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 |
Booperkit and other editors have removed the word "fraudulent" in the summary lead-in, the latest suggesting that it is mere opinion, however the details of the fraud which was committed are well-described in the extant article, and as such it is a disservice to people researching the quack medical frauds involved here to remove the word.
I mention it again in the hopes that other editors who wish to remove the accurate information will actually read the extant page since I doubt that the editors who keep removing the word bother to do so. The article clearly with numerous testable and falsifiable citations and references cover the undeniable fact that the published-then-retracted falsified "research" paper was flat-out fraud, deliberate with an economic motive which were detaile din the criminal and civil court cases also described.
The word "fraudulent" is not an emotive rhetorical device. Real actual medical fraud and research fraud does take place in the world, and the extant article's case is (along with "cold fusion") a Hallmark incident of deliberate fraud according to every scrap of evidence which is detailed in the extant article. Damotclese ( talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we define the acronym at the start? You see when one doesn't know it yet they need it at the START. Rtdrury ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
We should not call this a "controversy". The topic discussed is the MMR vaccine conspiracy theory. This is a fringe theory that is utterly unsupported by any science. We do the reader a disservice to suggest that there is a bona fide controversy. If the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not accepted, then we could alternatively use "fringe theory", "hoax" or "fraud". Jehochman Talk 13:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
* Support changing the title. My suggestion is something like
Wakefield et al Lancet retraction or
MMR vaccine Lancet retraction. After reading the conversation below about the scope of this article, I think part of what feels "off" about the title, at least for me, is that the title is broad and there's a lack of cohesion in the content, like no one is on the same page about what the scope of the article is. A better title would probably help that. Personally, I agree with what
Zad said below that the scope of this article should be " the social phenomenon: fraudulent paper, retraction, National Enquirer, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, etc. up to and including the flap with that recent film festival and DeNiro... scientific evidence covering how there's no relationship between vaccines and autism is a medical topic that should be covered at
MMR vaccine, which is a medical article. Wakefields misdeeds should be covered at
Andrew Wakefield--right now this article is too much a duplicate of content there."
I want to add that there also is another article just for
Vaccine controversy, so in my mind, it makes the most sense for this to be an article about the retracted paper and noteworthy reactions to the retraction.
PermStrump
(talk) 16:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The name of the article should indicate the scope. I'm not sure about a name change because I'm not sure what the scope is supposed to be. The article could focus on quite different things:
Of these three, I think it should be the third--the social phenomenon: fraudulent paper, retraction, National Enquirer, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, etc. up to and including the flap with that recent film festival and DeNiro--this is all People magazine territory instead of Pediatrics. The scientific evidence covering how there's no relationship between vaccines and autism is a medical topic that should be covered at
MMR vaccine, which is a medical article. Wakefields misdeeds should be covered at
Andrew Wakefield--right now this article is too much a duplicate of content there. With that I think this article title should maintain some element in its name indicating it's about a social phenomenon, and 'controversy' is about as apt a term as I can think of. MMR vaccine and autism sounds too much like it should be limited to covering medical evidence, and that should be focused on elsewhere.
Zad
68
02:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
When asked about De Niro's comments, Autism Speaks gave a statement to NBC News: "Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism."
The Institute of Medicine, an independent group that advises the U.S. government on health matters, has strongly advised that researchers stop wasting time looking at vaccines and search elsewhere for the causes of autism.
As they appear now, the first two paragraphs should be deleted - they are poorly worded to the point of incomprehension and really have nothing to do with "litigation" (they only provide an excessive amount of context). Edits by someone with access to the sources are required. The first paragraph also focuses too heavily on details concerning the "Urabe strain" (redundant and irrelevant) and so I have deleted the first two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.230.99 ( talk) 09:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC) T
An editor suggested a proposed update suggesting that John Walker-Smith was exonerated. That is not correct, as another editor has noted he was able to successfully appeal and was reinstated but not exonerated of his inappropriate behavior. I post a note in Talk: in the hopes that other editors note that innocence should not be assumed when someone holding suspended credentials gets reinstated, the arena is not a black vs. white issue. Damotclese ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)The media have been criticized for their naïve reporting and for lending undue credibility to the architect of the fraud, Andrew Wakefield.
An editor reverted this proposed change stating
Removed unprofessional and potentially (inflammatory) language. There has to be a better way to put this.
I do not agree, the proposed text is entirely professional, accurate, well-documented, covered in extensive references and citations, and in no way it is in the least bit inflammatory.
The extant article is seeing a lot of proposed updated, reverts, and discussion about wording, most of which is the result of differences of opinion on tone despite the proposed text being wholly accurate. As an encyclopedia, accuracy is what matters, and when the truth of something -- whether it's this quack medical fraud committed for financial gain or whether it's the accumulative effects of the gravitational consequences of the curvature of space-time -- is stark, accuracy should trump feelings that the way the truth is worded being "unprofessional" or "inflammatory" should not dictate either self-censorship or supposition that the truth be "watered down." Damotclese ( talk) 02:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see significant support above for a rename of this article. I think we need to agree the most appropriate title. Suggestions are:
Apologies if I have forgotten any. Guy ( Help!) 10:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)The current title covers and describes the actual content of the article in a very general sense. If there should be any change, it might be by getting more specific by adding an adjective, such as false, fraudulent, for example MMR vaccine fraudulent research and controversy or Wakefield MMR vaccine fraud and controversy, etc. The more I look at and hear the last one, the more I like it. Say it out loud several times. It really all comes back to Wakefield, so he should be mentioned in the title. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, they sure do build a mountain out of aether! As for muzzling Wakefield, I don't think muzzles come large enough for that mouth. It's a shame we can't perform an extraordinary rendition on him... Harvard is now up to 40 mumps cases and fears for the commencement ceremonies. Wzrd1 ( talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Why not split this in to two halves. One that focuses on journalists reiterating from information that originated from one sole source (undue bias). The other pointing out that in the fullness-of-time, the sole 'source's OR was found in a court of law to contain many errors. Is that difficult ?-- Aspro ( talk) 23:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of this statement in the article: "Deer continued his reporting in a Channel 4 Dispatches television documentary, 'MMR: What They Didn't Tell You', broadcast on 18 November 2004. This documentary alleged that Wakefield had applied for patents on a vaccine that was a rival of the MMR vaccine..." I have found 8 patents for Wakefield. Only one of them, GB2325856A, [2] is for a vaccine, and this is a vaccine for measles only, so it is not a rival of the MMR vaccine. If this statement is to stay in the article, somebody should provide a reference to the alleged patent for a rival to the MMR vaccine. Roberttherambler ( talk) 21:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The combined vaccine wasn't a problem though. Wakers manufactured the "problem" with his fraudulent study, and compounded it with coi. Nasty. - Roxy the dog™ woof 18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith on the part of Wakefield and I'm not satisfied that it was a fraudulent study.The people whose opinions matter were satisfied. Whether or not some random wikipedian was convinced is really beside the point. We don't write based on our opinions. We rarely write based on opinions at all, and when we do, they are always published, reliable, expert opinions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to the publicity given to the "CDC whistelblower" narrative by Andrew Wakefield's crockumentary Vaxxed, and the continuing promotion of the MMR-autism myth by anti-vaxers, I think we should add a section on current status at the bottom. Points I would include:
I'm gathering sources now and will write this up when I get a couple of hours.
