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 |
Does not seem appropriate to characterise reporting by BMJ as a "declaration" because of the following:
1. This implies a regulatory / judicial role, which is inconsistent with the role of the BMJ as a commercial medical journal. 2. The article cited is editorial opinion piece and is marked as such. One author has a wider regulatory role but their views are marked as personal in conflict of interest section. 3. It is not usual for the BMJ to comment (with bad grace) on the work of or within other journals, e.g. Showalter, Comment on BMJ 1999;319:1603, it would be a stretch to infer that the BMJ has some special moral authority in this regard 4. BMJ and Lancet frequently come to different and occasionally opposing conclusions e.g respectvie meta analysis in LMWH and periop thrombosis in 1992
Some confusion over preceding edit and subsequent 2 'undos'. Setting up a medical journal (BMJ or Lancet) as an impartial unimpeachable source is what caused the whole MMR mess in the first place. Would be ironic if the same mistake is made in this article. 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Disagree that BMJ have a neutral standpoint (see points 3 and 4 above). In addition, Godlee et al BMJ 2011;342:d1678 failed to properly address conflicts of interest in their editorial. The issue not scientific but legal / authoritative. Allegations / Evidence of fraud should ideally be referenced to GMC / NICE / Lancet investigation.
Why are we suggesting "the BMJ says fraud" instead of "there was fraud[ref #] or more properly "some commentators alleged fraud" ? Is it because the BMJ is involved in the research / regulates the research or because we think that the authority of the BMJ as an institution lends weight to our statement. The latter is flawed and dangerous. 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly ! In a nutshell, the BMJ is widely read and has a strong reputation but the opportunity to take a pot shot at a rival and some would say more prestigious publication is not beneath them. As a source it's an editorial with a grudge and flawed COI and so I think it qualifies as a "statement of opinion". I would suggest the term fraud be used earlier in the paragraph and BMJ article cited in the usual way at the end of the sentence. If someone can find a sentence on fraud in the GMC verdict, that would be preferable, otherwise I do not think BMJ and GMC should be used in the same or adjoining sentencse as this will (intentionally or not) confuse lay readers.
Sources: Point 3: Showalter, Comment on BMJ 1999;319:1603 Point 4: “Low molecular weight heparins seem to have a higher benefit to risk ratio than unfractionated heparin in preventing perioperative thrombosis” Leizorovicz A et al. BMJ 1992 VERSUS “There is no convincing evidence that in general surgery patients LMWHs, compared with standard heparin, generate a clinically important improvement in the benefit to risk ratio” Nurmohamed et al. Lancet 1992 Point 5: Conflict of interest correction within article, Godlee et al. BMJ 2011;342:d1678
KR Nernst 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
92.16.50.16 ( talk) 22:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's likely but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility and it wouldn't be the first time. In any case Godlee et al were careless in getting their COI wrong first time round but that's not really the point. The point is 1. the BMJ has an important and prominent role in presenting research, opinion and digested guidance NOT regulation or arbitration 2. Articles in medical journals should be critically appraised and presented in context. This article has no right to criticise the media if it's authors fail to adhere to this. Nernst 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Great edits but it still feels a little heavy/clumsy. Regretting trying to tweak it as suspect we'll end up full circle. Fantastic reference as well (you're wasted on medicine). Favourite part was the quote from the first Lancet editor: "we shall exclude from our pages the semibarbarous phraseology of the Schools[of medicine], and adopt as its substitute, plain English diction". Perhaps, it is worth taking a fresh look at tomorrow; many don't go beyond the introduction and elegance here may be as crucial as precision and clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
When I first read the article, the term 'BMJ declared fraud' seemed to stand out at me. Initially I thought the BMJ were pontificating again but re-reading the editorial and Deer article added some clarity. Deer's article alleges that Wakefield fabricated his data, and the corresponding editorial states that since the GMC haven't reported this as fraud, the BMJ will say "J'accuse". No legal authority has found Wakefield guilty of fraud and he attempted to sue channel 4 over similar allegations so it's not a stretch to say that this could be libelous. I would guess that the BMJ lawyers thought this was defensible through fair comment, especially since the C4 suit failed. Deer's article in November (BMJ 2011;343:d6823)pointed out miscommunication between wakefield and the lab. It could therefore be argued that the paper was an error instead of a fraud, weakening the fair comment defense. I have changed the article accordingly. 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure have and i'm NOT making a legal threat but am happy to remind everyone that "it is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" WP:LIBEL. I thought we were making progress with the best edits coming from MistyMorn. I'm not sure why we're now focused on the 'revert' button instead of the text !? 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No, the BMJ editorial specifically refers to Scientific fraud as defined by Office of Research Integrity in the United States. It further states that it's purposes in accusing Wakefield is to make up for the failure of the GMC to do so. The inference of criminality is clear. The previous libel actions sadly did not go to trial and without a judicial or even regulatory verdict it does give us the right to say what we like. The subsequent edit is more precise than the former and uses a more specific quote from the article, and if anything enhances the accusation. Why is everyone so angry tonight ??!! I agree it's all nuts ! 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I note that removing potentially defamatory material is one of the excemptions to the 3 RR rule. I don't think it should come to that so does anyone know how to ask the "Admins" for help with this ? 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 21:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
On what basis ??? "It is the communication ... implied to be factual, that may give an individual, ... a negative or inferior image". I'm not particularly keen to break the 3RR rule either. Can we PLEASE ask someone neutral / experienced for help with this or at least tell me how it's done ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution requested. Can we please focus on the text of the article instead of reverting. A critique of my last edit and suggestion for an alternative would be a good start 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 22:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Why did do you keep reverting after you'd been warned about WP:3RR? CityOfSilver 23:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Because it's an important point and MMR wouldn't have happened if people stood up for integrity ! I never in my life thought i'd be defending Wakefield but you can't call someone a fraudster / paedophile / chicken rustler without PROOF ! There is strong evidence, strong inference but a judge / jury of peers of Wakefield has not said he deliberately falsified data. We can say everything up to that point but we can't put words in a judges mouth because we don't like Wakefield and don't think he's been vilified enough.2.98.182.152 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 ( talk)
It was actually a good first step. I don't mind debating the point and if i'm wrong then leave it at declare. Darkness Shines and MistyMorn are the only ones to look at the words and try to come up with something better. No one's making or is afraid of legal threats but all of us are mindful of making the same mistake as Wakefield. You're twisting the facts to suit your own purposes. How are you different from him ? (User name is Nernst, I hope that's helpful though I don't see how. I try my best when I have time but I don't edit often and rarely bother to log in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Lets just leave it. I don't think it's about the article any more. We can always look at it another day when everyone is calmer 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but what they are describing isn't opinion, even if it is an letter from the editor; they are reliable for the claim. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
If it's not opinion please cite exact source and quote, else, see next section. KR Nernst ( talk) 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Good efforts all round with special thanks to MistyMorn and Darkness Shines but I suspect the lack of progress is my fault for raising the temperature. Lets start again, try BDR and if consensus lacking choose a noticeboard based on what everyone thinks the issue is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.162.45 ( talk) 11:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Briefly, sequence was as follows
Q&A
Suggest another editor kicks off BDR. Will have another look tomorrow
KR Nernst 78.144.162.45 ( talk) 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles that may be useful as part of the discussion include WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RS, WP:RSOPINION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.162.45 ( talk) 12:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Fine, what are your thoughts on the topic, Zad68 ? Nernst ( talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I have left an "official" warning about the 3RR but it is clear they already know about it.
