The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A news item involving MMR vaccine and autism was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 February 2010. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Folk epidemiology of autism was merged into MMR vaccine and autism with this edit on 09:22, 7 January 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. |
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
When I first came across this issue, it was in a pamphlet I read in a UK doctor's surgery. The main drift of the article was that the administering of three vaccines at once was potentially more risky than giving three jabs at different times. The main focus of the pamphlet was on possible links to bowel conditions.
The pamphlet noted that by administering the three at once, rather than separately, the vaccination campaign was more likely to achieve the desired coverage. It also pointed out that Sweden was allowing administration of separate jabs, but that separate jabs couldn't even be bought privately from UK pharmacies.
That 'controversy' - the apparent conflict between the goal of achieving coverage versus the goal of minimising risk - has been swamped by the antivax thing and the Wakefield/Lancet scandal, so that I can't now find any information (here or elsewhere) about the potential risks of administering three vaccines at once. If I could find a WP:RS discussing such potential risks, and added mention of it to this article, I suspect it would be instantly reverted, because 'fringe'. There is no MMR 'controversy', it's all about autism now, and MMR is unassailable (at least on WP).
So to which article would one add material based on a WP:MEDRS that was critical of MMR? Is there any point in even looking for a reliable source? MrDemeanour ( talk) 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Why does the title of this article assert a nonexistent connection? The postulation that this connection exists is nonsense, and well-debunked nonsense at that. We should not be leaving a bare title like "MMR vaccine and autism" sitting here suggesting that there's anything but nonsense behind said connection. I'm proposing adding "conspiracy theory" to the title, because (although this doesn't strictly look like a conspiracy theory at its core), it's widely referred to as one by reliable sources, and the extensive and irrefutable debunking of this link would necessitate any continued belief in such a link to also include belief in a conspiracy on the issue.
Sources supporting this (based on a 15 second google search, so I have no doubt there are more and better ones out there:
Happy ( Slap me) 12:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
There is already Lancet MMR autism fraud, which covers the fraud part. Renaming this article would make it a duplicate of that one. This article is about the broader claim that there is a connection, a false rumor which was started by the fraud but gained more momentum using other instances of bad science. Maybe it is simply not necessary and can be merged into the Lancet fraud article. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A. MMR vaccine fraud
B. MMR vaccine and autism fraud
C. MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory
D. MMR vaccine hoax
E. MMR vaccine and autism hoax
Advising editors here that there is a related discussion at Doreen Granpeesheh which would benefit from wider input. It is over the inclusion of the following content to the page:
Thanks! GordonGlottal ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC) GordonGlottal ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
References
Here is the claimed link. A link in time between MMR and autism. That is not a hypothesis.
'Findings Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular hyperplasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed patchy chronic inflammation in the colon in 11 children and reactive ileal lymphoid hyperplasia in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two). There were no focal neurological abnormalities and MRI and EEG tests were normal. Abnormal laboratory results were significantly raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with age-matched controls (p=0·003), low haemoglobin in four children, and a low serum IgA in four children.
'Interpretation We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sledgehamming ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The link 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) 15:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
We've had prior discussions about the "claim" aspect of the fraud, and yet now the word "claim" is being excised from the lead. Pls explain? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The first line of the article says: "Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false." The sentence under discussion is further down in the lead.
We could just add the word "falsely" to the existing sentence under discussion: "falsely suggested a link between the vaccine, colitis and autism spectrum disorders."
Here are some possibilities:
I favor the first one as it flows better, so will install it. If anyone thinks otherwise, feel free to tweak and discuss. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I see my edit has been undone to change "claim" to "suggested". Why is this? I assume we're talking about the 1998 paper that was retracted titled "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children"?
Am I missing something? Not aware it actually claimed a link; only implied it? LairdCamelot ( talk) 11:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"Dr. [Andrew] Wakefield has been shown to have used absolutely fraudulent data. He had a financial interest in some lawsuits, he created a fake paper, the journal allowed it to run. All the other studies were done, showed no connection whatsoever again and again and again. So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts—you know, they, they kill children. It's a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important." Bill Gates
Instead of a reasonable comment of public interest, this (over-the-top) statement seems to be pushing a pro-vaccine agenda. Then again, should not Wikipedia want to avoid being considered as some kind of cheerleader for the medical establishment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.196.41 ( talk) 11:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
some kind of cheerleader for the medical establishmentWeird description, but indeed, Wikipedia is on the side of science and opposes proven frauds like Wakefield, not only in the field of medicine, but everywhere else too. See WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A news item involving MMR vaccine and autism was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 February 2010. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Folk epidemiology of autism was merged into MMR vaccine and autism with this edit on 09:22, 7 January 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. |
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
When I first came across this issue, it was in a pamphlet I read in a UK doctor's surgery. The main drift of the article was that the administering of three vaccines at once was potentially more risky than giving three jabs at different times. The main focus of the pamphlet was on possible links to bowel conditions.