I don't suppose this will stop the drive-by antivax edits, but it will fix the obvious problem that it is represented here as a dead issue, but Wakefield has actually reanimated the zombie corpse for another outing. Guy ( Help!) 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, editor, that removed the proposed text covering the conspiracy believer Thompson. If you check the link that was proposed, it specifically states right at the top on Time's disclaimer "The claim, however, may just be more unsubstantiated fuel from the anti-vaccination movement" -- which is how Time manages to avoid lawsuits by people who are damaged by anti-vaccination conspiracy believers' actions (and inactions.)
The editor that proposed that addition, I have to ask: Did you bother to actually read the Time article you proposed to link to? It does not support the notion that there is a global conspiracy to hide the truth, and the mere fact that someone believes in a global conspiracy it not enough to be encyclopedic -- unless you wish to include that in a WP:BLP of Mr. Thompson, then his conspiracy beliefs might be relevant. Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile in the lede to have a couple of dozen words why a link betwnee autism and the MMR vaccine was suggested in the first place? I am making this same comment in the Causes of Autism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.173.37 ( talk) 10:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the article should include more moderate views which are notable ; the way it is written now is if it is written by the pharmaceutical company it produces the vaccine. This is an example - Dr Sears says that : "Honestly, I’ve read ALL the research, and both sides present good data and good arguments. I’m not sure who is right at this point. Until I see enough evidence that shows vaccines are linked to autism, I certainly am not going to tell anyone that vaccines contribute to autism. But at the same time I can’t say for sure that vaccines absolutely do NOT play any role at all in contributing to autism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHoy ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi dear contributors,
I am a Romanian citizen, very worried about increasing vaccine controversy in my country.
Currently there's a measles outbreak happening. National public health officials said an ongoing measles outbreak in Romania has infected more than 3,400 people and killed at least 17 despite an aggressive nationwide vaccination campaign. [1]
Meanwhile, MMR vaccination rates have fallen in recent years in Romania to below the 95% threshold recommended to interrupt transmission. According to the ECDC, coverage for one dose was just 86% in 2015 in Romania compared with 97% in 2007. [2]
I would like to make it possible for Romanian speaking people to have access to this article in Romanian, as Wikipedia is a much more trustworthy source of information compared to the vast amount of blogs and media outlets that push a strong anti-vaccine message.
My plan is to dedicate a few hours per week for this task and do it as soon as possible. However, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I could use your advice on how to get the changes approved, since we are talking about another language than English.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Psprms ( talk) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any information on the page about the CDC whistleblower and the associated findings as presented in the "documentary" Vaxxed. This seems like new information that would definitely have it's place in the "Media" section, and perhaps elsewhere too.
Anyone knows if there has been a rigorous external review of what is presented in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jul059 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a lie. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/vaccine/Hastings-Cedillo.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that you need to speak to Andrew Wakefield himself or someone in order to make this article unbiased. Animal28 ( talk) 14:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is so obviously biased that it falls into the fake news category. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world know Wakefield's work and consider him a hero who is standing up to a corrupt medical system that considers vaccine induced neurological damage in 2 percent of population a cost of doing business. And it's not just this article. It is clear when the editors of Wikipedia collectively label the worldwide vaccine safety movement, that includes scientists, medical practitioners and literally millions of people, a "Conspiracy Theory," that the publication is taking sides. "Conspiracy Theory" is simply an ad hominem attack and has no place a serious reference encyclopedia. The phase conjures up images of a small circle of maladjusted individuals trading speculative hypotheses. 1.6 million people took to the streets to protest government vaccine policy in Italy in the Spring of 2017, and hundreds of thousands more are protesting in France and Germany as I write this. How long can you hope to keep up this charade Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMcLeod ( talk • contribs)
As someone who has lost a relative to a chiropractor's mumbo jumbo, I can assure it you is most definitely quackery. A court decision does not invalidate the nature of reality, and it certainly wouldn't bring my aunt back. Sumanuil ( talk) 05:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@ ThomasMcLeod: As for the infobox, I don't think it is trying to associate anything, just listing various things that are considered fringe medicine, not saying they are all similar. As for autism, you would have to provide a reliable medical source that says MMR causes autism, while cases of brain damage have been documented, these are not autism. All the reliable sources I have seen say MMR doesn't cause autism. Of all vaccines, MMR is the one with the most studies that show it doesn't cause autism. Also, don't criticize all scientists for the actions of 1. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Damotclese: The ad hominems aren't helping. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I read through the article and I don't see any biases. Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I know only a little bit of French, but this French Wikipedia article seems to be talking about the same thing as this English article. Can someone take a look at it and if appropriate, add an interlanguage link to that French article? -- Kinos0634 ( talk) 02:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I can confirm the French Wikipedia article is indeed on the same subject; unfortunately I do not know how to create an interlanguage link but feel free to do so. Partnerfrance ( talk) 15:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we redirect this page to 'MMR Vaccine hoax' ? Calling it a controversy is being generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.246.66 ( talk) 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
MMR vaccine is still controversial. It's misleading for Wiki to suggest otherwise. Maybe Wiki editors tend towards the conservative or establishment view but it is wrong to suggest that view is the only rational one. psic88 15:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psic88 ( talk • contribs)
