This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This change added unnecessary and unbalanced text to the article. It is possible that the claims in question are controversial; if so, let's see the other side's counterclaims with citations to reliable sources. In the meantime, there are reliable sources for the claims in question, and the article should not disparage these claims by prepending "so-and-so said" to them. Any reader who wants to find out the sources can easily follow their citations, which say precisely who the source is. If you want the reader to find out more about Fitzpatrick's background, you can write an article about him and wikilink to that article, and put source claims about his background there; this article is not the place for them. Likewise for the NHS. (I have added a wikilink to the NHS in the first citation, to make this easier on the reader.) It's not like the claims in question are merely the opinion of Fitzpatrick or of the NHS. Eubulides 05:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I do not believe that there is a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism, but I was curious about all the so-called documented evidence created by parents of kids with autism. I have read elsewhere that there have been parents who, mostly with video tapes and photos, are able to demonstrate that their child developed autism shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine. Supposedly there is an abundance of what could be described as anecdotal evidence about specific children being effected. I was just curious if anyone here has done the research into this body of evidence, because, whether or not that evidence is bogus, it seems noteworthy as a point of discussion to mention. I just figured that a blunt assesment of what anecdotal evidence exists, arising from the parents of autistic children, might add to the quality of the article. Has anyone looked into such 'evidence?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.184.148 ( talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we move this page to MMR vaccine autism controversy as a more descriptive title. MMR vaccine controversy would redirect to that page.
There is at least one "controversy" about MMR that is not directly related to the autism question. This concerns the benefits/disadvantages of the combined vaccine rather than injecting its three component ingredients separately. While governments generally recommend combining the three vaccines, some other authorities (e.g. The Vaccine Book by Robert Sears) recommend separating them. I'm not suggesting that this "controversy" is as intense as the alleged autism link, but there doesn't seem to be anything lost if we make the title of this article more explicit. Cheers. Grover cleveland ( talk) 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Deconstruction (hopefully in a not post-modern sense, and with the caveat that I did neither made nor objected to these changes) of this series of edits to the lead:
Discussion? - Eldereft ( cont.) 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Eubulides' version looks fine, and would be fine with moving it to the article. In the brief paragraph on the Wakefield studies, it may also be worth mentioning the failure of independent groups to replicate Wakefield's findings, and/or subsequent revelations that the labs performing some of the central tests were found to be unreliable (will dig up sources) - that's far more convincing scientifically than his source of funding, though I agree both are notable. MastCell Talk 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
← To go back to the lack of reproducibility of Wakefield's PCR findings: the article already mentions the allegation that Wakefield's own lab had issues with reproducing these results. Refs for outside groups which tried and failed to detect measles virus RNA by PCR in peripheral blood from autistic children: PMID 16555271, PMID 17015560 - both explicitly indicate that they were trying to replicate Wakefield's findings and failed. MastCell Talk 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The article claims with regards to increased rates of autism that "This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices;" without any supporting references. This is an unsubstantiated assertion and gives the impression of bias. There should be links to the details of the changes in diagnostic practises, with credible evidence of any change in diagnosis rates that they may have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgodden ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It is, in fact, a substantiated assertion. — Scien tizzle 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)The increase is largely a consequence of improved ascertainment and a considerable broadening of the diagnostic concept. [1]
A court hearing a petition to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled that vaccines and autism have no link:
-- Fyslee ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Nature says that anti-vaccine claims are denialism, like how intelligent design is denialism. The Squicks ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the reliable sources do not comment on the MMR issue specifically; they talk about vaccine issues in general. That's a completely valid point. I will go from here to vaccine controversy, which would be the relevent page, and discuss it there. The Squicks ( talk) 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The AMA survey is a seperate issue. For that, it does seem a bit mystifying why their survey's primary document is not availiable. Thanks to Fuzbaby for looking, regardless. If it is found, the MMR reference would certainly be notable IMO to this article. The Squicks ( talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have had an extremely difficult time adding information to the article on the MMR vaccine controversy; every time I add information on a study that tends to support the hypothesis that the MMR vaccine may be a factor in causing autism, another user removes this information, despite my complete, accurate sources (reputable news sources, I might add, like UPI). It seems likely that someone with a vested interest in keeping these studies quiet is deleting them in order to present a biased article, rather than a full account of all available information. I wonder if this is the work of a pharmaceutical employee. 24.215.244.23 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
totally agree.there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism,and unscientific information on Wikipedia.it is total foolishness to think that there is a "pharma employee at work".all we are donig is removing unscientific,unsourced information.It is not bias when you remove information that is clearly inaccurate.even if the wikipedian does not know that the information he/she is adding is false,it remains the right of other editors to remove any inaccurate,unscientific information. Immunize ( talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
After yet another study proving that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, shouldn't we move this article to a page with a clearer title? "Controversy" makes it sound like the issue hasn't been resolved or that this involves subjective options. I'm not sure what it would be called, but something with "hoax" in it would be clearest. Wikipedia may not be a corporation but we do need a bit of corporate responsibility here. If parents look up this article, it should be clear that Wakefield's allegation of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism is fradulant.
Baird G, Pickles A, Simonoff E; et al. (2008). "Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders". Arch Dis Child.
doi:
10.1136/adc.2007.122937.
PMID
18252754. {{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The main article has more links to other studies carried out, again showing no statistical link between the vaccine and autism. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me Articles touched by my noodly appendage 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
After the GMC findings, perhaps MMR Fraud would be more accurate. Pustelnik ( talk) 03:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the section on Urabe mumps strain (the first section after the table of contents) is not relevant to the MMR vaccine controversy. The lead text discusses the controversy surrounding a link between MMR vaccine and autism. The Urabe mumps section discusses the inclusion of a particular mumps strain causing meningitis and/or meningoencephalitis. This doesn't seem to relate to the autism controversy. If it does relate, perhaps someone can clarify the relation? Or perhaps it belongs elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capn ed ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
wouldn't the following extract give some reason for maintaining the Urabe section :"But the introduction of the MMR in Britain was attended by some difficulties. In 1992, after only four years of administration, two of the three MMR vaccines (Immravax, made by Merieux UK, and Pluserix, made by SmithKline Beecham), both of which contained the Urabe strain of the mumps vaccine, were withdrawn from the market because authorities concluded that children faced an increased risk of contracting meningitis through these vaccines. Only the brand made by Merck & Co. (MMR II) was unaffected. MMR administration continued, of course, with assurances from public health officials that the remaining brand of vaccine was perfectly safe, but it certainly was not lost on the nation that there might be a problem with the MMR" (from : http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf ). It could be perhaps appropriate to change the name of the section and to give it a broader content so as to expose the technical,legal,.... background of the controversy ??? Trente7cinq ( talk) 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Can this article be flagged as biased on non-objective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 ( talk) 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.143 ( talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say, if you can find a reliable source on this mess that does refer to this topic with the term "hoax", I might be willing to go with it. Otherwise, I think the article makes it pretty clear that the evidence is...ahem...wanting for any association between MMR & autism. — Scien tizzle 21:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)This category includes notable proven hoaxes and incidents determined to be hoaxes by reliable sources. An article's inclusion on this list is not intended to disparage the authenticity of the report, but to denote that it is in general considered, or evidenced, as having being created as a hoax, or was known to be false (or a joke) as created.