The pamphlet noted that by administering the three at once, rather than separately, the vaccination campaign was more likely to achieve the desired coverage. It also pointed out that Sweden was allowing administration of separate jabs, but that separate jabs couldn't even be bought privately from UK pharmacies.
That 'controversy' - the apparent conflict between the goal of achieving coverage versus the goal of minimising risk - has been swamped by the antivax thing and the Wakefield/Lancet scandal, so that I can't now find any information (here or elsewhere) about the potential risks of administering three vaccines at once. If I could find a WP:RS discussing such potential risks, and added mention of it to this article, I suspect it would be instantly reverted, because 'fringe'. There is no MMR 'controversy', it's all about autism now, and MMR is unassailable (at least on WP).
So to which article would one add material based on a WP:MEDRS that was critical of MMR? Is there any point in even looking for a reliable source? MrDemeanour ( talk) 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Why does the title of this article assert a nonexistent connection? The postulation that this connection exists is nonsense, and well-debunked nonsense at that. We should not be leaving a bare title like "MMR vaccine and autism" sitting here suggesting that there's anything but nonsense behind said connection. I'm proposing adding "conspiracy theory" to the title, because (although this doesn't strictly look like a conspiracy theory at its core), it's widely referred to as one by reliable sources, and the extensive and irrefutable debunking of this link would necessitate any continued belief in such a link to also include belief in a conspiracy on the issue.
Sources supporting this (based on a 15 second google search, so I have no doubt there are more and better ones out there:
Happy ( Slap me) 12:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
There is already Lancet MMR autism fraud, which covers the fraud part. Renaming this article would make it a duplicate of that one. This article is about the broader claim that there is a connection, a false rumor which was started by the fraud but gained more momentum using other instances of bad science. Maybe it is simply not necessary and can be merged into the Lancet fraud article. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A. MMR vaccine fraud
B. MMR vaccine and autism fraud
C. MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory
D. MMR vaccine hoax
E. MMR vaccine and autism hoax
Advising editors here that there is a related discussion at Doreen Granpeesheh which would benefit from wider input. It is over the inclusion of the following content to the page:
Thanks! GordonGlottal ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC) GordonGlottal ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
References
Here is the claimed link. A link in time between MMR and autism. That is not a hypothesis.
'Findings Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular hyperplasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed patchy chronic inflammation in the colon in 11 children and reactive ileal lymphoid hyperplasia in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two). There were no focal neurological abnormalities and MRI and EEG tests were normal. Abnormal laboratory results were significantly raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with age-matched controls (p=0·003), low haemoglobin in four children, and a low serum IgA in four children.
'Interpretation We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sledgehamming ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The link 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) 15:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
We've had prior discussions about the "claim" aspect of the fraud, and yet now the word "claim" is being excised from the lead. Pls explain? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The first line of the article says: "Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false." The sentence under discussion is further down in the lead.
We could just add the word "falsely" to the existing sentence under discussion: "falsely suggested a link between the vaccine, colitis and autism spectrum disorders."
Here are some possibilities:
I favor the first one as it flows better, so will install it. If anyone thinks otherwise, feel free to tweak and discuss. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I see my edit has been undone to change "claim" to "suggested". Why is this? I assume we're talking about the 1998 paper that was retracted titled "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children"?
Am I missing something? Not aware it actually claimed a link; only implied it? LairdCamelot ( talk) 11:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"Dr. [Andrew] Wakefield has been shown to have used absolutely fraudulent data. He had a financial interest in some lawsuits, he created a fake paper, the journal allowed it to run. All the other studies were done, showed no connection whatsoever again and again and again. So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts—you know, they, they kill children. It's a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important." Bill Gates
Instead of a reasonable comment of public interest, this (over-the-top) statement seems to be pushing a pro-vaccine agenda. Then again, should not Wikipedia want to avoid being considered as some kind of cheerleader for the medical establishment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.196.41 ( talk) 11:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
some kind of cheerleader for the medical establishmentWeird description, but indeed, Wikipedia is on the side of science and opposes proven frauds like Wakefield, not only in the field of medicine, but everywhere else too. See WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)