I never criticized the science. I said that it is not acceptable to try to diagnose another editor as having "mental difficulties" or "a behavioral problem" especially when you use that diagnosis as grounds to say they are wrong. Psic88 was wrong and you were right to tell them that there is no controversy among scientists, but your comments about Psic's and my mental health were uncalled for. Tornado chaser ( talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the current title "MMR vaccine controversy" is reasonable, but I would also understand "MMR autism hoax"ect. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Hob Gadling. "Hoax" is the wrong word. Fraud or Fraudulent is more accurate, but I'm not sure how it can be used in a title. Andrew Wakefield's "discredited" work has been called a "fraud" by numerous RS, and we use both terms in his article. Now to find an alternate title, because "controversy" does lend support to the misunderstanding that there is a real controversy within the medical/scientific world, when there isn't. Let's play with some words:
Any other suggestions or tweaks? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 22:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Sakaimover: Sakaimover just added some studies suggesting that fetal DNA fragments in vaccines contribute to autism [6], I removed one that was clearly outdated [7], but I am not sure if the other ones belong here either, they look like they are drawing unusual conclusions from potentially inconclusive methods and I am not familiar with the journals they are published in. In short, the added material looks like it may be UNDUE or non-RS, but I am hesitant to revert a good faith editor unless I can point to a definite, identifiable problem with their edits. Tornado chaser ( talk) 05:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC) @ Doc James: pinging for advice. Tornado chaser ( talk) 05:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Whilst providing info for a patient of mine, on the benefits of Vaccination, I looked at this Wiki page, and was surprised to see some omissions.
For example at the end of the eighties (through to 1992), there was a problem with the triple vaccine for a year or so, and it rightly led to questions being asked.
I remember having difficult discussions and a decision over our first born at the time and , as a Practitioner , I was constantly being asked for my advice.
I used to tell patients to read all they could, that we had decided to have our child vaccinated, that it was their decision (risk benefit etc as well as 'herd' immunity, but when it became more apparent for a year or so, that it was perhaps safer to give the 3 vaccines separately, then that was the advice I gave.
Our decision at the time 1988-89 was to give our son the triple, but that was before the possible problem with the 'triple' was really suspected.
The big issue was though, that by the time this fully entered public consciousness, there was a great danger that 'the baby was thrown out with the bath water' and that people were starting to avoid vaccination, ironically at a time when any possible problems with the triple were better understood.
The resultant polarised views help nobody, and the vilification of some people who originally questioned the safety of a triple vaccine, was i think over the top. (some of the characters involved were possibly over evangelic about the results they had found however), and the resulting climate of some parents NOT giving their children vaccines, helped nobody either, as herd immunity is at the heart of much of the efficacy, as well as the risk to the individuals concerned.
It is though possible to still vaccinate un-vaccinated teenagers at a later date, as or before they enter the wider world, so if you have a non vaccinated child, I would still recommend you have them vaccinated, and if you are still unsure of the triple, then consider separate vaccinations, timed apart, but you will have to pay privately for this in the UK and i am unsure as to whether it is still really necessary, now that the triple is so closely monitored.
Anyhow back to the omissions. I enrolled on MediaWiki so as to contribute and noted that the opening sentence read "Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false."
Fine, but there is an "although" and while the "although" does not claim a link with autism, it does link a 4 year period (88-92) of the triple MMR with the Urabe strain of mumps, to quote "a demonstrable increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination."
So I submitted my edit with citation references (read from 'although'
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there was a problem with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [3]. It was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the Department of Health in September 1992. Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which caused encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis, involving swelling of the brain or of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, that can lead to brain damage, deafness or even death. The Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.( [4]
The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998..
References
My submission was "Reverted good faith edits by Stogjol (talk): Nothing to do with autism, undue prominence of a rare adverse reaction (TW))"
and while I agree my edit may have nothing to do with autism, it very much has a lot to do with MMR vaccination, and the history discussed in much of the ensuing wikipage.
I should be pleased to hear your responses. Thankyou. Stogjol ( talk) 14:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
those young babies who had adverse effects born in 1988-92 were lumped in, or considered possible 'autistic' when this furore broke out. Subsequently although no link with autism was found, it was the reason why some people starting looking into possible causation. Remember diagnosis at such an early age is fraught. Although this info about Urabe only started to come to light in and around 2007, it is I think extremely relevant to a page on MMR Vaccination and Autism, especially a page that is discussing the history of the subject. Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The minutes of another meeting of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, in May 1990, show that there was " a special concern about "reports from Japan of a high level of meningoencephalitis associated with the administration of MMR". This I would suggest is not "undue prominence of a rare adverse reaction " as quoted, nor is it I would suggest ' unjustifiably prominent' especially as it, the meningoencephalitis, was one of the very reasons a link with autism was first postulated. Remember there were cases at the time presenting to Practitioners whose symptoms were being attributed to recently given triple jabs. Many of these cases were thought to be early signs of autism, but are now signed off as "meningoencephalitis" or similiar. But it was many of those very cases that initiated investigation into causation and links with their preceding triple vaccinations; the subject of this Wiki page. Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
No, but the references do explain why there was justifiable concern. Behavioural anomalies at such an early age, were perhaps grouped, and as it turns out wrongly labelled as autism, or were those lesser affected infants turning up later in the 90s and beyond, as possible 'autistic spectrum' children?
The release of the UK documents in 2007 under the Freedom of information Act, is certainly an important proof of what many suspected from the end of the 80s to the early 90s; that there was a possible problem with the triple vaccine for a time, and that it did affect a great number of children and their families, hence the protracted legal issues described further on in the wikipage.