Zad
68
22:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Well done Colombo, I don't really see what the fuss is about since I've been using the same computer at the same physical address each time and stated on 2 or 3 occasions that it's the same person, to avoid confusion. I'm not savvy enough to change IPs myself, I presume the routers is doing that for me. If it's helpful and really means that much to you i'll stay logged in and transfer the talk comments to my talk page but I really don't see what difference it makes. I'm not on here often enough to worry what people think of me and I think the suggestions should be examined objectively, irrespective of 'whose gang we're in'. Any chance you could now use that incisive detective mind to suggest some edits ? Cheers Nernst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.145.216 ( talk) 14:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Would someone please explain why you continue to delete the following text from the research section: "Through a meta-analysis of primary studies, Hobson, Mateu, and Coryn (2012) concluded "...although the odds of [autism spectrum disorder (ASD)] attributable to receiving or not receiving an [measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)] vaccination are not statistically equivalent, the odds of ASD diagnoses are, however, substantially smaller for those receiving an MMR vaccination than for those who do not" (p. 10) [1]. Based on seven independent effect sizes, the OR = 0.25 (95% CI, LL = 0.09, UL = 0.76) under the pooled random-effect model and the OR = 0.33 (95% CI, LL = 0.25, UL = 0.45) under the fixed-effect model [2]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.33.49 ( talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Orlady ( talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
MMR vaccine controversy → MMR vaccine fraud – Wakefield's paper was a fraud. There is no longer any doubt about it. While there was never a scientific controversy, now there isn't any other kind of real controversy anymore either. Using "controversy" in the title gives the anti-vax crowd way more credibility than they deserve. It's a fraud, plain and simple. Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)What is the best article here for this subject? UNICEF is doing this, and as a RS, we should be using their information. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Skeptical Raptor appears to have a concern about the litegation section of the article containing litigation. Much more in the spirit of wiki to discuss before making a change that is challenged than revert three times. Can he explain his case here? Cjwilky ( talk) 21:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
In the intro it says, “The scientific consensus is that no evidence links the vaccine to the development of autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks.” This factoid (I don't mean that term pejoratively; I just mean “statement”) needs a citation, probably several, because scientific consensus isn't formed by the opinion of one scientist, but of many.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"Measles causes deaths in Japan while there are none in UK"
Under section 6.1 “Disease outbreaks” #“Impact on society”, it says, “A 2008 outbreak of measles in San Diego, California cost $177,000, or $10,376 per case.” This suggests 177,000/10,376 = 17 cases. However, Rahul Parikh is then quoted describing a 2008 San Diego outbreak (must be the same one) as having “11 additional cases”, implying 12 cases altogether, including the index (initial) case. Discrepancy?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 09:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering whether there ever was litigation against Wakefield by parents whose children were affected (death or serious effects) by measle outbreaks? If so, could this be included in the article? I guess that it would be difficult to prove a causal link in a criminal court, but surely the evidential threshold that Wakefield willingly and fraudulently caused the loss of herd immunity in many communities would be met when claiming monetary damage? Maybe this is not the case - I am not a lawyer so might just be shooting in the dark. -- 81.17.17.162 ( talk) 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
User_talk:McSly and User_talk:ToddlerMommy1983 can we talk a bit about the proposed changes that were rolled back just a bit? I was checking the differences and there does seem to be at least some desire to present serious, Good Faith editing here to expand upon the coverage of the issues, but as was noted in the edit reversal, it would be good to discuss proposed updates to a seriously controversial article first.
If the article is missing certain testable, verifiable, falsifiable scientific facts regarding the issues, it would be good to get them included, yet only if the updates cover verifiable facts. And yes, there is some difficulty in the WP:NPOV rhetoric and terms being employed in the article, yet that is going to be impossible to rectify without damaging the scientific findings described within the article.