I guess the distinction would be if the "original" study was intentionally falsified as opposed to simply bad science and confirmation bias because the researcher was depending on the study results for economic gain. The link between vaccines and autism is mostly a temporal one (age of diagnosis vs. age of vaccination and a lot of post hoc assumptions) and it is not entirely based on the one study. Calling it a hoax assumes bad faith, and by Hanlon's Razor when stupidity or incompetence suffices, malice is exempted unless there is evidence of intent. Between foolishness and fraud, this appears to be foolishness. SDY ( talk) 04:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
re. this graph:
The data source used for the 'incidence' part of the graph actually gives notifications (i.e. reported suspected cases) rather than confirmed cases, hence the discrepancy with article text that's based on laboratory confirmed cases. IMHO we shouldn't be representing notifications as 'incidence', since they include a large number of false positives; the confirmed cases are probably more relevant here. -- GenericBob ( talk) 09:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Early in 2008 Dr Bernardine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health said : "I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational," Healy said.( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml ). Even if this declaration has been made two years ago , I hope it could help writing the WK article with some ... serenity . Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
My proposition - not referenced -" Brian Deer seized the GMC " has just been reversed : could someone help me document that point ? I read that another person might have done so...but after the above cited journalist .It is not without importance . Shouldn't it also be recalled that B.Deer could attend the GMC sessions ? Another point : I had created the section on the PCC ; the information has been integrated in the section "manipulation of data " . I can agree with this change , but I would suggest the following : shouldn't the PCC proceedings be recalled...at the end of the GMC section ( since they had been interrupted by the GMC procedings ?- if I understood well !?-). PS : sorry for my english ; I am not used to the latest version of WK too ! Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Since the GMC proceedings are still under way , my suggestion /PCC is not valid Trente7cinq ( talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote - a few days ago - "Brian Deer seized the GMC" - a formulation which has rightly been deleted , I intended to say that "the GMC initiated these proceedings not only due to Deer's articles but even to Deer's claim...which is not true as I came to know .This topic is rather hot, and I must carefully check almost every assumption ! That is why I wrote "the prosecution Sally Smith QC, is reported to have reasserted that the proceedings ”has been brought solely on the instructions of the General Medical Council" instead of simply "....Sally Smith QC reasserted " : I had no direct reference for that - just second hand; see the ref . -, making the supposition It should be true . That the GMC initiated this proceedings due to Deer's articles is obvious ; more risky would be to reason on the cooperation of Deer with the GMC ( and quite evil to ask " et vice versa ?"). Trente7cinq ( talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
My suggestions concerning the controversy within the controversy have been in most part deleted .I won't argue for my suggestions except on one point : The paragraph "The General Medical Council (GMC), which is responsible for licensing doctors and supervising medical ethics in the UK, investigated the affair[49]. The GMC had brought the case itself claiming that it was in the public interest. The then-secretary of state for health, John Reid MP, called for a GMC investigation, an investigation Wakefield seems himself to have wished [10]. During a debate in the House of Commons, on 15 Mar 2004, Dr Evan Harris [11], a Liberal Democrat MP, called for a judicial inquiry into the ethical aspects of the case, even suggesting it might be conducted by the CPS.[12] In June 2006 the GMC confirmed that they would hold a disciplinary hearing of Wakefield." should indicate that no parent complained . It is an important information . Not decisive, but important ..even if you can be of opinion that these parents were in error Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Scientizzle , I can't fully agree to the argument you briefly raised ( 20:12, 1 June 2010 ) for not adding that "no parent complained " .You wrote :"parents of patients have no special purview over the ethical considerations--this statement is a non sequitur that only obfuscates" . Law is the law , I won't disagree with you on that point . ( but not every citizen does know the law , doesn't they ? And according to what I read that point played a part in the controversy . If just one parent had complained for bad treatment ...don't you think B. Deer - or whoever you want -won't have made an issue of it ? Wikipedia is not just intended to informed peoples , so I think it could be necessary to somehow clarify that point ... with other words than just "no parent complained " . Trente7cinq ( talk) 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Scientizzle, although not fully agreeing with the arguments you are developping I take your edit for granted and thank you for that .Better than nothing ! Trente7cinq ( talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I dared change the introduction today . I left many phrases that , to my opinion , would better have their place in the main article . I think that "The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims , primarily raised by a 1998 paper published in the British medical journal The Lancet[1]that some form of autism may be triggered by the MMR vaccine, a vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella.The debate around this hypothesis – which has since been infirmed by numerous studies around the world – immediatly stirred a wider – and sometimes very emotional- controversy with a sustained media coverage due not only to the effect of such claims on the immunisation rate but also to several disturbing aspects of Dr Wakefield's work ,as unearthed by a journalist of the Times and that would drive to the longest GMC inquiry ever done ." could be enough ; some stress on the scientific consensus might be added ; mention of the latest decision of the GMC needed . But for the rest : in the different section of the article .What do you think of that ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 11:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
OK my suggestion was not fully followed ! Nevertheless, the changes operated first by JoelWhy then by Scientizzle do ameliorate the introduction compared to the previous version . I totally agree with : "The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims that autism spectrum disorders can be caused or triggered by the MMR vaccine [" caused or triggered" : good writing ; but in the article precise extracts of the paper will have to be added ...since the position of the various tenants may have evolved underway in one direction or another], a vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella. Claims of a connection between the vaccine and autism were raised in a 1998 paper in the respected British medical journal The Lancet.[1] The controversy led to sharp drops in vaccination rates in the UK and Ireland,[2] which in turn led to greatly increased incidence of measles and mumps, resulting in a few deaths and some severe and permanent injuries.[3] The scientific consensus is that no credible evidence links the vaccine to autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks." [ in should be noted - but in the article itself - that the tenants of the hypothesis still hold their position .; I fully appreciate "the controversy" being the subject of the drops in vaccination rates...since this is a point subjected to discussion ....that should be tackled in the article itself in connection with the monovalent/trivalent debate, the writing of which - to my opinion, and as far as I know- seems unbalanced in the article]. I would have several other things to say concerning the other paragraphs of the introduction ( I'll have to search for acurate references to support my suggestions . What I can add now : the GMC proceedings - and perhaps other legal aspects of the controversy- should be mentionned in the introduction itself , shouldn't they ? Respectfully .( PS : how can I do to appear blue again ?!) Trente7cinq ( talk) 07:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Umdenken ! About "respected" : I had deleted it ...it had been restored : not that great a point to me ; many other points within the article need to be ameliorated . ( what about "famous" ???? ) Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not without much hesitation I decided to change - very imperfectly-the section " Recent studies" : I was aware that "This section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk pag...". I understand that my proposition may appear controversial , whereas I whished more serenity here above ! But it just wasn't fair that the only studies referenced were "contra" . It may be that the general consensus is that Wakefield hypothesis is wrong , but in an encyclopedic work it should be stressed only after rewieving the pros and cons . And if the article should be just a resume...there is no need for the list of all the " cons" studies ... Trente7cinq ( talk) 12:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Waiting for a more appropriate exposure (?) of this section , couldn't a scroll menu be used ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
OK ! Up to you . I am not sure I'll be able to play some more part in this section . Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I just came across by chance on the report funded by the National Academies of Science titled : Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism which is referenced in the article on two occurences : in the introduction "Following the initial claims in 1998, multiple large epidemiologic studies were undertaken. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[9] the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences,[10]..." and at the end of the section Controversy following publication of report . In the present article the reference ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997 ) does not give access to the report . This link does : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997 .An exctract "The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism....The committee further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism that have been generated to date are theoretical only. " Perhaps precisions on the process that lead to this report would be welcome : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997&part=a2000af8fddd00135 ??? Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Today I inserted a link to the US Court of Federal Claims offering a general overview of the OAP . Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
After removing the Original Research from Recent Studies, (1) there were no more Pro references remaining, and (2) the remaining references were no longer individual studies. I therefore removed the Contra heading and renamed the section to be more appropriate. Dogweather ( talk) 05:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I had added a short note on Hannah Poling case ( see : 22:58, 23 May 2010 ), writing :"(Although not linked to MMR but to thimerosal the case of Hannah Polling -taken off the agenda of the OAP when the government agreed to grant compensation - illustrates the vaccine-autism theory since "the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder."the judge said " .
This had been reverted by Bobrayner (23:07, 23 May 2010 )with this brief comment :"Reverted to revision 363813074 by Trente7cinq; if it's not linked to MMR then why add it to the article? (and HuffPo is hardly a great source" .
I can understand that a strict or narrow interpretation of what should be or shouldn't be in the article would impose this choice not to include any information on H.Poling case (or at least in the way I put it ...). Nevertheless, you are not without knowing that much of the opposition to Wakefield and al.'s theses is not just purely based on the appreciation of their written works ( not to speak of ethical considerations , which are important but not debated here). To be short , there is a deep rooten faith ,based on a so far long proven knwoledge , that autism can't be caused by vaccines , which make it very difficult to acknwoledge that ,in certain circumstances , some vaccines may cause/trigger certain forms of autism .Here comes the case of Hannah Poling . So, citing Hannah Poling case could help considering this possibility with reason and not just passion . The meaning of the case could perhaps be written in another way .I lately found this commentary :"The implications have been the subject of much debate. Government officials and some scientists portray the case as an exception without much meaning in the global picture. That's because Hannah has something called "mitochondrial disorder" that the government believes made her uniquely susceptible to vaccine side effects. On the other hand, other scientists believe the case could begin to explain why some children suffer vaccine side effects when others don't - some have inherent weaknesses that make them susceptible"( http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501263_162-4315501-501263.html?tag=contentMain%3bcontentBody) .( Perhaps someone could help find the URL where the ruling on H. Poling case is posted ? I mean an official site );Respectfully Trente7cinq ( talk) 13:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner , thanks for this long reply . I have not much time right now : I feel like posting a comment later Trente7cinq ( talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner , to begin with I won't make that big an issue of Hannah Poling case .You wrote "If you think that this single case is sufficient to overturn large high-quality studies of vaccine safety " : I didn't want to overturn anything . As I wrote just above , I understood the Hannah poling case - as a possible example that in" certain circumstances , some vaccines may cause/trigger certain forms of autism ". Do you see any willingness to challenge "large high-quality studies of vaccine safety " in this cautious statement ? The commentary I quoted "The implications have been the subject of much debate. Government officials and some scientists [ as Paul Offit ]portray the case as an exception without much meaning in the global picture. That's because Hannah has something called "mitochondrial disorder" that the government believes made her uniquely susceptible to vaccine side effects. On the other hand, other scientists believe the case could begin to explain why some children suffer vaccine side effects when others don't - some have inherent weaknesses that make them susceptible" . Couldn't we elaborate a commentary starting from this point ? ( I wrote "Although not linked to MMR but to thimerosal" which - according to the very document you cited [When she was 19 months old, Hannah, the daughter of Jon and Terry Poling, received five vaccines — diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), measles–mumps–rubella (MMR), varicella, and inactivated polio.] looks like an error i would supposed caused by judiciary pigeonholing . The case of H.P. could have been introduced in the Omnibus proceedings under this thimoresal-only hypothesis ??? Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed in this edit (not that that editor did it) the words "later retracted". That is misleading, since Wakefield has never "retracted" anything. We need better wording that makes clear two things: (1) Lancet retracted it and (2) Wakefield still believes it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the lede is getting a bit too big / complex / detailed. Would it be appropriate to simplify it and summarise? The individual sections of the article already cover the fine detail (though there might be scope for improvement). I'd suggest a lede like this:
One thing I've added is a couple of words emphasising the extensive media coverage of the controversial claims, which I think the current lede neglects.