My edit does not dispute the 'no link' premise, but it does begin to explain why there was such a movement towards that way of thinking. My edit i would suggest gives the page a better balance, and also begins to show an acknowledgement that MMR vaccines are not always 100% safe and have to be constantly monitored, and that while they did not cause autism, they did for a short while cause some cases of meningoencephalitis., and that is a fact. Stogjol ( talk)
It gave not just me, but many of my new parent patients much concern for many years from 88--90s and beyond.
The sources are indicative because the affected children born 88-92, were appearing as possible 'autistic' in the late 90s when this whole concern became more mainstream. While your page states “and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, etc” which my edit does not refute, my added info preceding, does however allow readers to see that there were a number of children with encephalitis-type conditions, who had had a compromised triple MMR vaccine, and whose parents, their friends and their GPs had been seeking answers for many years before 1998. Stogjol ( talk)
What is unreliable about the sources cited?
The report "Risks of Convulsion and Aseptic Meningitis following Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in the United Kingdom" [1]published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 165, Issue 6, 15 March 2007, Pages 704–709, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk045 states "that Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines containing the Urabe strain of mumps were withdrawn in the United Kingdom in 1992 following demonstration of an increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination."
The 2007 Documents released under the Freedom of information Act and reported in the Telegraph [2]and elsewhere, describe "reports from Japan of a high level of meningoencephalitis associated with the administration of MMR" and Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, told one of the parents in a letter: "As soon as the Department of Health had clear evidence that there was a risk with Urabe-containing MMR and that there was no such associated risk with a different strain of mumps virus (the Jeryl Lynn strain) used in an alternative MMR vaccine, the department moved quickly to discontinue use."
References
This clearly indicates that there were problems with the triple MMR between 1988 and 1992 and as I have told you, it was well known that there were problems well before the Lancet 1998 event. That those problems were 'meningoencephalitic' and not autistic, confirms the wiki-wording of no linkage, but the page inaccurately states that such a suggestion of linkage only came into the public domain at the time of the 1998 Lancet article, which is not the case, as I am attempting to explain to you. The cases that were being seen by many Practitioners in the years 88-92 and beyond were often loosely diagnosed, and as these children grew there was understandably a suggestion that their condition fell into the autistic spectrum. That it took until 2007 and an enforced release of documents, to confirm the actual problems with the triple MMR of those years and the meningoencephalitic type diagnosis, meant that much rumour and conspiracy remained even after the events of 1998.
My edit does not conflict with the page's content as it stands, if anything it explains better why there were allegations of causal linkage and thus it merely helps balance and expand understanding of a timeline.
Compare
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false. The link was first suggested in the early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, characterised as "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years".[1] The fraudulent research paper authored by Andrew Wakefield and published in The Lancet claimed to link the vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders. The paper was retracted in 2010[2] but is still cited by anti-vaccinationists.[3]
to my suggested edit
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there was a problem with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [1]. It was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the Department of Health in September 1992. Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which caused encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis, involving swelling of the brain or of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, that can lead to brain damage, deafness or even death. The Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.([2]
The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, characterised as "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years".[3] The fraudulent research paper authored by Andrew Wakefield and published in The Lancet claimed to link the vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders. The paper was retracted in 2010[4] but is still cited by anti-vaccinationists.[5]
I would suggest to you that the revised edit gives a much fuller view of the facts Stogjol ( talk)
I'm not sure that you understand how this wiki page on MMR vaccine and autism reads to the visitor. It's opening denies the link with autism - fine, but then states that "The link was first suggested in the early 1990s" without any mention of why those links were being suggested for the best part of a decade, only concentrating on the more public tirade against the artificial 1998 Lancet report as the instigation, without any understanding of the preceding years which contributed to such an outcome. If the facts of the meetings in the UK, of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (which only surfaced in 2007) had been made public much earlier, then speculation as to any links with autism would have been less likely. Stogjol ( talk)
also "What is unreliable about the sources cited? " Stogjol ( talk)
i am not, and have not wanted to make any link with autism, at any stage in this discussion or my edit.
But without an understanding of the problems of the Urabe MMR and its effects in Britain in the 8 or 9 years leading up to the 1998 Lancet report, this wiki page to my mind is missing important information. The very fact "of the Urabe vaccine or the associated aseptic meningitis" was only revealed in 2007 and as such, it provides the reason why there was ever a misguided attempt at linkage with autism in the first place.
My references simply acknowledge the meningoencephalitic cases resultant of the Urabe MMR being used in the years 1988-92 Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, I am not trying to make a link with autism, I am simply explaining that the Lancet report of 1998 did not emerge out of a vacuum, but from out of what we now know were the resultant cases of Urabe MMR in the years 88-92 that were incorrectly diagnosed or suspected to be autism. We know now that these were encephalitis-type conditions (because of the FOI revelations in 2007), and that is what my references cite. Your wiki page already states “"The link was first suggested in the early 1990s" without any mention of why those links were being suggested for the best part of a decade. That is a vacuum. My edit seeks to fill that space, and does not make any link with autism.
Stogjol (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 23:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a "a vaccine-driven worry for autism in the 80’s", I am simply seeking to insert some factual reasons for the questioning of the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in the 9 or so years leading up to the Lancet articles in 1998.
in order to seek some resolution I suggest the following edit:
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there were problems with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [1] and “withdrawn in the United Kingdom in 1992 following demonstration of an increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination." Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which could cause encephalitis-type conditions, and the Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.([2]
The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud,....