If there are proposed updated that an Editor wishes to fight for, let's talk about it, please. :) Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 04:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This is interesting, the concept of suing the cultists that don't innoculate their offspring which results in harm or death to other people's children. I wonder if another section for the extant article investigating the history of past lawsuits against parents is warranted. The situation is not hypothetical, it has happened in North America and in Europe, it might be informative to enumerate some successful and some failed lawsuits filed against parents who did not vaccinate and harmed others. Damotclese ( talk) 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Two court case decisions in December 2012 awarded millions of dollars for autism caused by vaccines. That needs to be included. It's a huge detail to leave excluded on an article like this. The two cases awarded money to Ryan Mojabi and Emily Moller. Following the court decisions the government and vaccine companies themselves admitted to the link between the vaccines and autism. That's another huge detail to have excluded. To not include those details would leave an extremely one-sided, obviously biased article. -- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 04:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I will look for a better source for the government and vaccine company admissions. So far it appears that the court transcripts for the two cases were unpublished, however, there are documents available from the vaccine court website ( http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/):
There are other cases listed as well on the vaccine court website indicating amounts awarded to children for encephalopathy (leading to autism) caused by vaccines. The Moller and Mojabi cases are the largest amounts, both around a million dollars, but there are other cases where amounts were awarded for hundreds of thousands. Hope that helps. It's a start. I will keep looking.-- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 04:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
(This also is important: There is a statement by Julie Gerberding head of the CDC, on March 29, 2008, given publicly on CNN, that vaccines can at least cause symptoms similar to autism. The statement was given on Sanjay Gupta's show House Call. Here is the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/hcsg.01.html.) -- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
On February 11, 2009 CBS news reported that federal officials quietly conceded the link between vaccines and autism. You can view the televised report here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/eveningnews/main3915703.shtml. -- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 05:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
TippyGoomba, did CBS news not count as a good secondary source? Did you even check the sources I gave you? I gave you original legal documents from the cases themselves. Please check the sources I just listed for you above. I am looking for better ones and I have read your sources article. I fail to see my mistake. Please explain.-- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades, it sounds like you take a biased position on this. Remember, a lot of money from sued governments and sued vaccine companies has gone towards destroying the people standing up to them. They list a lot of research that has not found a link between vaccines and autism, but there is a lot of research in any field that failed to find the right answer...what always matters in shaping our understanding of science are the few studies that found something surprising. Because of the financial and social impact of this controversy, a lot of money was thrown behind keeping a lot of this out of major news media outlets, destroying Wakefield, and destroying bloggers like David Kirby. Perhaps it is true he made errors, perhaps not. Do you really trust paid "debunkers?" Yes, that makes it harder to find good sources, but I have found them for you. I have found televised admissions covered by CNN and CBS for you. I have found actual court documents from the Moller and Mojabi case for you. Check them out. I posted them above. I looked all night to find them for you.-- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ravensfire, yes, I understand your reasoning. I have found better sources and posted them above on the talk page. Please read them before slamming me. Thank you.-- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This recent edit is not only poorly sourced/unsourced but large parts are taken verbatim from articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/26/dr-wakefield-vaccine-film.aspx unreliable fringe source? here]. TippyGoomba ( talk) 00:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
She's widely known as a proponent of the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Per her wikipedia page with a large section on this: Jenny_McCarthy#Autism_activism
Doesn't seem like a huge gap to include a see also reference. Can the editor who reverted this explain his/her objection? Mattnad ( talk) 22:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
How does WP:OR apply to all that this revert removes?
I could see removal of "yet" per SYNTH, but the whole thing per OR?
How 'bout we talk about whether any coverage of the phenomenon of continued reliance on the withdrawn study would improve the encyclopedia?-- Elvey ( talk) 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [4] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)
References
"Media continue to rely on the withdrawn study. Aromatic Science, when discussing ADHD, refers extensively to the retracted paper from Andrew Wakefield - [1]"
References
(copied from above) ...Please do see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Link_rot#Robots.txt however.-- Elvey ( talk) 20:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to do a drive-by neutrality tag on this article, you better stay and discuss it, and point out where there's an issue with WP:NPOV. Cause if you don't, one or many editors will simply delete it. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 18:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The article does not address autism outside of mistaken and conspiracy belief. If others feel that the article justifiably should be tagged as an article on autism -- as opposed to vaccination conspiracy beliefs -- let's discuss it and put the class back. Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
An associate professor of chemistry at a Christian university is making news with more assertions that MMR vaccines lead to autism.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-focus-autism-foundation-finds-133000584.html
http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16/abstract MBVECO ( talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
[Article from the examiner is blacklisted?] http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/891667-autism-and-vaccines-cdc-whistleblower-exposes-vaccine-dangers-lies-and-cover-ups-video/ http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164046 -- 72.5.190.133 ( talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
CNN.com published a story on this:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
(A fairly awful piece of journalism, I might add, which opens with this gem: "The debate over a link between autism and vaccines continues.")
May be worth mentioning this latest incident in the article, if only to make sure readers understand just how uncompelling this "evidence" is. JoelWhy?( talk)
This is a really pseudoscientific conspiracy theory. Our own User:SkepticalRaptor has covered this matter on his great blog, with several very well-written posts. Here's one of them: The fictional CDC coverup of vaccines and autism–movie time. You will find more coverage there about this nonsense. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I have requested page protection. This is getting tiring and is a big time sink. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In keeping with a parallel discussion ( Talk:Andrew_Wakefield#CDC_.2F_Thompson ) and suggestions there, let's start working on developing a short section for mention of this debunked antivax debacle. They really screwed up and they have been exposed. It has gotten mainstream traction in RS, so it's worth mentioning. Let's start collecting sources here and working on wording:
I think you get the idea. Let's brainstorm. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I will note that the article hasn't, technically, been "retracted". The journal website states the article is "removed...pending further investigation"—the matter is still under editorial consideration. (Presumably there are editors and editorial board members bouncing emails back and forth, with contents that boil down to Shit damn damn. What's the least embarrassing way we can make this attention go away?)
I suspect, further, that there is a strong chance that it actually won't be retracted. Journals tend to be very reluctant to retract already-published (or already-accepted and -posted, at least) articles against the wishes of the original authors. Often the threshold required for an involuntary retraction is proof of out-and-out egregious misconduct: data falsification and forgery, gross plagiarism, etc.. Things that can (even winkingly) be attributed to errors in judgement (making poor choices of statistical tests that happen to give remarkable conclusions, for example) tend not to clear this threshold. While I can hope for more fortitude from these editors, the usual approach is to add an accompanying editorial "statement of concern" that acknowledges (and soft-pedals) the criticism and declares that debate is scientifically healthy, maybe run a couple of the critical letters they received along with the authors' rebuttal, and then call it a day.
See, for instance, the way Science handled – or bungled – the Wolfe-Simon paper in 2010: [9]. The authors claimed they had found an extremophile bacterium that could use arsenic in place of phosphorus; in reality they had simply failed to eliminate trace amounts of phosphorus contamination from their buffers. The likely mistake was identified by several scientists as soon as the advance paper went online, but Science has persistently failed to withdraw it. The likelihood that a backwater, no-impact journal like Translational Neurodegenration will get it right is...not good.
As an aside, as far as I recall (I don't have the PDF handy) Trans Neurodegen didn't publish an article about a whistleblower or a CDC coverup. All Trans Neurodegen did was publish a (badly-flawed) re-analysis of some old data. The 'backstory' about conspiracies and whistleblowers is all from other (generally unreliable) sources.