Any suggestions / comments / complaints? Although this does not make any drastic changes to content or meaning, I'd rather get consensus here before replacing the lede of a controversial article. :-)
bobrayner ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Since the lede insists on the Cochrane Library , shouldn't it be recalled that this same organization added : “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing is largely inadequate."???? Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Scientizzle , I fully agree with your modification ( 20:41, 1 June 2010 ) on Cochrane . Looks better Trente7cinq ( talk) 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner ,
You did delete the mention that Edwina Currie was Tory as exposed -among many other sites- at http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=299159 in such a way : "The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988 by Edwina Currie, then Tory Health Minister " ; Can't be more explicit ! If you do not doubt the veracity of this information ( don't you ? )why deleting it ? Did you think politics had nothing to do with the controversy ? If so, I shall invite you to reconsider that point owing to some well documented discussions that occured in the house of Commons , but even in the scottish parliament . I must add that this single word "tory" won't make the article too long ; It was not added so as to fuel polemics ...but just to recall to those who 'll pay attention to this single word, that the MMR controversy was not only a scientific controversy ...a view the article has already partly developped since it stress so evidently on ethical issues . Trente7cinq ( talk) 07:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner, thank you for your answer ...and sorry for the tone I used ( in fact I was a little annoyed by another issue cf : "no parent complained"...). All major parties ( what about the minor ones ?...) indeed are said to have supported the MMR vaccination...to a certain point : later, in 2001 the consensus seemed to be not that solid since : "Dr Liam Fox, the shadow health secretary, added his weight to the proposal. He said that the Conservatives would reintroduce single-dose vaccines if they were re-elected - if vaccination levels were still low. He said: "It must be better for children to have a single vaccine than to have nothing at all. This is not an ideal situation but it must be infinitely preferable to the prospect of dead or damaged children." ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1314594/Ministry-is-blocking-single-dose-vaccines.html ). Dr fox is reported to have made this proposition after Julie Kirkbride, Conservative MP for Bromsgrove, introduced a Private Member's Bill calling for single doses to be available.The statement of Dr Liam Fox may be viewed opportunistic , that is not the point : more important to the article would be to know if such statements were reiterated or were ...single shots .(For the moment tory/conservative might indeed be set aside) .Respectfully Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
When the GMC decision was made public late May , it was reported Dr Wakefield had 28 days to appeal it : could be useful for the purpose of the present article to make this point clear . Having not seen anything concerning it ( but having been far away from the question since June too ) I would say he did not appeal the decision . Would someone reference that point ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place, but I figured this would be better than blindly editing the article. Anyway, reference #76 is a dead link, but the lay summary is still good. CBJamo ( talk) 02:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Can an editor familiar with this issue provide a better description and source than this at Vaccine controversy, please? Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
See http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.2224/news_detail.asp for details. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It's nice to see this report added to the article. What's sad about is a one-sentence line that states, "Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease." This fake controversy based on fake evidence actually killed people. Maybe Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey can apologize to every child who contracts measles. Of course, why would anyone listen to an ex-Playboy model and bad actor about medicine. Oh right, because Americans are idiots. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
←The court decision could not be any clearer:
"This case, however, is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories. The result of this case would be the same even if I totally ignored the epidemiologic evidence, declined to consider the video evidence, and/or excluded the testimony of Dr. Bustin. The result would be the same if I restricted my consideration to the evidence originally filed into the record of this Cedillo case, disregarding the general causation evidence from the Hazlehurst and Snyder cases. The petitioners’ evidence has been unpersuasive on many different points, concerning virtually all aspects of their causation theories, each such deficiency having been discussed in detail above. The petitioners have failed to persuade me that there is validity to any of their general causation arguments, and have also failed to persuade me that there is any substantial likelihood that Michelle’s MMR vaccination contributed in any way to the causation of any of Michelle’s own disorders. To the contrary, based upon all the evidence that I have reviewed, I find that it is extremely unlikely that any of Michelle’s disorders were in any way causally connected to her MMR vaccination, or any other vaccination. In short, this is a case in which the evidence is so one-sided that any nuances in the interpretation of the causation case law would make no difference to the outcome of the case."
I'm not going to be so naïve as to believe that this ends the BS (I just listened to an interview with some anti-science idiot deriding the decision), but just like Kitzmiller (not going to link it to keep those nuts away), the courts are an unbiased authority in these issues. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you brought her up, this article seems geared towards a British audience. In the US, Jenny McCarthy, noted scientist ;), has been a big public proponent of the cockamamie MMR-autism link. Doesn't she deserve a mention on this here page? 128.196.202.73 ( talk) 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems fairly clear now that the MMR Vaccine does not cause autism, I suggest the title be renamed to MMR Vaccine Conspiracy Theory. Dionyseus ( talk) 08:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The current sentence is slightly absurd in the context and should either be referenced or shortened:
Now if the controversy is about MMR vaccine possibly causing autism spectrum disorders, the pattern is similar to:
What is relevant in the context is that there is no proven connection between MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders. The clause
regards something quite different, i.e. that people shall use it for its benefits, and ignore the low risks. Those alleged risks, should have no specific connection to the autism spectrum disorders. The context of the article is, as far as I can see, the scientific fraud controversy between some report writers (primary) and the rest of the science community (secondary), and any usage statement about the usefulness versus risks regards the tertiary party of vaccine users. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not expert enough to edit this article boldly, so I'd rather simply raise questions:
Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a quote: 00:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC))
[3] What is the problem with using that article from PRWeek? Cla68 ( talk) 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please excuse my butting in here. A few days ago I noticed the following statement in the article: "The trial involved procedures with medical risks but was not approved by an Independent Ethics Committee and Wakefield was shown to have multiple conflicts of interest in the conduct of the study. These breached basic requirements for medical research ethics laid out in the Declaration of Helsinki, a widely recognized standard for research bioethics" This seems to be original research to me, at least based on the primary source cited. And it doesn't exactly seem like a bland commonly-known statement of fact. I thought rather than removing I'd post here to give editors familiar with the subject matter should the opportunity to find a good secondary source or tell me to piss off. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a bland, commonly-known statement of fact to anyone who works in clinical research. Stating that it wasn't approved by committee and there were conflicts of interest is obviously naughty to anyone who's actually familiar with clinical research ethics, but a general reader might not understand why these things matter. If we're stating that he violated standards, we should explain what standards he violated. SDY ( talk) 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the new additions, but this line bugs me: "According to WebMD, the BMJ article also claimed..." Shouldn't we just cite what the BMJ article says? (I recognize it's harder to access, but it's certainly a more reliable source than WebMD.) JoelWhy ( talk) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A relevant article which also briefly mentions Andrew Wakefield:
It's based on his book (linked), which should have much more information. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed this addition from the article:
However, a new 2011 study revealed that there is a link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html ThVa ( talk) 08:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I took this out because the study does not claim to have proved a link between MMR and autism. What it seems to be saying, as best I can tell from the Daily Mail article, is that examination of children who had regressive autism and bowel disease shows measles virus in the gut, apparently a vaccine strain. Correlation is not causation, especially given the children were apparently selected for autism and bowel disease and there don't seem to be control groups. (Maybe measles vaccine causes bowel disease but not autism, and the high rate of measles virus is simply due to selecting for bowel disease? Maybe the presence of measles virus in the gut is a consequence of bowel disease and not a cause?)
Edit: now I look, I find that Stephen Walker, the same researcher involved in the study above, previously warned about these interpretation issues: "Even if we showed association (between measles virus and bowel disease) and we published it in a peer-reviewed journal, the conclusion will be simply that there is measles virus in the gut of a large number of children who have regressive autism and bowel disease. End of story. We haven’t done anything to demonstrate that the measles virus is causing autism or even causing bowel disease.”
The study probably should be mentioned in this article, once the dust has settled, but we should be careful not to overstate its findings. --
GenericBob (
talk) 09:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
...and looking further, although the Daily Mail article shows a date of Jan 26 2011, it looks as if it's actually an old article reporting on the same 2006 work I quoted above. Note that the byline is 'Sally Beck, Mail on Sunday', but Jan 26 2011 is not a Sunday. You can also find a cache of the same article dated 18 April 2010; looks like the Mail's code is borked and is displaying current date rather than publication date.