I trust this helps us further achieve a more understandable timeline of the situation I and other Practitioners experienced in those interim years before exposure of all or at least , more of the facts became better known in 2007. Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I also submit the following contained in one of your own Wiki pages in further support of my suggested modified edit
"After the start of the mass MMR immunisation programme in 1988, additional evidence that the strain was linked with viral meningitis surfaced in a number of countries, and by 1990, many had withdrawn products containing it. In November 1992, it was withdrawn in the UK, following the publication of government-sponsored research[3] which confirmed a high incidence of transitory mild meningitis.[4] Since that time, government agencies have acted to prevent the importation of single vaccines containing this strain.[5]"
/info/en/?search=Joint_Committee_on_Vaccination_and_Immunisation#Position_on_MMR Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
There were cases of young children having adverse reactions after having the MMR vaccine that I and fellow Practitioners were coming across in the late 80s and early 90s. That their families, friends and Physicians knew about these, but had no firm evidence, meant that there are no common citations from that time, excepting research papers and Government statistics that were beginning to be prepared, but that weren’t as such in the public domain.
That these cases existed (often undiagnosed or of unknown aetiology except that symptom onset often followed inoculation), and were being discussed in public, was very evident at the time; I described earlier how we ourselves as parents, looked very hard into the literature at the time, to try to help us decide whether to give the triple to our own son. I told you also that many patient families of mine at the time asked for similiar information.
It was this background that eventually brought about more the more formal medically orientated questioning of the efficacy of the triple vaccine, and the suggestion that there might be a problem or indeed a connection with autism.
That all this was later revealed in studies and FOI releases in 2007 described in my references, proves that there were cases (not of autism, but of varying symptomatology, and as such there was indeed a “ a concern before Wakefield,” as you put it, albeit a continuing general concern about the side effects of the triple vaccine.
Your stating that there were NO general public concerns with MMR at the time is indeed false, although I agree it didn't hit mainstream media until Wakefield, and that was an allegation of a link with autism. Stogjol ( talk) 10:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Remember also that Wakefield and others were active in the years before the Lancet article in 1998 a more typical view of the time can be had from this Comment made years later in the Guardian by Brian Milne 17 Apr 2013 19:33 (find by recommendations (if viewed/sorted by recommendations 67)
"We once lived in Swansea and were aware of the risks caused by Urabe MMR vaccines in the UK in 1992. Our children were born a decade later. We are also aware that at no time did Andrew Wakefield advise parents not to get their children vaccinated against measles, mumps or rubella. He advised single vaccinations. Our GP refused to help us to achieve that. My wife and I are both professionals in the field of childhood and I have long term contacts within the WHO who said that there was no good reason why we should not have the single jabs. There are elements of both cover up and honesty counter acting each other. We fortunately left long before this measles 'epidemic' became news, but not before there were more rumours than clear advise. Tabloid newspapers have a lot to answer for and medical people who were stubbornly refusing to help people also have to take their share of responsibility." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/17/measles-outbreak-mmr-jab
For a more complete and comprehensive view on MMR in the UK I would recommend https://www.manchesteropenhive.com/view/9781526126764/9781526126764.00013.xml
here for example, with reference to the pertussis vaccine you mention , which was really before my time in practice, but informed hesitancy of uptake of the newly released MMR in the late 80s
“This is not to say that qualitative investigations into the issues surrounding hesitancy had not been conducted before the crisis and its aftermath. Questions about parental attitudes were being asked of pertussis vaccine and MMR going back to at least the 1980s.138
138 Karen A. Roberts, Mary Dixon-Woods, Ray Fitzpatrick, Keith R. Abrams and David R. Jones, ‘Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence’, The Lancet, 360:9345 (2002), 1596–9; C. A. Peckham, Action Research for the Crippled Child, British Postgraduate Medical Federation, Institute of Child Health and Department of Paediatric Epidemiology, The Peckham Report: National Immunisation Study: Factors Influencing Immunisation Uptake in Childhood (London: Department of Paediatric Epidemiology, Institute of Child Health ; Horsham, West Sussex : Action Research for the Crippled Child, 1989); Richard J. Roberts, Quentin D. Sandifer, Merion R. Evans, Maria Z. Nolan-Farrell and Paul M. Davis, ‘Reasons for non-uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella catch up immunisation in a measles epidemic and side effects of the vaccine’, British Medical Journal, 310:6995 (1995), 1629–39; Rachel Casiday, ‘Risk communication in the British pertussis and MMR vaccine controversies’, in Peter Bennett, Kenneth Calman, Sarah Curtis and Denis Fischbacher-Smith (eds), Risk Communication and Public Health (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 129–46; Calman, ‘Communication of risk’.
Stogjol ( talk) 11:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
IMO, there are quite a number of inaccuracies being introduced to this article, for example talking about lawsuits in the 1980s and Merck being the only manufacturer being willing etc... People seem to be writing off the top of their heads, for some reason. Also the part about the link being suggested in the late 1980s etc which came to notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet study. This really is original research, essay-writing, by an editor who gives little of where this comes from.
There is talk above about 'questioning of the efficacy of the MMR vaccine'. That is a quite different issue from its safety, and I don't believe there has been serious questioning of efficacy since MMR was licensed in the US in the early 1970s. Nor do I think there was any serious talk of autism before Wakefield. The editor needs to give references, or this material needs to be rolled back. Dallas66 ( talk) 16:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
re "Nor do I think there was any serious talk of autism before Wakefield. The editor needs to give references" I agree, but there were general concerns about the side effects of the MMR vaccine from its introduction in 1988 in the UK until its replacement (MMR2) in 1992. Wakefield's allegations in 1998, did not not appear from out of a void, but rather at the end of a continued informed hesitancy of uptake of the newly released MMR in the late 80s (and from earlier pertussis vaccine problems) as well as presenting cases of undetermined aetiology described in my posts above. Though none of this suggests a link with autism, I think it is important to understand where that allegation might have spring-boarded from.
For references please see my posts above in the section Missing information relevant to MMR vaccine (and history of its supposed link to Autism) made after your input and dated 29 April UK time.
Stogjol ( talk) 13:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In the section on Litigation, under the UK subheading, the final sentences reads as follows:
Several British cases where parents claimed that their children had died as a result of Urabe MMR had received compensation under the "vaccine damage payment" scheme.[116]
I was surprised when I read that, so I checked the reference, but it's decidedly dodgy - it's a 2007 'comments' thread, which (if you scroll down far enough) includes a brief to-and-fro between David Salisbury (then director of vaccination for the Department of Health) and the FOIA Centre, in which FOIA asserts that such payments had been made, but providing no more information, no evidence and no references to the actual cases involved.