Finally, per Bluehotel's remarks, I share the concern that we're really just feeding a teapot tempest that only seems noteworthy because so many of the echo chamber's insiders show up here. Editors who deal with other fringe science topics (like cold fusion and reactionless thrusters) are used to this sort of thing; we get it every time a gullible "science journalist" warms over a press release from a cold-fusion charlatan who just published a crappy paper in a no-impact journal (or posted a crappy manuscript on ArXiv). TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the BS Hooker article has been withdrawn. If you go to the original link on the Trans Neurodegen website, it gives a 404 error (well, it's more of an "oops, that link doesn't exist.") A search of the table of contents for the recent online published articles for the journal lacks the BS Hooker article (although they have another one where he co-authors to the Kings of chelation therapy for autistic children, the Geiers. Oddly, PubMed is behind the times, and still has the abstract, and PubMed Central still has the full article. Yesterday they both had a big red tag that the article was removed. I think it's more than removed now. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 18:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Start SandyGeorgia's comment:
Since this particular issue isn't a MEDRS or BLP subject ... Brangifer ( talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Tylor, thanks for submitted a proposed update to the page however I have reversed it so that we might talk a bit about this. You changed the text from "architect of the fraud" to read "author of the fraudlent paper" which is accurate, however Wakefield did more to perpetrate this fraud than just write a fraudulent paper, he falsified data, abused children, lied to parents, and did a whole lot more than merely write a paper.
What Wakefield did was create from ground up a deliberate fraud and he did it for money, he plotted and colluded with lawyers to defraud money out of the government with the expectation of many more millions of dollars on the horizon as he concocted a fraud that destroyed the reputation of other corporations' vaccines while proclaiming his own products as safe and reliable.
I believe that the phrase "architect of the fraud" is more appropriate and conveys the full flavor of his crimes, more so than merely writing a fraudulent paper suggests. Damotclese ( talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
In the hope of not confusing some readers, unless a court has found that Dr Wakefield "falsified data, abused children, lied to parents, and did a whole lot more", is he not innocent in law? So how can Wikipedia judge him to be an "Architect of the fraud"?
This comment below was recently removed, I added it back in with an explanation as to why I feel it belongs in this article and then it was removed again. Can someone please explain, one why you did not follow BRD and two why you feel it belongs in the vaccine controversy article more than it belongs here?
David Grimes commenting on the anti-vaccination movement stated: − "The anti-vaccination movement has been fueled by fraudulent science (the Wakefield vaccination-autism link scandal), celebrity claims of causality (e.g., Jenny McCarthy and Aidan Quinn), and apathy. Apathy derives from naiveté; many parents of young children today did not live through the "bad old days" before immunization. Vaccination has become a victim of its own success, and our nation has become complacent as a result. An entire generation of Americans has grown up unaware of the danger of measles. VViking Talk Edits 19:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In reading over Talk:MMR vaccine controversy/Archive 2#Requested move, I think there's still an actual problem to (try to) address in calling this article "MMR vaccine controversy," as I think using the word controversy is a bit contrived and ill-fitting. That said, I understand how titles such as "MMR vaccine fraud" or "MMR vaccine hoax" might be less than ideal. What about "MMR vaccine research fraud"? Or perhaps others have thoughts about a better title? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Another data point: incoming redirects. In continuing to think about the current page title, I'm wondering whether a split out article about the 1998 Lancet piece makes sense (e.g., 1998 Lancet autism article). The remaining content could then be reincorporated into MMR vaccine, maybe. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand your concern MZM, but I don't think limiting the article to the research fraud or hoax is appropriate, because of the life-of-its-own that MMR took on, thanks to people some "celebrities" and others. The controversy started with the fraud and Wakefield, but took on a larger life. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The text that reads "...at the Royal Free Hospital that contradicted his claims." I believe should read "...at the Royal Free Hospital that contradicted his own claims." The addition of the word own underscores that the individual was lying in the section covering his financial conflict of interest yet it also would help to ensure that readers are aware of who was contradicting the claims. It's a minor point. Damotclese ( talk) 18:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Who ever used the dailycaller.com web site as a source for references, that is not a legitimate source. If you wish to propose changes to the extant article addressing conspiracies by scientists, you'll need to find testable, legitimate sources. That's one reason why your proposed update was rejected. Damotclese ( talk) 15:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So far it's a primary source, but no doubt it will show up in reviews soon:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)It's worth reading anyhow. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how to get the quoting into the right place, but a retraction to the hooker article has been published http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/22 (on 3 Oct) 131.217.33.146 ( talk) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn or retracted under pressure?
Despite concluding that the "present study provides new epidemiologic evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis”, the true reasons this report was pulled remain unclear. Set against this, and the personal nature of some MSM attacks on Dr Wakefield, might not this report be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.238.116 ( talk) 19:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The so-called "Liberty Beacon" web site is a conspiracy, anti-science, anti-medicine web site and is not a legitimate source. The editor that suggested that the quack medical web site was suitable needs to find a suitable reference or citation if he/she wants to re-introduce his/her proposed change. Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems a very loaded term. For, unless a court of law has convicted someone of willfully defrauding people, no one should state that he has committed any crime. Or has Wikipedia found Dr Wakefield guilty of daring to question the safety of the MMR vaccine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.238.116 ( talk) 20:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"the paper is one of the most famous examples of research fraud."? How many times in one sentence can you fit fraud.
1. ...started with "a research" that turned out to involve many conflicts of interests and was later fully retracted.
or
2. ...started with a "fraudulent" research paper that was later found to be fraudulent and was retracted by Lancet due to its fraudulent nature and the media was critisized for letting the fraud catch the light of publicity. Fraud fraud. Isn't this a little similar to the tactics of Church of Scientology???
The proposed addition here appears to me to be suitable for inclusion in the extant article. I don't agree that "we don't need it," I believe that the proposed text is informative and suitable for inclusion.