See also this October 2006 article from Clinical Psychiatry News, which gives the exact same figures reported in the "2011" Daily Mail article (82 tested out of 275, 70 = 85% of those 82 testing positive). So this is not a new study, it's something that was released in 2006 - not peer-reviewed, and accompanied by cautions about interpretation and the preliminary nature of the data. The fact that it hasn't been followed up by peer-reviewed publication of the final data suggests that those warnings were well-founded. -- GenericBob ( talk) 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the quote from Bill Gates here. This whole sorry saga was amplified by people listening to celebrities talking about subjects they know very little, exaggerating things and using forceful language about their opponents. I don't see why we need to quote Bill Gates any more than we need to quote Juliet Stevenson, say. I'm rather sceptical of the "has killed thousands of kids" claim, considering a significant section later in this article notes only a handful of deaths. Colin° Talk 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This may not be directly related to this article, but I'm sure many editors here will find this interesting: Causes of autism#Closely spaced pregnancies. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to do this, but I will preface this comment with the fact that I 100% support vaccination, and understand the scientific consesnsus that there is no link between autism and MMR. With that said, should this article cover Ratajczak's 2011 review in the Journal of Immunotoxicology? DigitalC ( talk) 19:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Vaccine controversy#Rename proposal. Editors here may have an opinion on the appropriateness of that article title, or alternatives. Colin° Talk 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the talk page archive leaves me wondering.. it is amazing how biased Wikipedia editors can be. People push their POV by suppressing other texts. They don't want to accept any edits that conflicts with their beliefs. Suppression of unwanted dissent appears to be rife here. I don't know whether MMR causes all these problems people talk about, but the continual suppression of dissenting views is worrying to me. I saw some interesting stuff in the talk archives, and I just had to ask "why isn't this stuff in the main article", for example the Hannah Poling case isn't mentioned - which is obviously relevant and a glaring omission.
This is *supposed* to be a page about MMR controversy - IMHO this page should include many many more of the popular controversies, and present factual information for and against as long as it is from a reputable source. May I say that some peoples ideas of what is reputable/authoritative is very flexible, each according to their biased opinions, eg: Citing BBC News is OK if it supports you, but CBS News should be rejected as un-authoritative if it doesn't support your POV Zarkme ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
( ←) Oppose. Wakefield's hypothesis included bowel disease. Can we please just leave the title untouched? JFW | T@lk 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
So is this a health scare, a case of scientific misconduct, or a genuine scientific controversy? I'm categorizing the latter right now - see category:scientific controversies. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This seems like a good place to put a list of the large studies that were conducted looking for a link between MMR & autism and their cost. It seems to me that there was a large study more or less every year from 1999 in different countries and their cost is relevant as a result of this controversy, as the funds spent not available for other, more useful research.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monado ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment of this recent addition: "As of 2012, autism can be detected in children as early as 6 months, half a year before the first dose of the MMR vaccine is administered."
However, I believe it is unintentionally misleading. Quack Wakefield and his ilk never claimed MMR was the only cause of autism, just one potential cause. This recent addition implies that, because autism has been detected in children who have not yet received the vaccine, the vaccine cannot be the cause of autism. It would be like saying we have detected asthma in people who have never smoked, so therefore smoking does not cause asthma . Given the wealth of evidence we have demonstrating there is no link between the two, I don't think we need to resort to pointing to science which amounts to a logical fallacy. (Again, I recognize that this is a good faith edit.) JoelWhy ( talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there even a controversy? Or is one side so obviously right that the other is simply politicizing the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.241.118 ( talk) 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Depends how you define 'controversy'. In the sense that there are still plenty of people on both sides willing to argue the issue, then I think it still qualifies as a controversy.
In the sense of a scientific controversy, then no. -- GenericBob ( talk) 23:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason this article is entitled "controversy" is because it is just that - a controversy. Although there are court-rulings on the matter, there is still an ongoing "he-said" vs "she said" issue in the general public and that needs to be recognized, whether it's an accurate discussion or not. To maintain this article's impartiality, accurate and impartial language must be used. That is why my edits reflect using the term "case study" to describe Wakefield's Lancet contribution. We in academia call the Lancet submission a "case study," not a "paper." There's a difference.
Additionally, the lead should describe what said case study did. It did not demonstrate causative proof, but rather indicated a potential connection and called for more research. The edit re: the placement of "1998" is simply on a readability basis.
Please demonstrate how my additions do not add additional information and clarity to the article. EduZenith ( talk) 20:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason I included "called for additional research into the connection" in the edit is because a very significant portion of the said scandal is that Wakefield supposedly "proved" a link or said there was one between MMR and autism in the Lancet article He didn't do this, even though both sides of the autism argument say he did. It's important to elucidate this fact. This point is worth further discussion.
As for the "controversy" issue I'll have to get back to you all on that.
Also, can we at least agree to include "case study" (vs report - more descriptive and more precise), "1998 publication" (vs publication in 1998 - fewer words and better readability)? EduZenith ( talk) 22:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
These FACTS are important for anyone researching the MMR Autsim link. Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vRz4IFom
and
Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vS0NxMmf
AND
Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 91.88.8.179 ( talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism
Thanks for the input but I’m still concerned we are missing something here. And I do try to look at other "news" sources - perhaps the FDA is better. Lets try this: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm
Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)
Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2000 Lazarou J et al. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200–1205 Gurwitz JH et al. Am J Med 2000;109(2):87–94
Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly 100,000 DEATHS yearly ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths Ambulatory patients ADR rate—unknown Nursing home patients ADR rate— 350,000 yearly
Of the 100,000 DEATHS yearly it would be interesting to know how many are from vaccinations. Do we have more information on this? 100k deaths is a scary number! And 2 MILLION serious ADRs per year – what is serious? Is autism part of the “serious” ADRs?
I use the word “fact” because the Judge has ruled it thus. Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that Prof. Walker-Smith's striking "cannot stand" because of serious misconduct in the way General Medical Council (GMC) handled the case against him, and that the entire council needs to be reformed. Refer: http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/professor-john-walker-smith-exonerated-in-autism-mmr-case.html
logical fallacy - Why do we need to vaccinate everyone? You talk of logical fallacy – so perhaps someone can help with this: "vaccination only works if you do it to everybody". But surely if you are VACCINATED you do NOT need to worry about those that are NOT VACCINATED…? It implies you can get sick even if you are already vaccinated. So why do we need to vaccinate? Polio proves we cannot eradicate a virus (as was touted by WHO) and what a failure that has become. Refer 47,000 children in India with non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) which is Polio caused by the Polio vaccination. Refer: http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html
The CDC dropped the OPV from its vaccine schedule in the US because it was causing polio. In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio (NPAFP) in the United States. Refer: Shaw D. Unintended casualties in war on polio. Philadelphia Inquirer June 6, 1993:A1.
And what about this: Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). These people have been proven to lie and promote things that are NOT good for our society. I’m sure we are all aware of the facts without recourse to the multitude of references that support the statement. But, just to be neutral we’ll say the allegedly corrupt Murdoch empire's Sunday Times is run by Rupert Murdoch's son James. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer. James Murdoch is even on GSKs board of directors.
James allegedly hired a freelance hack journalist, Brian Deer, to fabricate the Wakefield fabrication. It created a firestorm in London that ignited another vaccine promoter, Dr. Fiona Godlee, who happens to be the editor in chief for the British Journal of Medicine…
The statement, “One can deny the facts but one cannot deny the consequences of denying the facts” seems relevant here. The earth was believed to be flat, then a new belief was discovered; It’s round! Now we all believe it’s round. Is the same scenario happening with vaccinations? Is the vaccination facade breaking down? It seems many are seeing a eugenics motive behind the call to vaccinate. That will have major repercussions. Perhaps we will see more of the MMR link to Autism in the near future. I would not like to be implicated if the link is proven: To hurt a child is a sin with repercussions – regardless of ones’ beliefs. 91.88.226.134 ( talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism
I should have stopped reading as soon as I saw a link to Natural News presented as evidence...as for the deaths from vaccines, it's like pointing to the number of deaths caused by motorcycle helmets falling off a shelf and hitting someone in the head to argue that motorcyclists are therefore better off not wearing a helmet. I don't think Wikipedia is necessarily the best place to educate people with a complete lack of understanding of science and medicine. JoelWhy ( talk) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd start this as a place to discuss rather than edit war, as I know there are many editors with strong views on vaccines.
The Italian ruling appears to be very recent though I couldn't find a date.