It doesn't seem to me that this is a reliable source - I'd suggest that, if a better source can't be found, this sentence be removed altogether. I'm a bit of a newbie though, thought I'd raise it here before being bold. Girth Summit ( talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I've done a bit more digging, and although I couldn't find anything specific about the cases referred to in the comments thread, I suspect that it was two cases where it was alleged that MMR had caused encephalitis. Given that this article is about the MMR/autism controversy, that doesn't seem relevant even if it were to be properly sourced; I've therefore gone ahead and deleted the sentence. Girth Summit ( talk) 17:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
My Yank ears perk up disturbingly, in response to the lack of "for" as the clause's next and final word, or something like "to have occur." (This is the full current sent:
I see my instincts about syntax as normally pretty reliable, and my professional-copywriter informant shares my criticism in this specific case. This request for consultation comes from my concern that i might just be deaf to a syntax that is an idiom of UK or Commonwealth usage of English. Whatcha think?
--
Jerzy•
t 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I propose this article should be moved. Obvious candidates include:
Rationale: Scientifically, there is no controversy, and essentially there never was. Virtually all research from the time of the original fraudulent Lancet paper either failed to confirm its findings, or contradicted it. To describe this as a controversy is to give undue weight to the fraud and those who perpetuate it still. The statement in the lede that it is perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years is pretty compelling evidence that we should choose a less musteloid title. Guy ( Help!) 14:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I would support such a move, MMR vaccine and autism is a good compromise to please one side particularly, but MMR-autism hoax is close to relaity. I opt for the latter. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Reading up on this topic I came across the article Chemtrails conspiracy theory, and I wondered why this couldn't be a decent solution here as well? Carl Fredrik talk 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
IMO the term "fraud" fits well. See my comment for my explanation. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Because vaccines are government approved and mandated, people who think vaccines are harmful must inherently not believe the government or mainstream medicine. “These powerful interests aren’t telling us the truth.” Look through any anti ax literature and you will see this theme. Jehochman Talk 00:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hoax works fine and is supported by this source [8]. Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
How about MMR-autism research fraud? It was Wakefield's deliberate research fraud that started this whole thing off. The BMJ called it 'fraudulent'! [1] The myth and conspiracy theories grew up in the wake of this paper's fraudulent assertions. Kitb ( talk) 18:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Please rank the front-runners in order of preference:
Conspiracy theory, myth, fraud, hoax in that order. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 03:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The feeling of a need to move this article happens to be founded, whether we've realized it or not, in the fact that 90% of this article should be located in an article named Andrew Wakefield MMR fraud scandal, or something like that. If we did that instead, we could clean up this article and devote it to the controversy which exists between the misinformed public and the medical/scientific community, because that controversy does exist.
This article could then have a (1) section summarizing the Wakefield/fraud article; a (2) section devoted to the misguided faux controversy, and how it is not a controversy in medical/scientific circles; and a (3) section devoted to the conspiracy theories. Other section would still exist.
I really feel that would be the right thing to do, because the current content does not match the title, and never will, no matter the title. There is far too much here about Wakefield. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts? Guy ( Help!) 16:43, 2 February 2019 (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 |
Booperkit and other editors have removed the word "fraudulent" in the summary lead-in, the latest suggesting that it is mere opinion, however the details of the fraud which was committed are well-described in the extant article, and as such it is a disservice to people researching the quack medical frauds involved here to remove the word.
I mention it again in the hopes that other editors who wish to remove the accurate information will actually read the extant page since I doubt that the editors who keep removing the word bother to do so. The article clearly with numerous testable and falsifiable citations and references cover the undeniable fact that the published-then-retracted falsified "research" paper was flat-out fraud, deliberate with an economic motive which were detaile din the criminal and civil court cases also described.
The word "fraudulent" is not an emotive rhetorical device. Real actual medical fraud and research fraud does take place in the world, and the extant article's case is (along with "cold fusion") a Hallmark incident of deliberate fraud according to every scrap of evidence which is detailed in the extant article. Damotclese ( talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we define the acronym at the start? You see when one doesn't know it yet they need it at the START. Rtdrury ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
We should not call this a "controversy". The topic discussed is the MMR vaccine conspiracy theory. This is a fringe theory that is utterly unsupported by any science. We do the reader a disservice to suggest that there is a bona fide controversy. If the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not accepted, then we could alternatively use "fringe theory", "hoax" or "fraud". Jehochman Talk 13:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
* Support changing the title. My suggestion is something like
Wakefield et al Lancet retraction or
MMR vaccine Lancet retraction. After reading the conversation below about the scope of this article, I think part of what feels "off" about the title, at least for me, is that the title is broad and there's a lack of cohesion in the content, like no one is on the same page about what the scope of the article is. A better title would probably help that. Personally, I agree with what
Zad said below that the scope of this article should be " the social phenomenon: fraudulent paper, retraction, National Enquirer, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, etc. up to and including the flap with that recent film festival and DeNiro... scientific evidence covering how there's no relationship between vaccines and autism is a medical topic that should be covered at
MMR vaccine, which is a medical article. Wakefields misdeeds should be covered at
Andrew Wakefield--right now this article is too much a duplicate of content there."
I want to add that there also is another article just for
Vaccine controversy, so in my mind, it makes the most sense for this to be an article about the retracted paper and noteworthy reactions to the retraction.
PermStrump
(talk) 16:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The name of the article should indicate the scope. I'm not sure about a name change because I'm not sure what the scope is supposed to be. The article could focus on quite different things:
Of these three, I think it should be the third--the social phenomenon: fraudulent paper, retraction, National Enquirer, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, etc. up to and including the flap with that recent film festival and DeNiro--this is all People magazine territory instead of Pediatrics. The scientific evidence covering how there's no relationship between vaccines and autism is a medical topic that should be covered at
MMR vaccine, which is a medical article. Wakefields misdeeds should be covered at
Andrew Wakefield--right now this article is too much a duplicate of content there. With that I think this article title should maintain some element in its name indicating it's about a social phenomenon, and 'controversy' is about as apt a term as I can think of. MMR vaccine and autism sounds too much like it should be limited to covering medical evidence, and that should be focused on elsewhere.
