehamming ( talk) 09:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Various editors have notedthe opposite. Stop edit-warring. It's WP:BRD. Discuss after the first revert instead of reverting the revert. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Sledgehamming, it's hard to emphasize Wakefield's "fraud" too much as that's what RS do. There is universal acceptance that he is one of the greatest medical frauds in history. Wakefield's supposed "link" between MMR and autism works like this: These children were not a properly selected group for any legitimate study. Lawyers for a group of parents who wanted to blame someone for their child's autism worked with Wakefield to discredit the MMR vaccine and make a lot of money. It also would then enable him to market a vaccine he was developing as a replacement, with an unfathomable profit for himself. He would have become a billionaire.
There was nothing scientifically valid about this "identified association" or the candidate selection process. Wakefield, as a scientifically trained physician, knew that association does not prove causation, and that experiments should include blinding and control groups, yet he placed his own financial interests ahead of his ethical obligations. The claimed link was indeed "not a hypothesis" but a fraudulent claim that he continues to perpetuate to this day. In the beginning, he could have claimed to have misunderstood things and made mistakes, but instead he doubled down on his deception, described as an "elaborate fraud". Wakefield is listed among the Great Science Frauds. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
On 5 August 2021, User SallyStAustell edited the article to add the subsection 'Support for Wakefield'. Along with Melanie Phillips, SallyStAustell twice quotes Ben Goldacre, but takes him out of context (apparent if the linked articles are read in full):
https://www.badscience.net/2005/09/dont-dumb-me-down/
https://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/
At times tongue-in-cheek, both articles were published originally by The Guardian, 'Don't Dumb Me Down' (8 September 2005) and 'The MMR Hoax' (30 August 2008), retitled 'The Media's MMR Hoax' on Goldacre's website.
Why do I mention this? Because in 2003, Goldacre had already voiced his scepticism of any link between the MMR vaccine and autism in his article 'Never Mind the Facts' (The Guardian, 11 December 2003) https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/dec/11/science.highereducation.
That's almost two years before SallyStAustell's first citation, and almost five years before the second. Far from being specifically supportive of Wakefield, both articles detail Goldacre's disdain for how the supposed MMR vaccine-autism link was reported in the media. The quotes referring to Wakefield are merely asides.
Goldacre has been critical also of others who still purvey this misinformation, namely Melanie Phillips, in his article 'The MMR sceptic who just doesn't understand science' (The Guardian, 2 November 2005) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/nov/02/health.science.
In other words, if Goldacre was already unconvinced by the paper's findings (as published by The Lancet), and if Goldacre was critical of people (non-scientists especially) who still insisted the findings were correct, how was he ever supportive of Wakefield whose findings they were?
Hence my removing Goldacre's name and his out-of-context quotes from the 'Support for Wakefield' subsection. 78.150.12.79 ( talk) 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
perfectly good small case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more than thatbecause he did not know about Wakefield's multiple undeclared conflicts (money from lawyer who wanted exactly this result, patent for his own measles vaccine) or about the hand-picking of test subjects (children of people the lawyer worked for) or about the faking of the time differences.
In December 2003, Goldacre had already voiced his scepticism of Wakefield's findings. But as a small case series, it seemed OK to him.
a perfectly good small case series report. Clear now? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
After making the topic a hot potato that few would touch some 40+ researchers have taken the trouble to investigate the idea of a link of some sort between autism and the gut microbiome and have come away convinced.
Andrews research may have been inadequate to draw conclusions but the correlation does seems to be there.
Multi-level analysis of the gut-brain axis shows autism spectrum disorder-associated molecular and microbial profiles
Idyllic press (
talk)
12:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The article is long and poorly written, and the lede doesn't contain a proper summary of why it was determined to be 'fraud' as opposed to him simply having a conflict of interest or conducting shoddy research. No one is going to read this full article to determine what the nature of the fraud is.
Seriously, read the lede. It is almost completely devoid of content. All it says is "bad man did bad thing and got punished". If he had a conflict of interest, faked ethical consent, manipulated data, misinterpreted his results, etc. (as suggested in the "Newspaper investigation" section), that belongs in the lede. But it appears from reading the article that not all of these allegations have been substantiated (e.g., by court findings)? For example, the "Manipulation of data" subsection doesn't seem to reach a conclusion on whether he actually manipulated data or not. Since the article is also called 'autism fraud', not 'autism scandal', the lede also needs to explain how it was determined that it was intentional. (Also, why is there a "Newspaper investigation" section? Shouldn't the section be dedicated to his actual malfeasance, not to a series of newspaper articles?)
The GMC subsection says: "Wakefield was found to have acted 'dishonestly and irresponsibly' and to have acted with 'callous disregard' for the children involved in his study, conducting unnecessary and invasive tests." If you're going to write an article that calls this fraud, as opposed to scandal, then the finding of the GMC that got him deregistered should be front and centre and properly explained in the lede. Why exactly did they find this?
The lede should describe the allegations, which ones have been substantiated (by GMC, etc.), which ones actually constitute fraud (i.e., intentionality) as opposed to shoddy research. A conflict of interest by itself isn't fraud, but faking ethical consent and manipulating data would be.
Bueller 007 ( talk) 10:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Would someone please punctuate this or reword it to make it unambiguous and clear?
In the event, Wakefield did not pursue his complaint, which Deer published with a statement saying he and The Sunday Times rejected it as "false and disingenuous in all material respects", and that the action had been suspended by the PCC in February 2010. [1]
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
References