I'm not sure the best way of including this here, I did my best. Its an ongoing story and could well drastically change this article. Cjwilky ( talk) 07:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
--I have looked a little into this and so far I'm having difficulty finding a primary source that actually discusses what happened. A lot of third-rate rags seem to have covered essentially the same story but none of them actually cite a source or give you anything to follow on. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.31.203.174 (
talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I reverted what I considered to be a POV edit that also failed MEDRS. I think the case is notable for the MMR vaccine controversy, but if we're going to add it, the last thing we want to reference is a citation that makes it appear that the case is a de facto proof that MMR causes autism, when the vast bulk of data debunks such a link. Anyways, I'm sure there are more neutral sources for this case that make this case exactly what it should be, a one-off issue. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 16:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Wakefield
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Deer4a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).retraction
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IOM
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).MMRthefacts
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cochrane
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Deer04a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Patent-and-test-results
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Deer2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Goldacre-2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McIntyre
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Pepys
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CDC-MMR-autism
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cedillo-v-HHS
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This change added unnecessary and unbalanced text to the article. It is possible that the claims in question are controversial; if so, let's see the other side's counterclaims with citations to reliable sources. In the meantime, there are reliable sources for the claims in question, and the article should not disparage these claims by prepending "so-and-so said" to them. Any reader who wants to find out the sources can easily follow their citations, which say precisely who the source is. If you want the reader to find out more about Fitzpatrick's background, you can write an article about him and wikilink to that article, and put source claims about his background there; this article is not the place for them. Likewise for the NHS. (I have added a wikilink to the NHS in the first citation, to make this easier on the reader.) It's not like the claims in question are merely the opinion of Fitzpatrick or of the NHS. Eubulides 05:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I do not believe that there is a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism, but I was curious about all the so-called documented evidence created by parents of kids with autism. I have read elsewhere that there have been parents who, mostly with video tapes and photos, are able to demonstrate that their child developed autism shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine. Supposedly there is an abundance of what could be described as anecdotal evidence about specific children being effected. I was just curious if anyone here has done the research into this body of evidence, because, whether or not that evidence is bogus, it seems noteworthy as a point of discussion to mention. I just figured that a blunt assesment of what anecdotal evidence exists, arising from the parents of autistic children, might add to the quality of the article. Has anyone looked into such 'evidence?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.184.148 ( talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we move this page to MMR vaccine autism controversy as a more descriptive title. MMR vaccine controversy would redirect to that page.
There is at least one "controversy" about MMR that is not directly related to the autism question. This concerns the benefits/disadvantages of the combined vaccine rather than injecting its three component ingredients separately. While governments generally recommend combining the three vaccines, some other authorities (e.g. The Vaccine Book by Robert Sears) recommend separating them. I'm not suggesting that this "controversy" is as intense as the alleged autism link, but there doesn't seem to be anything lost if we make the title of this article more explicit. Cheers. Grover cleveland ( talk) 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Deconstruction (hopefully in a not post-modern sense, and with the caveat that I did neither made nor objected to these changes) of this series of edits to the lead:
Discussion? - Eldereft ( cont.) 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Eubulides' version looks fine, and would be fine with moving it to the article. In the brief paragraph on the Wakefield studies, it may also be worth mentioning the failure of independent groups to replicate Wakefield's findings, and/or subsequent revelations that the labs performing some of the central tests were found to be unreliable (will dig up sources) - that's far more convincing scientifically than his source of funding, though I agree both are notable. MastCell Talk 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
← To go back to the lack of reproducibility of Wakefield's PCR findings: the article already mentions the allegation that Wakefield's own lab had issues with reproducing these results. Refs for outside groups which tried and failed to detect measles virus RNA by PCR in peripheral blood from autistic children: PMID 16555271, PMID 17015560 - both explicitly indicate that they were trying to replicate Wakefield's findings and failed. MastCell Talk 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The article claims with regards to increased rates of autism that "This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices;" without any supporting references. This is an unsubstantiated assertion and gives the impression of bias. There should be links to the details of the changes in diagnostic practises, with credible evidence of any change in diagnosis rates that they may have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgodden ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It is, in fact, a substantiated assertion. — Scien tizzle 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)The increase is largely a consequence of improved ascertainment and a considerable broadening of the diagnostic concept. [1]
A court hearing a petition to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled that vaccines and autism have no link:
-- Fyslee ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Nature says that anti-vaccine claims are denialism, like how intelligent design is denialism. The Squicks ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the reliable sources do not comment on the MMR issue specifically; they talk about vaccine issues in general. That's a completely valid point. I will go from here to vaccine controversy, which would be the relevent page, and discuss it there. The Squicks ( talk) 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The AMA survey is a seperate issue. For that, it does seem a bit mystifying why their survey's primary document is not availiable. Thanks to Fuzbaby for looking, regardless. If it is found, the MMR reference would certainly be notable IMO to this article. The Squicks ( talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have had an extremely difficult time adding information to the article on the MMR vaccine controversy; every time I add information on a study that tends to support the hypothesis that the MMR vaccine may be a factor in causing autism, another user removes this information, despite my complete, accurate sources (reputable news sources, I might add, like UPI). It seems likely that someone with a vested interest in keeping these studies quiet is deleting them in order to present a biased article, rather than a full account of all available information. I wonder if this is the work of a pharmaceutical employee. 24.215.244.23 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
totally agree.there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism,and unscientific information on Wikipedia.it is total foolishness to think that there is a "pharma employee at work".all we are donig is removing unscientific,unsourced information.It is not bias when you remove information that is clearly inaccurate.even if the wikipedian does not know that the information he/she is adding is false,it remains the right of other editors to remove any inaccurate,unscientific information. Immunize ( talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
After yet another study proving that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, shouldn't we move this article to a page with a clearer title? "Controversy" makes it sound like the issue hasn't been resolved or that this involves subjective options. I'm not sure what it would be called, but something with "hoax" in it would be clearest. Wikipedia may not be a corporation but we do need a bit of corporate responsibility here. If parents look up this article, it should be clear that Wakefield's allegation of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism is fradulant.
Baird G, Pickles A, Simonoff E; et al. (2008). "Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders". Arch Dis Child.
doi:
10.1136/adc.2007.122937.
PMID
18252754. {{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The main article has more links to other studies carried out, again showing no statistical link between the vaccine and autism. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me Articles touched by my noodly appendage 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
After the GMC findings, perhaps MMR Fraud would be more accurate. Pustelnik ( talk) 03:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the section on Urabe mumps strain (the first section after the table of contents) is not relevant to the MMR vaccine controversy. The lead text discusses the controversy surrounding a link between MMR vaccine and autism. The Urabe mumps section discusses the inclusion of a particular mumps strain causing meningitis and/or meningoencephalitis. This doesn't seem to relate to the autism controversy. If it does relate, perhaps someone can clarify the relation? Or perhaps it belongs elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capn ed ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
wouldn't the following extract give some reason for maintaining the Urabe section :"But the introduction of the MMR in Britain was attended by some difficulties. In 1992, after only four years of administration, two of the three MMR vaccines (Immravax, made by Merieux UK, and Pluserix, made by SmithKline Beecham), both of which contained the Urabe strain of the mumps vaccine, were withdrawn from the market because authorities concluded that children faced an increased risk of contracting meningitis through these vaccines. Only the brand made by Merck & Co. (MMR II) was unaffected. MMR administration continued, of course, with assurances from public health officials that the remaining brand of vaccine was perfectly safe, but it certainly was not lost on the nation that there might be a problem with the MMR" (from : http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf ). It could be perhaps appropriate to change the name of the section and to give it a broader content so as to expose the technical,legal,.... background of the controversy ??? Trente7cinq ( talk) 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Can this article be flagged as biased on non-objective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 ( talk) 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.143 ( talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say, if you can find a reliable source on this mess that does refer to this topic with the term "hoax", I might be willing to go with it. Otherwise, I think the article makes it pretty clear that the evidence is...ahem...wanting for any association between MMR & autism. — Scien tizzle 21:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)This category includes notable proven hoaxes and incidents determined to be hoaxes by reliable sources. An article's inclusion on this list is not intended to disparage the authenticity of the report, but to denote that it is in general considered, or evidenced, as having being created as a hoax, or was known to be false (or a joke) as created.