*In April 2015 a study done in the United States of over 95,000 children assessing possible links between the MMR vaccine with autism concluded that there was no link.{{MEDRS|date=April 2015}}<ref>{{MEDRS|date=April 2015}}{{Cite news|author=Mullen, Jethro |date=22 April 2015 |title=Another study finds no link between MMR vaccine and autism |newspaper=CNN |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/health/mmr-vaccine-autism-study/ |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6Xz6DLW6G |archivedate=22 April 2015 |deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{primary-source inline|date=April 2015}} {{Cite journal|author=Jain, Anjali; Marshall, Jaclyn; Buikema, Ami; Bancroft, Tim; Kelly, Jonathan P.; and Newschaffer, Craig J. |year=2015 |title=Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children with Older Siblings with and Without Autism |journal=JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) |volume=313 |issue=15 |pages=1534–1540 |doi=10.1001/jama.2015.3077}}</ref>
Damotclese ( talk) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
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 |
Does not seem appropriate to characterise reporting by BMJ as a "declaration" because of the following:
1. This implies a regulatory / judicial role, which is inconsistent with the role of the BMJ as a commercial medical journal. 2. The article cited is editorial opinion piece and is marked as such. One author has a wider regulatory role but their views are marked as personal in conflict of interest section. 3. It is not usual for the BMJ to comment (with bad grace) on the work of or within other journals, e.g. Showalter, Comment on BMJ 1999;319:1603, it would be a stretch to infer that the BMJ has some special moral authority in this regard 4. BMJ and Lancet frequently come to different and occasionally opposing conclusions e.g respectvie meta analysis in LMWH and periop thrombosis in 1992
Some confusion over preceding edit and subsequent 2 'undos'. Setting up a medical journal (BMJ or Lancet) as an impartial unimpeachable source is what caused the whole MMR mess in the first place. Would be ironic if the same mistake is made in this article. 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Disagree that BMJ have a neutral standpoint (see points 3 and 4 above). In addition, Godlee et al BMJ 2011;342:d1678 failed to properly address conflicts of interest in their editorial. The issue not scientific but legal / authoritative. Allegations / Evidence of fraud should ideally be referenced to GMC / NICE / Lancet investigation.
Why are we suggesting "the BMJ says fraud" instead of "there was fraud[ref #] or more properly "some commentators alleged fraud" ? Is it because the BMJ is involved in the research / regulates the research or because we think that the authority of the BMJ as an institution lends weight to our statement. The latter is flawed and dangerous. 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly ! In a nutshell, the BMJ is widely read and has a strong reputation but the opportunity to take a pot shot at a rival and some would say more prestigious publication is not beneath them. As a source it's an editorial with a grudge and flawed COI and so I think it qualifies as a "statement of opinion". I would suggest the term fraud be used earlier in the paragraph and BMJ article cited in the usual way at the end of the sentence. If someone can find a sentence on fraud in the GMC verdict, that would be preferable, otherwise I do not think BMJ and GMC should be used in the same or adjoining sentencse as this will (intentionally or not) confuse lay readers.
Sources: Point 3: Showalter, Comment on BMJ 1999;319:1603 Point 4: “Low molecular weight heparins seem to have a higher benefit to risk ratio than unfractionated heparin in preventing perioperative thrombosis” Leizorovicz A et al. BMJ 1992 VERSUS “There is no convincing evidence that in general surgery patients LMWHs, compared with standard heparin, generate a clinically important improvement in the benefit to risk ratio” Nurmohamed et al. Lancet 1992 Point 5: Conflict of interest correction within article, Godlee et al. BMJ 2011;342:d1678
KR Nernst 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
92.16.50.16 ( talk) 22:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's likely but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility and it wouldn't be the first time. In any case Godlee et al were careless in getting their COI wrong first time round but that's not really the point. The point is 1. the BMJ has an important and prominent role in presenting research, opinion and digested guidance NOT regulation or arbitration 2. Articles in medical journals should be critically appraised and presented in context. This article has no right to criticise the media if it's authors fail to adhere to this. Nernst 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Great edits but it still feels a little heavy/clumsy. Regretting trying to tweak it as suspect we'll end up full circle. Fantastic reference as well (you're wasted on medicine). Favourite part was the quote from the first Lancet editor: "we shall exclude from our pages the semibarbarous phraseology of the Schools[of medicine], and adopt as its substitute, plain English diction". Perhaps, it is worth taking a fresh look at tomorrow; many don't go beyond the introduction and elegance here may be as crucial as precision and clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.50.16 ( talk) 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
When I first read the article, the term 'BMJ declared fraud' seemed to stand out at me. Initially I thought the BMJ were pontificating again but re-reading the editorial and Deer article added some clarity. Deer's article alleges that Wakefield fabricated his data, and the corresponding editorial states that since the GMC haven't reported this as fraud, the BMJ will say "J'accuse". No legal authority has found Wakefield guilty of fraud and he attempted to sue channel 4 over similar allegations so it's not a stretch to say that this could be libelous. I would guess that the BMJ lawyers thought this was defensible through fair comment, especially since the C4 suit failed. Deer's article in November (BMJ 2011;343:d6823)pointed out miscommunication between wakefield and the lab. It could therefore be argued that the paper was an error instead of a fraud, weakening the fair comment defense. I have changed the article accordingly. 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure have and i'm NOT making a legal threat but am happy to remind everyone that "it is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" WP:LIBEL. I thought we were making progress with the best edits coming from MistyMorn. I'm not sure why we're now focused on the 'revert' button instead of the text !? 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No, the BMJ editorial specifically refers to Scientific fraud as defined by Office of Research Integrity in the United States. It further states that it's purposes in accusing Wakefield is to make up for the failure of the GMC to do so. The inference of criminality is clear. The previous libel actions sadly did not go to trial and without a judicial or even regulatory verdict it does give us the right to say what we like. The subsequent edit is more precise than the former and uses a more specific quote from the article, and if anything enhances the accusation. Why is everyone so angry tonight ??!! I agree it's all nuts ! 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I note that removing potentially defamatory material is one of the excemptions to the 3 RR rule. I don't think it should come to that so does anyone know how to ask the "Admins" for help with this ? 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 21:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
On what basis ??? "It is the communication ... implied to be factual, that may give an individual, ... a negative or inferior image". I'm not particularly keen to break the 3RR rule either. Can we PLEASE ask someone neutral / experienced for help with this or at least tell me how it's done ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution requested. Can we please focus on the text of the article instead of reverting. A critique of my last edit and suggestion for an alternative would be a good start 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 22:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Why did do you keep reverting after you'd been warned about WP:3RR? CityOfSilver 23:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Because it's an important point and MMR wouldn't have happened if people stood up for integrity ! I never in my life thought i'd be defending Wakefield but you can't call someone a fraudster / paedophile / chicken rustler without PROOF ! There is strong evidence, strong inference but a judge / jury of peers of Wakefield has not said he deliberately falsified data. We can say everything up to that point but we can't put words in a judges mouth because we don't like Wakefield and don't think he's been vilified enough.2.98.182.152 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 ( talk)
It was actually a good first step. I don't mind debating the point and if i'm wrong then leave it at declare. Darkness Shines and MistyMorn are the only ones to look at the words and try to come up with something better. No one's making or is afraid of legal threats but all of us are mindful of making the same mistake as Wakefield. You're twisting the facts to suit your own purposes. How are you different from him ? (User name is Nernst, I hope that's helpful though I don't see how. I try my best when I have time but I don't edit often and rarely bother to log in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Lets just leave it. I don't think it's about the article any more. We can always look at it another day when everyone is calmer 2.98.182.152 ( talk) 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but what they are describing isn't opinion, even if it is an letter from the editor; they are reliable for the claim. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
If it's not opinion please cite exact source and quote, else, see next section. KR Nernst ( talk) 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Good efforts all round with special thanks to MistyMorn and Darkness Shines but I suspect the lack of progress is my fault for raising the temperature. Lets start again, try BDR and if consensus lacking choose a noticeboard based on what everyone thinks the issue is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.162.45 ( talk) 11:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Briefly, sequence was as follows
Q&A
Suggest another editor kicks off BDR. Will have another look tomorrow
KR Nernst 78.144.162.45 ( talk) 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles that may be useful as part of the discussion include WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RS, WP:RSOPINION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.162.45 ( talk) 12:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Fine, what are your thoughts on the topic, Zad68 ? Nernst ( talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I have left an "official" warning about the 3RR but it is clear they already know about it.