Zad
68
02:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
When asked about De Niro's comments, Autism Speaks gave a statement to NBC News: "Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism."
The Institute of Medicine, an independent group that advises the U.S. government on health matters, has strongly advised that researchers stop wasting time looking at vaccines and search elsewhere for the causes of autism.
As they appear now, the first two paragraphs should be deleted - they are poorly worded to the point of incomprehension and really have nothing to do with "litigation" (they only provide an excessive amount of context). Edits by someone with access to the sources are required. The first paragraph also focuses too heavily on details concerning the "Urabe strain" (redundant and irrelevant) and so I have deleted the first two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.230.99 ( talk) 09:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC) T
An editor suggested a proposed update suggesting that John Walker-Smith was exonerated. That is not correct, as another editor has noted he was able to successfully appeal and was reinstated but not exonerated of his inappropriate behavior. I post a note in Talk: in the hopes that other editors note that innocence should not be assumed when someone holding suspended credentials gets reinstated, the arena is not a black vs. white issue. Damotclese ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)The media have been criticized for their naïve reporting and for lending undue credibility to the architect of the fraud, Andrew Wakefield.
An editor reverted this proposed change stating
Removed unprofessional and potentially (inflammatory) language. There has to be a better way to put this.
I do not agree, the proposed text is entirely professional, accurate, well-documented, covered in extensive references and citations, and in no way it is in the least bit inflammatory.
The extant article is seeing a lot of proposed updated, reverts, and discussion about wording, most of which is the result of differences of opinion on tone despite the proposed text being wholly accurate. As an encyclopedia, accuracy is what matters, and when the truth of something -- whether it's this quack medical fraud committed for financial gain or whether it's the accumulative effects of the gravitational consequences of the curvature of space-time -- is stark, accuracy should trump feelings that the way the truth is worded being "unprofessional" or "inflammatory" should not dictate either self-censorship or supposition that the truth be "watered down." Damotclese ( talk) 02:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see significant support above for a rename of this article. I think we need to agree the most appropriate title. Suggestions are:
Apologies if I have forgotten any. Guy ( Help!) 10:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)The current title covers and describes the actual content of the article in a very general sense. If there should be any change, it might be by getting more specific by adding an adjective, such as false, fraudulent, for example MMR vaccine fraudulent research and controversy or Wakefield MMR vaccine fraud and controversy, etc. The more I look at and hear the last one, the more I like it. Say it out loud several times. It really all comes back to Wakefield, so he should be mentioned in the title. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, they sure do build a mountain out of aether! As for muzzling Wakefield, I don't think muzzles come large enough for that mouth. It's a shame we can't perform an extraordinary rendition on him... Harvard is now up to 40 mumps cases and fears for the commencement ceremonies. Wzrd1 ( talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Why not split this in to two halves. One that focuses on journalists reiterating from information that originated from one sole source (undue bias). The other pointing out that in the fullness-of-time, the sole 'source's OR was found in a court of law to contain many errors. Is that difficult ?-- Aspro ( talk) 23:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of this statement in the article: "Deer continued his reporting in a Channel 4 Dispatches television documentary, 'MMR: What They Didn't Tell You', broadcast on 18 November 2004. This documentary alleged that Wakefield had applied for patents on a vaccine that was a rival of the MMR vaccine..." I have found 8 patents for Wakefield. Only one of them, GB2325856A, [2] is for a vaccine, and this is a vaccine for measles only, so it is not a rival of the MMR vaccine. If this statement is to stay in the article, somebody should provide a reference to the alleged patent for a rival to the MMR vaccine. Roberttherambler ( talk) 21:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The combined vaccine wasn't a problem though. Wakers manufactured the "problem" with his fraudulent study, and compounded it with coi. Nasty. - Roxy the dog™ woof 18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith on the part of Wakefield and I'm not satisfied that it was a fraudulent study.The people whose opinions matter were satisfied. Whether or not some random wikipedian was convinced is really beside the point. We don't write based on our opinions. We rarely write based on opinions at all, and when we do, they are always published, reliable, expert opinions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to the publicity given to the "CDC whistelblower" narrative by Andrew Wakefield's crockumentary Vaxxed, and the continuing promotion of the MMR-autism myth by anti-vaxers, I think we should add a section on current status at the bottom. Points I would include:
I'm gathering sources now and will write this up when I get a couple of hours.
I don't suppose this will stop the drive-by antivax edits, but it will fix the obvious problem that it is represented here as a dead issue, but Wakefield has actually reanimated the zombie corpse for another outing. Guy ( Help!) 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, editor, that removed the proposed text covering the conspiracy believer Thompson. If you check the link that was proposed, it specifically states right at the top on Time's disclaimer "The claim, however, may just be more unsubstantiated fuel from the anti-vaccination movement" -- which is how Time manages to avoid lawsuits by people who are damaged by anti-vaccination conspiracy believers' actions (and inactions.)
The editor that proposed that addition, I have to ask: Did you bother to actually read the Time article you proposed to link to? It does not support the notion that there is a global conspiracy to hide the truth, and the mere fact that someone believes in a global conspiracy it not enough to be encyclopedic -- unless you wish to include that in a WP:BLP of Mr. Thompson, then his conspiracy beliefs might be relevant. Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile in the lede to have a couple of dozen words why a link betwnee autism and the MMR vaccine was suggested in the first place? I am making this same comment in the Causes of Autism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.173.37 ( talk) 10:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the article should include more moderate views which are notable ; the way it is written now is if it is written by the pharmaceutical company it produces the vaccine. This is an example - Dr Sears says that : "Honestly, I’ve read ALL the research, and both sides present good data and good arguments. I’m not sure who is right at this point. Until I see enough evidence that shows vaccines are linked to autism, I certainly am not going to tell anyone that vaccines contribute to autism. But at the same time I can’t say for sure that vaccines absolutely do NOT play any role at all in contributing to autism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHoy ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi dear contributors,
I am a Romanian citizen, very worried about increasing vaccine controversy in my country.