I guess the distinction would be if the "original" study was intentionally falsified as opposed to simply bad science and confirmation bias because the researcher was depending on the study results for economic gain. The link between vaccines and autism is mostly a temporal one (age of diagnosis vs. age of vaccination and a lot of post hoc assumptions) and it is not entirely based on the one study. Calling it a hoax assumes bad faith, and by Hanlon's Razor when stupidity or incompetence suffices, malice is exempted unless there is evidence of intent. Between foolishness and fraud, this appears to be foolishness. SDY ( talk) 04:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
re. this graph:
The data source used for the 'incidence' part of the graph actually gives notifications (i.e. reported suspected cases) rather than confirmed cases, hence the discrepancy with article text that's based on laboratory confirmed cases. IMHO we shouldn't be representing notifications as 'incidence', since they include a large number of false positives; the confirmed cases are probably more relevant here. -- GenericBob ( talk) 09:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Early in 2008 Dr Bernardine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health said : "I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational," Healy said.( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml ). Even if this declaration has been made two years ago , I hope it could help writing the WK article with some ... serenity . Trente7cinq ( talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
My proposition - not referenced -" Brian Deer seized the GMC " has just been reversed : could someone help me document that point ? I read that another person might have done so...but after the above cited journalist .It is not without importance . Shouldn't it also be recalled that B.Deer could attend the GMC sessions ? Another point : I had created the section on the PCC ; the information has been integrated in the section "manipulation of data " . I can agree with this change , but I would suggest the following : shouldn't the PCC proceedings be recalled...at the end of the GMC section ( since they had been interrupted by the GMC procedings ?- if I understood well !?-). PS : sorry for my english ; I am not used to the latest version of WK too ! Trente7cinq ( talk) 08:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Since the GMC proceedings are still under way , my suggestion /PCC is not valid Trente7cinq ( talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote - a few days ago - "Brian Deer seized the GMC" - a formulation which has rightly been deleted , I intended to say that "the GMC initiated these proceedings not only due to Deer's articles but even to Deer's claim...which is not true as I came to know .This topic is rather hot, and I must carefully check almost every assumption ! That is why I wrote "the prosecution Sally Smith QC, is reported to have reasserted that the proceedings ”has been brought solely on the instructions of the General Medical Council" instead of simply "....Sally Smith QC reasserted " : I had no direct reference for that - just second hand; see the ref . -, making the supposition It should be true . That the GMC initiated this proceedings due to Deer's articles is obvious ; more risky would be to reason on the cooperation of Deer with the GMC ( and quite evil to ask " et vice versa ?"). Trente7cinq ( talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
My suggestions concerning the controversy within the controversy have been in most part deleted .I won't argue for my suggestions except on one point : The paragraph "The General Medical Council (GMC), which is responsible for licensing doctors and supervising medical ethics in the UK, investigated the affair[49]. The GMC had brought the case itself claiming that it was in the public interest. The then-secretary of state for health, John Reid MP, called for a GMC investigation, an investigation Wakefield seems himself to have wished [10]. During a debate in the House of Commons, on 15 Mar 2004, Dr Evan Harris [11], a Liberal Democrat MP, called for a judicial inquiry into the ethical aspects of the case, even suggesting it might be conducted by the CPS.[12] In June 2006 the GMC confirmed that they would hold a disciplinary hearing of Wakefield." should indicate that no parent complained . It is an important information . Not decisive, but important ..even if you can be of opinion that these parents were in error Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Scientizzle , I can't fully agree to the argument you briefly raised ( 20:12, 1 June 2010 ) for not adding that "no parent complained " .You wrote :"parents of patients have no special purview over the ethical considerations--this statement is a non sequitur that only obfuscates" . Law is the law , I won't disagree with you on that point . ( but not every citizen does know the law , doesn't they ? And according to what I read that point played a part in the controversy . If just one parent had complained for bad treatment ...don't you think B. Deer - or whoever you want -won't have made an issue of it ? Wikipedia is not just intended to informed peoples , so I think it could be necessary to somehow clarify that point ... with other words than just "no parent complained " . Trente7cinq ( talk) 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Scientizzle, although not fully agreeing with the arguments you are developping I take your edit for granted and thank you for that .Better than nothing ! Trente7cinq ( talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I dared change the introduction today . I left many phrases that , to my opinion , would better have their place in the main article . I think that "The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims , primarily raised by a 1998 paper published in the British medical journal The Lancet[1]that some form of autism may be triggered by the MMR vaccine, a vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella.The debate around this hypothesis – which has since been infirmed by numerous studies around the world – immediatly stirred a wider – and sometimes very emotional- controversy with a sustained media coverage due not only to the effect of such claims on the immunisation rate but also to several disturbing aspects of Dr Wakefield's work ,as unearthed by a journalist of the Times and that would drive to the longest GMC inquiry ever done ." could be enough ; some stress on the scientific consensus might be added ; mention of the latest decision of the GMC needed . But for the rest : in the different section of the article .What do you think of that ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 11:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
OK my suggestion was not fully followed ! Nevertheless, the changes operated first by JoelWhy then by Scientizzle do ameliorate the introduction compared to the previous version . I totally agree with : "The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims that autism spectrum disorders can be caused or triggered by the MMR vaccine [" caused or triggered" : good writing ; but in the article precise extracts of the paper will have to be added ...since the position of the various tenants may have evolved underway in one direction or another], a vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella. Claims of a connection between the vaccine and autism were raised in a 1998 paper in the respected British medical journal The Lancet.[1] The controversy led to sharp drops in vaccination rates in the UK and Ireland,[2] which in turn led to greatly increased incidence of measles and mumps, resulting in a few deaths and some severe and permanent injuries.[3] The scientific consensus is that no credible evidence links the vaccine to autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks." [ in should be noted - but in the article itself - that the tenants of the hypothesis still hold their position .; I fully appreciate "the controversy" being the subject of the drops in vaccination rates...since this is a point subjected to discussion ....that should be tackled in the article itself in connection with the monovalent/trivalent debate, the writing of which - to my opinion, and as far as I know- seems unbalanced in the article]. I would have several other things to say concerning the other paragraphs of the introduction ( I'll have to search for acurate references to support my suggestions . What I can add now : the GMC proceedings - and perhaps other legal aspects of the controversy- should be mentionned in the introduction itself , shouldn't they ? Respectfully .( PS : how can I do to appear blue again ?!) Trente7cinq ( talk) 07:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Umdenken ! About "respected" : I had deleted it ...it had been restored : not that great a point to me ; many other points within the article need to be ameliorated . ( what about "famous" ???? ) Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not without much hesitation I decided to change - very imperfectly-the section " Recent studies" : I was aware that "This section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk pag...". I understand that my proposition may appear controversial , whereas I whished more serenity here above ! But it just wasn't fair that the only studies referenced were "contra" . It may be that the general consensus is that Wakefield hypothesis is wrong , but in an encyclopedic work it should be stressed only after rewieving the pros and cons . And if the article should be just a resume...there is no need for the list of all the " cons" studies ... Trente7cinq ( talk) 12:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Waiting for a more appropriate exposure (?) of this section , couldn't a scroll menu be used ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
OK ! Up to you . I am not sure I'll be able to play some more part in this section . Trente7cinq ( talk) 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I just came across by chance on the report funded by the National Academies of Science titled : Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism which is referenced in the article on two occurences : in the introduction "Following the initial claims in 1998, multiple large epidemiologic studies were undertaken. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[9] the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences,[10]..." and at the end of the section Controversy following publication of report . In the present article the reference ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997 ) does not give access to the report . This link does : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997 .An exctract "The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism....The committee further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism that have been generated to date are theoretical only. " Perhaps precisions on the process that lead to this report would be welcome : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997&part=a2000af8fddd00135 ??? Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Today I inserted a link to the US Court of Federal Claims offering a general overview of the OAP . Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
After removing the Original Research from Recent Studies, (1) there were no more Pro references remaining, and (2) the remaining references were no longer individual studies. I therefore removed the Contra heading and renamed the section to be more appropriate. Dogweather ( talk) 05:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I had added a short note on Hannah Poling case ( see : 22:58, 23 May 2010 ), writing :"(Although not linked to MMR but to thimerosal the case of Hannah Polling -taken off the agenda of the OAP when the government agreed to grant compensation - illustrates the vaccine-autism theory since "the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder."the judge said " .
This had been reverted by Bobrayner (23:07, 23 May 2010 )with this brief comment :"Reverted to revision 363813074 by Trente7cinq; if it's not linked to MMR then why add it to the article? (and HuffPo is hardly a great source" .
I can understand that a strict or narrow interpretation of what should be or shouldn't be in the article would impose this choice not to include any information on H.Poling case (or at least in the way I put it ...). Nevertheless, you are not without knowing that much of the opposition to Wakefield and al.'s theses is not just purely based on the appreciation of their written works ( not to speak of ethical considerations , which are important but not debated here). To be short , there is a deep rooten faith ,based on a so far long proven knwoledge , that autism can't be caused by vaccines , which make it very difficult to acknwoledge that ,in certain circumstances , some vaccines may cause/trigger certain forms of autism .Here comes the case of Hannah Poling . So, citing Hannah Poling case could help considering this possibility with reason and not just passion . The meaning of the case could perhaps be written in another way .I lately found this commentary :"The implications have been the subject of much debate. Government officials and some scientists portray the case as an exception without much meaning in the global picture. That's because Hannah has something called "mitochondrial disorder" that the government believes made her uniquely susceptible to vaccine side effects. On the other hand, other scientists believe the case could begin to explain why some children suffer vaccine side effects when others don't - some have inherent weaknesses that make them susceptible"( http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501263_162-4315501-501263.html?tag=contentMain%3bcontentBody) .( Perhaps someone could help find the URL where the ruling on H. Poling case is posted ? I mean an official site );Respectfully Trente7cinq ( talk) 13:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner , thanks for this long reply . I have not much time right now : I feel like posting a comment later Trente7cinq ( talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner , to begin with I won't make that big an issue of Hannah Poling case .You wrote "If you think that this single case is sufficient to overturn large high-quality studies of vaccine safety " : I didn't want to overturn anything . As I wrote just above , I understood the Hannah poling case - as a possible example that in" certain circumstances , some vaccines may cause/trigger certain forms of autism ". Do you see any willingness to challenge "large high-quality studies of vaccine safety " in this cautious statement ? The commentary I quoted "The implications have been the subject of much debate. Government officials and some scientists [ as Paul Offit ]portray the case as an exception without much meaning in the global picture. That's because Hannah has something called "mitochondrial disorder" that the government believes made her uniquely susceptible to vaccine side effects. On the other hand, other scientists believe the case could begin to explain why some children suffer vaccine side effects when others don't - some have inherent weaknesses that make them susceptible" . Couldn't we elaborate a commentary starting from this point ? ( I wrote "Although not linked to MMR but to thimerosal" which - according to the very document you cited [When she was 19 months old, Hannah, the daughter of Jon and Terry Poling, received five vaccines — diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), measles–mumps–rubella (MMR), varicella, and inactivated polio.] looks like an error i would supposed caused by judiciary pigeonholing . The case of H.P. could have been introduced in the Omnibus proceedings under this thimoresal-only hypothesis ??? Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed in this edit (not that that editor did it) the words "later retracted". That is misleading, since Wakefield has never "retracted" anything. We need better wording that makes clear two things: (1) Lancet retracted it and (2) Wakefield still believes it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the lede is getting a bit too big / complex / detailed. Would it be appropriate to simplify it and summarise? The individual sections of the article already cover the fine detail (though there might be scope for improvement). I'd suggest a lede like this:
One thing I've added is a couple of words emphasising the extensive media coverage of the controversial claims, which I think the current lede neglects.