Zad
68
22:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Well done Colombo, I don't really see what the fuss is about since I've been using the same computer at the same physical address each time and stated on 2 or 3 occasions that it's the same person, to avoid confusion. I'm not savvy enough to change IPs myself, I presume the routers is doing that for me. If it's helpful and really means that much to you i'll stay logged in and transfer the talk comments to my talk page but I really don't see what difference it makes. I'm not on here often enough to worry what people think of me and I think the suggestions should be examined objectively, irrespective of 'whose gang we're in'. Any chance you could now use that incisive detective mind to suggest some edits ? Cheers Nernst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.145.216 ( talk) 14:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Would someone please explain why you continue to delete the following text from the research section: "Through a meta-analysis of primary studies, Hobson, Mateu, and Coryn (2012) concluded "...although the odds of [autism spectrum disorder (ASD)] attributable to receiving or not receiving an [measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)] vaccination are not statistically equivalent, the odds of ASD diagnoses are, however, substantially smaller for those receiving an MMR vaccination than for those who do not" (p. 10) [1]. Based on seven independent effect sizes, the OR = 0.25 (95% CI, LL = 0.09, UL = 0.76) under the pooled random-effect model and the OR = 0.33 (95% CI, LL = 0.25, UL = 0.45) under the fixed-effect model [2]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.33.49 ( talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Orlady ( talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
MMR vaccine controversy → MMR vaccine fraud – Wakefield's paper was a fraud. There is no longer any doubt about it. While there was never a scientific controversy, now there isn't any other kind of real controversy anymore either. Using "controversy" in the title gives the anti-vax crowd way more credibility than they deserve. It's a fraud, plain and simple. Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)What is the best article here for this subject? UNICEF is doing this, and as a RS, we should be using their information. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Skeptical Raptor appears to have a concern about the litegation section of the article containing litigation. Much more in the spirit of wiki to discuss before making a change that is challenged than revert three times. Can he explain his case here? Cjwilky ( talk) 21:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
In the intro it says, “The scientific consensus is that no evidence links the vaccine to the development of autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks.” This factoid (I don't mean that term pejoratively; I just mean “statement”) needs a citation, probably several, because scientific consensus isn't formed by the opinion of one scientist, but of many.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"Measles causes deaths in Japan while there are none in UK"
Under section 6.1 “Disease outbreaks” #“Impact on society”, it says, “A 2008 outbreak of measles in San Diego, California cost $177,000, or $10,376 per case.” This suggests 177,000/10,376 = 17 cases. However, Rahul Parikh is then quoted describing a 2008 San Diego outbreak (must be the same one) as having “11 additional cases”, implying 12 cases altogether, including the index (initial) case. Discrepancy?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 09:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering whether there ever was litigation against Wakefield by parents whose children were affected (death or serious effects) by measle outbreaks? If so, could this be included in the article? I guess that it would be difficult to prove a causal link in a criminal court, but surely the evidential threshold that Wakefield willingly and fraudulently caused the loss of herd immunity in many communities would be met when claiming monetary damage? Maybe this is not the case - I am not a lawyer so might just be shooting in the dark. -- 81.17.17.162 ( talk) 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
User_talk:McSly and User_talk:ToddlerMommy1983 can we talk a bit about the proposed changes that were rolled back just a bit? I was checking the differences and there does seem to be at least some desire to present serious, Good Faith editing here to expand upon the coverage of the issues, but as was noted in the edit reversal, it would be good to discuss proposed updates to a seriously controversial article first.
If the article is missing certain testable, verifiable, falsifiable scientific facts regarding the issues, it would be good to get them included, yet only if the updates cover verifiable facts. And yes, there is some difficulty in the WP:NPOV rhetoric and terms being employed in the article, yet that is going to be impossible to rectify without damaging the scientific findings described within the article.