Any suggestions / comments / complaints? Although this does not make any drastic changes to content or meaning, I'd rather get consensus here before replacing the lede of a controversial article. :-)
bobrayner ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Since the lede insists on the Cochrane Library , shouldn't it be recalled that this same organization added : “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing is largely inadequate."???? Trente7cinq ( talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Scientizzle , I fully agree with your modification ( 20:41, 1 June 2010 ) on Cochrane . Looks better Trente7cinq ( talk) 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner ,
You did delete the mention that Edwina Currie was Tory as exposed -among many other sites- at http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=299159 in such a way : "The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988 by Edwina Currie, then Tory Health Minister " ; Can't be more explicit ! If you do not doubt the veracity of this information ( don't you ? )why deleting it ? Did you think politics had nothing to do with the controversy ? If so, I shall invite you to reconsider that point owing to some well documented discussions that occured in the house of Commons , but even in the scottish parliament . I must add that this single word "tory" won't make the article too long ; It was not added so as to fuel polemics ...but just to recall to those who 'll pay attention to this single word, that the MMR controversy was not only a scientific controversy ...a view the article has already partly developped since it stress so evidently on ethical issues . Trente7cinq ( talk) 07:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Bobrayner, thank you for your answer ...and sorry for the tone I used ( in fact I was a little annoyed by another issue cf : "no parent complained"...). All major parties ( what about the minor ones ?...) indeed are said to have supported the MMR vaccination...to a certain point : later, in 2001 the consensus seemed to be not that solid since : "Dr Liam Fox, the shadow health secretary, added his weight to the proposal. He said that the Conservatives would reintroduce single-dose vaccines if they were re-elected - if vaccination levels were still low. He said: "It must be better for children to have a single vaccine than to have nothing at all. This is not an ideal situation but it must be infinitely preferable to the prospect of dead or damaged children." ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1314594/Ministry-is-blocking-single-dose-vaccines.html ). Dr fox is reported to have made this proposition after Julie Kirkbride, Conservative MP for Bromsgrove, introduced a Private Member's Bill calling for single doses to be available.The statement of Dr Liam Fox may be viewed opportunistic , that is not the point : more important to the article would be to know if such statements were reiterated or were ...single shots .(For the moment tory/conservative might indeed be set aside) .Respectfully Trente7cinq ( talk) 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
When the GMC decision was made public late May , it was reported Dr Wakefield had 28 days to appeal it : could be useful for the purpose of the present article to make this point clear . Having not seen anything concerning it ( but having been far away from the question since June too ) I would say he did not appeal the decision . Would someone reference that point ? Trente7cinq ( talk) 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place, but I figured this would be better than blindly editing the article. Anyway, reference #76 is a dead link, but the lay summary is still good. CBJamo ( talk) 02:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Can an editor familiar with this issue provide a better description and source than this at Vaccine controversy, please? Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
See http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.2224/news_detail.asp for details. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It's nice to see this report added to the article. What's sad about is a one-sentence line that states, "Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease." This fake controversy based on fake evidence actually killed people. Maybe Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey can apologize to every child who contracts measles. Of course, why would anyone listen to an ex-Playboy model and bad actor about medicine. Oh right, because Americans are idiots. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
←The court decision could not be any clearer:
"This case, however, is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories. The result of this case would be the same even if I totally ignored the epidemiologic evidence, declined to consider the video evidence, and/or excluded the testimony of Dr. Bustin. The result would be the same if I restricted my consideration to the evidence originally filed into the record of this Cedillo case, disregarding the general causation evidence from the Hazlehurst and Snyder cases. The petitioners’ evidence has been unpersuasive on many different points, concerning virtually all aspects of their causation theories, each such deficiency having been discussed in detail above. The petitioners have failed to persuade me that there is validity to any of their general causation arguments, and have also failed to persuade me that there is any substantial likelihood that Michelle’s MMR vaccination contributed in any way to the causation of any of Michelle’s own disorders. To the contrary, based upon all the evidence that I have reviewed, I find that it is extremely unlikely that any of Michelle’s disorders were in any way causally connected to her MMR vaccination, or any other vaccination. In short, this is a case in which the evidence is so one-sided that any nuances in the interpretation of the causation case law would make no difference to the outcome of the case."
I'm not going to be so naïve as to believe that this ends the BS (I just listened to an interview with some anti-science idiot deriding the decision), but just like Kitzmiller (not going to link it to keep those nuts away), the courts are an unbiased authority in these issues. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you brought her up, this article seems geared towards a British audience. In the US, Jenny McCarthy, noted scientist ;), has been a big public proponent of the cockamamie MMR-autism link. Doesn't she deserve a mention on this here page? 128.196.202.73 ( talk) 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems fairly clear now that the MMR Vaccine does not cause autism, I suggest the title be renamed to MMR Vaccine Conspiracy Theory. Dionyseus ( talk) 08:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The current sentence is slightly absurd in the context and should either be referenced or shortened:
Now if the controversy is about MMR vaccine possibly causing autism spectrum disorders, the pattern is similar to:
What is relevant in the context is that there is no proven connection between MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders. The clause
regards something quite different, i.e. that people shall use it for its benefits, and ignore the low risks. Those alleged risks, should have no specific connection to the autism spectrum disorders. The context of the article is, as far as I can see, the scientific fraud controversy between some report writers (primary) and the rest of the science community (secondary), and any usage statement about the usefulness versus risks regards the tertiary party of vaccine users. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not expert enough to edit this article boldly, so I'd rather simply raise questions:
Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a quote: 00:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC))
[3] What is the problem with using that article from PRWeek? Cla68 ( talk) 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please excuse my butting in here. A few days ago I noticed the following statement in the article: "The trial involved procedures with medical risks but was not approved by an Independent Ethics Committee and Wakefield was shown to have multiple conflicts of interest in the conduct of the study. These breached basic requirements for medical research ethics laid out in the Declaration of Helsinki, a widely recognized standard for research bioethics" This seems to be original research to me, at least based on the primary source cited. And it doesn't exactly seem like a bland commonly-known statement of fact. I thought rather than removing I'd post here to give editors familiar with the subject matter should the opportunity to find a good secondary source or tell me to piss off. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a bland, commonly-known statement of fact to anyone who works in clinical research. Stating that it wasn't approved by committee and there were conflicts of interest is obviously naughty to anyone who's actually familiar with clinical research ethics, but a general reader might not understand why these things matter. If we're stating that he violated standards, we should explain what standards he violated. SDY ( talk) 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the new additions, but this line bugs me: "According to WebMD, the BMJ article also claimed..." Shouldn't we just cite what the BMJ article says? (I recognize it's harder to access, but it's certainly a more reliable source than WebMD.) JoelWhy ( talk) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A relevant article which also briefly mentions Andrew Wakefield:
It's based on his book (linked), which should have much more information. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed this addition from the article:
However, a new 2011 study revealed that there is a link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html ThVa ( talk) 08:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I took this out because the study does not claim to have proved a link between MMR and autism. What it seems to be saying, as best I can tell from the Daily Mail article, is that examination of children who had regressive autism and bowel disease shows measles virus in the gut, apparently a vaccine strain. Correlation is not causation, especially given the children were apparently selected for autism and bowel disease and there don't seem to be control groups. (Maybe measles vaccine causes bowel disease but not autism, and the high rate of measles virus is simply due to selecting for bowel disease? Maybe the presence of measles virus in the gut is a consequence of bowel disease and not a cause?)
Edit: now I look, I find that Stephen Walker, the same researcher involved in the study above, previously warned about these interpretation issues: "Even if we showed association (between measles virus and bowel disease) and we published it in a peer-reviewed journal, the conclusion will be simply that there is measles virus in the gut of a large number of children who have regressive autism and bowel disease. End of story. We haven’t done anything to demonstrate that the measles virus is causing autism or even causing bowel disease.”
The study probably should be mentioned in this article, once the dust has settled, but we should be careful not to overstate its findings. --
GenericBob (
talk) 09:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
...and looking further, although the Daily Mail article shows a date of Jan 26 2011, it looks as if it's actually an old article reporting on the same 2006 work I quoted above. Note that the byline is 'Sally Beck, Mail on Sunday', but Jan 26 2011 is not a Sunday. You can also find a cache of the same article dated 18 April 2010; looks like the Mail's code is borked and is displaying current date rather than publication date.
See also this October 2006 article from Clinical Psychiatry News, which gives the exact same figures reported in the "2011" Daily Mail article (82 tested out of 275, 70 = 85% of those 82 testing positive). So this is not a new study, it's something that was released in 2006 - not peer-reviewed, and accompanied by cautions about interpretation and the preliminary nature of the data. The fact that it hasn't been followed up by peer-reviewed publication of the final data suggests that those warnings were well-founded. -- GenericBob ( talk) 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the quote from Bill Gates here. This whole sorry saga was amplified by people listening to celebrities talking about subjects they know very little, exaggerating things and using forceful language about their opponents. I don't see why we need to quote Bill Gates any more than we need to quote Juliet Stevenson, say. I'm rather sceptical of the "has killed thousands of kids" claim, considering a significant section later in this article notes only a handful of deaths. Colin° Talk 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This may not be directly related to this article, but I'm sure many editors here will find this interesting: Causes of autism#Closely spaced pregnancies. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to do this, but I will preface this comment with the fact that I 100% support vaccination, and understand the scientific consesnsus that there is no link between autism and MMR. With that said, should this article cover Ratajczak's 2011 review in the Journal of Immunotoxicology? DigitalC ( talk) 19:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Vaccine controversy#Rename proposal. Editors here may have an opinion on the appropriateness of that article title, or alternatives. Colin° Talk 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the talk page archive leaves me wondering.. it is amazing how biased Wikipedia editors can be. People push their POV by suppressing other texts. They don't want to accept any edits that conflicts with their beliefs. Suppression of unwanted dissent appears to be rife here. I don't know whether MMR causes all these problems people talk about, but the continual suppression of dissenting views is worrying to me. I saw some interesting stuff in the talk archives, and I just had to ask "why isn't this stuff in the main article", for example the Hannah Poling case isn't mentioned - which is obviously relevant and a glaring omission.
This is *supposed* to be a page about MMR controversy - IMHO this page should include many many more of the popular controversies, and present factual information for and against as long as it is from a reputable source. May I say that some peoples ideas of what is reputable/authoritative is very flexible, each according to their biased opinions, eg: Citing BBC News is OK if it supports you, but CBS News should be rejected as un-authoritative if it doesn't support your POV Zarkme ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
( ←) Oppose. Wakefield's hypothesis included bowel disease. Can we please just leave the title untouched? JFW | T@lk 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
So is this a health scare, a case of scientific misconduct, or a genuine scientific controversy? I'm categorizing the latter right now - see category:scientific controversies. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This seems like a good place to put a list of the large studies that were conducted looking for a link between MMR & autism and their cost. It seems to me that there was a large study more or less every year from 1999 in different countries and their cost is relevant as a result of this controversy, as the funds spent not available for other, more useful research.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monado ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment of this recent addition: "As of 2012, autism can be detected in children as early as 6 months, half a year before the first dose of the MMR vaccine is administered."
However, I believe it is unintentionally misleading. Quack Wakefield and his ilk never claimed MMR was the only cause of autism, just one potential cause. This recent addition implies that, because autism has been detected in children who have not yet received the vaccine, the vaccine cannot be the cause of autism. It would be like saying we have detected asthma in people who have never smoked, so therefore smoking does not cause asthma . Given the wealth of evidence we have demonstrating there is no link between the two, I don't think we need to resort to pointing to science which amounts to a logical fallacy. (Again, I recognize that this is a good faith edit.) JoelWhy ( talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there even a controversy? Or is one side so obviously right that the other is simply politicizing the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.241.118 ( talk) 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Depends how you define 'controversy'. In the sense that there are still plenty of people on both sides willing to argue the issue, then I think it still qualifies as a controversy.
In the sense of a scientific controversy, then no. -- GenericBob ( talk) 23:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason this article is entitled "controversy" is because it is just that - a controversy. Although there are court-rulings on the matter, there is still an ongoing "he-said" vs "she said" issue in the general public and that needs to be recognized, whether it's an accurate discussion or not. To maintain this article's impartiality, accurate and impartial language must be used. That is why my edits reflect using the term "case study" to describe Wakefield's Lancet contribution. We in academia call the Lancet submission a "case study," not a "paper." There's a difference.
Additionally, the lead should describe what said case study did. It did not demonstrate causative proof, but rather indicated a potential connection and called for more research. The edit re: the placement of "1998" is simply on a readability basis.
Please demonstrate how my additions do not add additional information and clarity to the article. EduZenith ( talk) 20:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason I included "called for additional research into the connection" in the edit is because a very significant portion of the said scandal is that Wakefield supposedly "proved" a link or said there was one between MMR and autism in the Lancet article He didn't do this, even though both sides of the autism argument say he did. It's important to elucidate this fact. This point is worth further discussion.
As for the "controversy" issue I'll have to get back to you all on that.
Also, can we at least agree to include "case study" (vs report - more descriptive and more precise), "1998 publication" (vs publication in 1998 - fewer words and better readability)? EduZenith ( talk) 22:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
These FACTS are important for anyone researching the MMR Autsim link. Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vRz4IFom
and
Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vS0NxMmf
AND
Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 91.88.8.179 ( talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism
Thanks for the input but I’m still concerned we are missing something here. And I do try to look at other "news" sources - perhaps the FDA is better. Lets try this: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm
Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)
Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2000 Lazarou J et al. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200–1205 Gurwitz JH et al. Am J Med 2000;109(2):87–94
Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly 100,000 DEATHS yearly ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths Ambulatory patients ADR rate—unknown Nursing home patients ADR rate— 350,000 yearly
Of the 100,000 DEATHS yearly it would be interesting to know how many are from vaccinations. Do we have more information on this? 100k deaths is a scary number! And 2 MILLION serious ADRs per year – what is serious? Is autism part of the “serious” ADRs?
I use the word “fact” because the Judge has ruled it thus. Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that Prof. Walker-Smith's striking "cannot stand" because of serious misconduct in the way General Medical Council (GMC) handled the case against him, and that the entire council needs to be reformed. Refer: http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/professor-john-walker-smith-exonerated-in-autism-mmr-case.html
logical fallacy - Why do we need to vaccinate everyone? You talk of logical fallacy – so perhaps someone can help with this: "vaccination only works if you do it to everybody". But surely if you are VACCINATED you do NOT need to worry about those that are NOT VACCINATED…? It implies you can get sick even if you are already vaccinated. So why do we need to vaccinate? Polio proves we cannot eradicate a virus (as was touted by WHO) and what a failure that has become. Refer 47,000 children in India with non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) which is Polio caused by the Polio vaccination. Refer: http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html
The CDC dropped the OPV from its vaccine schedule in the US because it was causing polio. In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio (NPAFP) in the United States. Refer: Shaw D. Unintended casualties in war on polio. Philadelphia Inquirer June 6, 1993:A1.
And what about this: Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). These people have been proven to lie and promote things that are NOT good for our society. I’m sure we are all aware of the facts without recourse to the multitude of references that support the statement. But, just to be neutral we’ll say the allegedly corrupt Murdoch empire's Sunday Times is run by Rupert Murdoch's son James. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer. James Murdoch is even on GSKs board of directors.
James allegedly hired a freelance hack journalist, Brian Deer, to fabricate the Wakefield fabrication. It created a firestorm in London that ignited another vaccine promoter, Dr. Fiona Godlee, who happens to be the editor in chief for the British Journal of Medicine…
The statement, “One can deny the facts but one cannot deny the consequences of denying the facts” seems relevant here. The earth was believed to be flat, then a new belief was discovered; It’s round! Now we all believe it’s round. Is the same scenario happening with vaccinations? Is the vaccination facade breaking down? It seems many are seeing a eugenics motive behind the call to vaccinate. That will have major repercussions. Perhaps we will see more of the MMR link to Autism in the near future. I would not like to be implicated if the link is proven: To hurt a child is a sin with repercussions – regardless of ones’ beliefs. 91.88.226.134 ( talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism
I should have stopped reading as soon as I saw a link to Natural News presented as evidence...as for the deaths from vaccines, it's like pointing to the number of deaths caused by motorcycle helmets falling off a shelf and hitting someone in the head to argue that motorcyclists are therefore better off not wearing a helmet. I don't think Wikipedia is necessarily the best place to educate people with a complete lack of understanding of science and medicine. JoelWhy ( talk) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd start this as a place to discuss rather than edit war, as I know there are many editors with strong views on vaccines.
The Italian ruling appears to be very recent though I couldn't find a date.
I'm not sure the best way of including this here, I did my best. Its an ongoing story and could well drastically change this article. Cjwilky ( talk) 07:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
--I have looked a little into this and so far I'm having difficulty finding a primary source that actually discusses what happened. A lot of third-rate rags seem to have covered essentially the same story but none of them actually cite a source or give you anything to follow on. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.31.203.174 (
talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I reverted what I considered to be a POV edit that also failed MEDRS. I think the case is notable for the MMR vaccine controversy, but if we're going to add it, the last thing we want to reference is a citation that makes it appear that the case is a de facto proof that MMR causes autism, when the vast bulk of data debunks such a link. Anyways, I'm sure there are more neutral sources for this case that make this case exactly what it should be, a one-off issue. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 16:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Wakefield
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Deer4a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).retraction
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).IOM
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).MMRthefacts
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cochrane
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Deer04a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Patent-and-test-results
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Deer2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Goldacre-2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McIntyre
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Pepys
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CDC-MMR-autism
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cedillo-v-HHS
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).