If there are proposed updated that an Editor wishes to fight for, let's talk about it, please. :) Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 04:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This is interesting, the concept of suing the cultists that don't innoculate their offspring which results in harm or death to other people's children. I wonder if another section for the extant article investigating the history of past lawsuits against parents is warranted. The situation is not hypothetical, it has happened in North America and in Europe, it might be informative to enumerate some successful and some failed lawsuits filed against parents who did not vaccinate and harmed others. Damotclese ( talk) 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Two court case decisions in December 2012 awarded millions of dollars for autism caused by vaccines. That needs to be included. It's a huge detail to leave excluded on an article like this. The two cases awarded money to Ryan Mojabi and Emily Moller. Following the court decisions the government and vaccine companies themselves admitted to the link between the vaccines and autism. That's another huge detail to have excluded. To not include those details would leave an extremely one-sided, obviously biased article. -- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 04:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I will look for a better source for the government and vaccine company admissions. So far it appears that the court transcripts for the two cases were unpublished, however, there are documents available from the vaccine court website ( http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/):
There are other cases listed as well on the vaccine court website indicating amounts awarded to children for encephalopathy (leading to autism) caused by vaccines. The Moller and Mojabi cases are the largest amounts, both around a million dollars, but there are other cases where amounts were awarded for hundreds of thousands. Hope that helps. It's a start. I will keep looking.-- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 04:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
(This also is important: There is a statement by Julie Gerberding head of the CDC, on March 29, 2008, given publicly on CNN, that vaccines can at least cause symptoms similar to autism. The statement was given on Sanjay Gupta's show House Call. Here is the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/hcsg.01.html.) -- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
On February 11, 2009 CBS news reported that federal officials quietly conceded the link between vaccines and autism. You can view the televised report here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/eveningnews/main3915703.shtml. -- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 05:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
TippyGoomba, did CBS news not count as a good secondary source? Did you even check the sources I gave you? I gave you original legal documents from the cases themselves. Please check the sources I just listed for you above. I am looking for better ones and I have read your sources article. I fail to see my mistake. Please explain.-- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades, it sounds like you take a biased position on this. Remember, a lot of money from sued governments and sued vaccine companies has gone towards destroying the people standing up to them. They list a lot of research that has not found a link between vaccines and autism, but there is a lot of research in any field that failed to find the right answer...what always matters in shaping our understanding of science are the few studies that found something surprising. Because of the financial and social impact of this controversy, a lot of money was thrown behind keeping a lot of this out of major news media outlets, destroying Wakefield, and destroying bloggers like David Kirby. Perhaps it is true he made errors, perhaps not. Do you really trust paid "debunkers?" Yes, that makes it harder to find good sources, but I have found them for you. I have found televised admissions covered by CNN and CBS for you. I have found actual court documents from the Moller and Mojabi case for you. Check them out. I posted them above. I looked all night to find them for you.-- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ravensfire, yes, I understand your reasoning. I have found better sources and posted them above on the talk page. Please read them before slamming me. Thank you.-- ToddlerMommy1983 ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This recent edit is not only poorly sourced/unsourced but large parts are taken verbatim from articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/26/dr-wakefield-vaccine-film.aspx unreliable fringe source? here]. TippyGoomba ( talk) 00:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
She's widely known as a proponent of the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Per her wikipedia page with a large section on this: Jenny_McCarthy#Autism_activism
Doesn't seem like a huge gap to include a see also reference. Can the editor who reverted this explain his/her objection? Mattnad ( talk) 22:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
How does WP:OR apply to all that this revert removes?
I could see removal of "yet" per SYNTH, but the whole thing per OR?
How 'bout we talk about whether any coverage of the phenomenon of continued reliance on the withdrawn study would improve the encyclopedia?-- Elvey ( talk) 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [4] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)
References
"Media continue to rely on the withdrawn study. Aromatic Science, when discussing ADHD, refers extensively to the retracted paper from Andrew Wakefield - [1]"
References
(copied from above) ...Please do see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Link_rot#Robots.txt however.-- Elvey ( talk) 20:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to do a drive-by neutrality tag on this article, you better stay and discuss it, and point out where there's an issue with WP:NPOV. Cause if you don't, one or many editors will simply delete it. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 18:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The article does not address autism outside of mistaken and conspiracy belief. If others feel that the article justifiably should be tagged as an article on autism -- as opposed to vaccination conspiracy beliefs -- let's discuss it and put the class back. Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
An associate professor of chemistry at a Christian university is making news with more assertions that MMR vaccines lead to autism.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-focus-autism-foundation-finds-133000584.html
http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16/abstract MBVECO ( talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
[Article from the examiner is blacklisted?] http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/891667-autism-and-vaccines-cdc-whistleblower-exposes-vaccine-dangers-lies-and-cover-ups-video/ http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164046 -- 72.5.190.133 ( talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
CNN.com published a story on this:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
(A fairly awful piece of journalism, I might add, which opens with this gem: "The debate over a link between autism and vaccines continues.")
May be worth mentioning this latest incident in the article, if only to make sure readers understand just how uncompelling this "evidence" is. JoelWhy?( talk)
This is a really pseudoscientific conspiracy theory. Our own User:SkepticalRaptor has covered this matter on his great blog, with several very well-written posts. Here's one of them: The fictional CDC coverup of vaccines and autism–movie time. You will find more coverage there about this nonsense. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I have requested page protection. This is getting tiring and is a big time sink. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In keeping with a parallel discussion ( Talk:Andrew_Wakefield#CDC_.2F_Thompson ) and suggestions there, let's start working on developing a short section for mention of this debunked antivax debacle. They really screwed up and they have been exposed. It has gotten mainstream traction in RS, so it's worth mentioning. Let's start collecting sources here and working on wording:
I think you get the idea. Let's brainstorm. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I will note that the article hasn't, technically, been "retracted". The journal website states the article is "removed...pending further investigation"—the matter is still under editorial consideration. (Presumably there are editors and editorial board members bouncing emails back and forth, with contents that boil down to Shit damn damn. What's the least embarrassing way we can make this attention go away?)
I suspect, further, that there is a strong chance that it actually won't be retracted. Journals tend to be very reluctant to retract already-published (or already-accepted and -posted, at least) articles against the wishes of the original authors. Often the threshold required for an involuntary retraction is proof of out-and-out egregious misconduct: data falsification and forgery, gross plagiarism, etc.. Things that can (even winkingly) be attributed to errors in judgement (making poor choices of statistical tests that happen to give remarkable conclusions, for example) tend not to clear this threshold. While I can hope for more fortitude from these editors, the usual approach is to add an accompanying editorial "statement of concern" that acknowledges (and soft-pedals) the criticism and declares that debate is scientifically healthy, maybe run a couple of the critical letters they received along with the authors' rebuttal, and then call it a day.
See, for instance, the way Science handled – or bungled – the Wolfe-Simon paper in 2010: [9]. The authors claimed they had found an extremophile bacterium that could use arsenic in place of phosphorus; in reality they had simply failed to eliminate trace amounts of phosphorus contamination from their buffers. The likely mistake was identified by several scientists as soon as the advance paper went online, but Science has persistently failed to withdraw it. The likelihood that a backwater, no-impact journal like Translational Neurodegenration will get it right is...not good.
As an aside, as far as I recall (I don't have the PDF handy) Trans Neurodegen didn't publish an article about a whistleblower or a CDC coverup. All Trans Neurodegen did was publish a (badly-flawed) re-analysis of some old data. The 'backstory' about conspiracies and whistleblowers is all from other (generally unreliable) sources.
Finally, per Bluehotel's remarks, I share the concern that we're really just feeding a teapot tempest that only seems noteworthy because so many of the echo chamber's insiders show up here. Editors who deal with other fringe science topics (like cold fusion and reactionless thrusters) are used to this sort of thing; we get it every time a gullible "science journalist" warms over a press release from a cold-fusion charlatan who just published a crappy paper in a no-impact journal (or posted a crappy manuscript on ArXiv). TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the BS Hooker article has been withdrawn. If you go to the original link on the Trans Neurodegen website, it gives a 404 error (well, it's more of an "oops, that link doesn't exist.") A search of the table of contents for the recent online published articles for the journal lacks the BS Hooker article (although they have another one where he co-authors to the Kings of chelation therapy for autistic children, the Geiers. Oddly, PubMed is behind the times, and still has the abstract, and PubMed Central still has the full article. Yesterday they both had a big red tag that the article was removed. I think it's more than removed now. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 18:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Start SandyGeorgia's comment:
Since this particular issue isn't a MEDRS or BLP subject ... Brangifer ( talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Tylor, thanks for submitted a proposed update to the page however I have reversed it so that we might talk a bit about this. You changed the text from "architect of the fraud" to read "author of the fraudlent paper" which is accurate, however Wakefield did more to perpetrate this fraud than just write a fraudulent paper, he falsified data, abused children, lied to parents, and did a whole lot more than merely write a paper.
What Wakefield did was create from ground up a deliberate fraud and he did it for money, he plotted and colluded with lawyers to defraud money out of the government with the expectation of many more millions of dollars on the horizon as he concocted a fraud that destroyed the reputation of other corporations' vaccines while proclaiming his own products as safe and reliable.
I believe that the phrase "architect of the fraud" is more appropriate and conveys the full flavor of his crimes, more so than merely writing a fraudulent paper suggests. Damotclese ( talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
In the hope of not confusing some readers, unless a court has found that Dr Wakefield "falsified data, abused children, lied to parents, and did a whole lot more", is he not innocent in law? So how can Wikipedia judge him to be an "Architect of the fraud"?
This comment below was recently removed, I added it back in with an explanation as to why I feel it belongs in this article and then it was removed again. Can someone please explain, one why you did not follow BRD and two why you feel it belongs in the vaccine controversy article more than it belongs here?
David Grimes commenting on the anti-vaccination movement stated: − "The anti-vaccination movement has been fueled by fraudulent science (the Wakefield vaccination-autism link scandal), celebrity claims of causality (e.g., Jenny McCarthy and Aidan Quinn), and apathy. Apathy derives from naiveté; many parents of young children today did not live through the "bad old days" before immunization. Vaccination has become a victim of its own success, and our nation has become complacent as a result. An entire generation of Americans has grown up unaware of the danger of measles. VViking Talk Edits 19:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. In reading over Talk:MMR vaccine controversy/Archive 2#Requested move, I think there's still an actual problem to (try to) address in calling this article "MMR vaccine controversy," as I think using the word controversy is a bit contrived and ill-fitting. That said, I understand how titles such as "MMR vaccine fraud" or "MMR vaccine hoax" might be less than ideal. What about "MMR vaccine research fraud"? Or perhaps others have thoughts about a better title? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Another data point: incoming redirects. In continuing to think about the current page title, I'm wondering whether a split out article about the 1998 Lancet piece makes sense (e.g., 1998 Lancet autism article). The remaining content could then be reincorporated into MMR vaccine, maybe. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand your concern MZM, but I don't think limiting the article to the research fraud or hoax is appropriate, because of the life-of-its-own that MMR took on, thanks to people some "celebrities" and others. The controversy started with the fraud and Wakefield, but took on a larger life. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The text that reads "...at the Royal Free Hospital that contradicted his claims." I believe should read "...at the Royal Free Hospital that contradicted his own claims." The addition of the word own underscores that the individual was lying in the section covering his financial conflict of interest yet it also would help to ensure that readers are aware of who was contradicting the claims. It's a minor point. Damotclese ( talk) 18:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Who ever used the dailycaller.com web site as a source for references, that is not a legitimate source. If you wish to propose changes to the extant article addressing conspiracies by scientists, you'll need to find testable, legitimate sources. That's one reason why your proposed update was rejected. Damotclese ( talk) 15:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So far it's a primary source, but no doubt it will show up in reviews soon:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)It's worth reading anyhow. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how to get the quoting into the right place, but a retraction to the hooker article has been published http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/22 (on 3 Oct) 131.217.33.146 ( talk) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn or retracted under pressure?
Despite concluding that the "present study provides new epidemiologic evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis”, the true reasons this report was pulled remain unclear. Set against this, and the personal nature of some MSM attacks on Dr Wakefield, might not this report be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.238.116 ( talk) 19:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The so-called "Liberty Beacon" web site is a conspiracy, anti-science, anti-medicine web site and is not a legitimate source. The editor that suggested that the quack medical web site was suitable needs to find a suitable reference or citation if he/she wants to re-introduce his/her proposed change. Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems a very loaded term. For, unless a court of law has convicted someone of willfully defrauding people, no one should state that he has committed any crime. Or has Wikipedia found Dr Wakefield guilty of daring to question the safety of the MMR vaccine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.238.116 ( talk) 20:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"the paper is one of the most famous examples of research fraud."? How many times in one sentence can you fit fraud.
1. ...started with "a research" that turned out to involve many conflicts of interests and was later fully retracted.
or
2. ...started with a "fraudulent" research paper that was later found to be fraudulent and was retracted by Lancet due to its fraudulent nature and the media was critisized for letting the fraud catch the light of publicity. Fraud fraud. Isn't this a little similar to the tactics of Church of Scientology???
The proposed addition here appears to me to be suitable for inclusion in the extant article. I don't agree that "we don't need it," I believe that the proposed text is informative and suitable for inclusion.
*In April 2015 a study done in the United States of over 95,000 children assessing possible links between the MMR vaccine with autism concluded that there was no link.{{MEDRS|date=April 2015}}<ref>{{MEDRS|date=April 2015}}{{Cite news|author=Mullen, Jethro |date=22 April 2015 |title=Another study finds no link between MMR vaccine and autism |newspaper=CNN |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/health/mmr-vaccine-autism-study/ |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6Xz6DLW6G |archivedate=22 April 2015 |deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{primary-source inline|date=April 2015}} {{Cite journal|author=Jain, Anjali; Marshall, Jaclyn; Buikema, Ami; Bancroft, Tim; Kelly, Jonathan P.; and Newschaffer, Craig J. |year=2015 |title=Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children with Older Siblings with and Without Autism |journal=JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) |volume=313 |issue=15 |pages=1534–1540 |doi=10.1001/jama.2015.3077}}</ref>
Damotclese ( talk) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)