Currently there's a measles outbreak happening. National public health officials said an ongoing measles outbreak in Romania has infected more than 3,400 people and killed at least 17 despite an aggressive nationwide vaccination campaign. [1]
Meanwhile, MMR vaccination rates have fallen in recent years in Romania to below the 95% threshold recommended to interrupt transmission. According to the ECDC, coverage for one dose was just 86% in 2015 in Romania compared with 97% in 2007. [2]
I would like to make it possible for Romanian speaking people to have access to this article in Romanian, as Wikipedia is a much more trustworthy source of information compared to the vast amount of blogs and media outlets that push a strong anti-vaccine message.
My plan is to dedicate a few hours per week for this task and do it as soon as possible. However, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I could use your advice on how to get the changes approved, since we are talking about another language than English.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Psprms ( talk) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any information on the page about the CDC whistleblower and the associated findings as presented in the "documentary" Vaxxed. This seems like new information that would definitely have it's place in the "Media" section, and perhaps elsewhere too.
Anyone knows if there has been a rigorous external review of what is presented in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jul059 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a lie. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/vaccine/Hastings-Cedillo.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that you need to speak to Andrew Wakefield himself or someone in order to make this article unbiased. Animal28 ( talk) 14:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is so obviously biased that it falls into the fake news category. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world know Wakefield's work and consider him a hero who is standing up to a corrupt medical system that considers vaccine induced neurological damage in 2 percent of population a cost of doing business. And it's not just this article. It is clear when the editors of Wikipedia collectively label the worldwide vaccine safety movement, that includes scientists, medical practitioners and literally millions of people, a "Conspiracy Theory," that the publication is taking sides. "Conspiracy Theory" is simply an ad hominem attack and has no place a serious reference encyclopedia. The phase conjures up images of a small circle of maladjusted individuals trading speculative hypotheses. 1.6 million people took to the streets to protest government vaccine policy in Italy in the Spring of 2017, and hundreds of thousands more are protesting in France and Germany as I write this. How long can you hope to keep up this charade Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMcLeod ( talk • contribs)
As someone who has lost a relative to a chiropractor's mumbo jumbo, I can assure it you is most definitely quackery. A court decision does not invalidate the nature of reality, and it certainly wouldn't bring my aunt back. Sumanuil ( talk) 05:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@ ThomasMcLeod: As for the infobox, I don't think it is trying to associate anything, just listing various things that are considered fringe medicine, not saying they are all similar. As for autism, you would have to provide a reliable medical source that says MMR causes autism, while cases of brain damage have been documented, these are not autism. All the reliable sources I have seen say MMR doesn't cause autism. Of all vaccines, MMR is the one with the most studies that show it doesn't cause autism. Also, don't criticize all scientists for the actions of 1. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Damotclese: The ad hominems aren't helping. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I read through the article and I don't see any biases. Tornado chaser ( talk) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I know only a little bit of French, but this French Wikipedia article seems to be talking about the same thing as this English article. Can someone take a look at it and if appropriate, add an interlanguage link to that French article? -- Kinos0634 ( talk) 02:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I can confirm the French Wikipedia article is indeed on the same subject; unfortunately I do not know how to create an interlanguage link but feel free to do so. Partnerfrance ( talk) 15:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we redirect this page to 'MMR Vaccine hoax' ? Calling it a controversy is being generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.246.66 ( talk) 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
MMR vaccine is still controversial. It's misleading for Wiki to suggest otherwise. Maybe Wiki editors tend towards the conservative or establishment view but it is wrong to suggest that view is the only rational one. psic88 15:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psic88 ( talk • contribs)
I never criticized the science. I said that it is not acceptable to try to diagnose another editor as having "mental difficulties" or "a behavioral problem" especially when you use that diagnosis as grounds to say they are wrong. Psic88 was wrong and you were right to tell them that there is no controversy among scientists, but your comments about Psic's and my mental health were uncalled for. Tornado chaser ( talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the current title "MMR vaccine controversy" is reasonable, but I would also understand "MMR autism hoax"ect. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Hob Gadling. "Hoax" is the wrong word. Fraud or Fraudulent is more accurate, but I'm not sure how it can be used in a title. Andrew Wakefield's "discredited" work has been called a "fraud" by numerous RS, and we use both terms in his article. Now to find an alternate title, because "controversy" does lend support to the misunderstanding that there is a real controversy within the medical/scientific world, when there isn't. Let's play with some words:
Any other suggestions or tweaks? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 22:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Sakaimover: Sakaimover just added some studies suggesting that fetal DNA fragments in vaccines contribute to autism [6], I removed one that was clearly outdated [7], but I am not sure if the other ones belong here either, they look like they are drawing unusual conclusions from potentially inconclusive methods and I am not familiar with the journals they are published in. In short, the added material looks like it may be UNDUE or non-RS, but I am hesitant to revert a good faith editor unless I can point to a definite, identifiable problem with their edits. Tornado chaser ( talk) 05:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC) @ Doc James: pinging for advice. Tornado chaser ( talk) 05:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Whilst providing info for a patient of mine, on the benefits of Vaccination, I looked at this Wiki page, and was surprised to see some omissions.
For example at the end of the eighties (through to 1992), there was a problem with the triple vaccine for a year or so, and it rightly led to questions being asked.
I remember having difficult discussions and a decision over our first born at the time and , as a Practitioner , I was constantly being asked for my advice.
I used to tell patients to read all they could, that we had decided to have our child vaccinated, that it was their decision (risk benefit etc as well as 'herd' immunity, but when it became more apparent for a year or so, that it was perhaps safer to give the 3 vaccines separately, then that was the advice I gave.
Our decision at the time 1988-89 was to give our son the triple, but that was before the possible problem with the 'triple' was really suspected.
The big issue was though, that by the time this fully entered public consciousness, there was a great danger that 'the baby was thrown out with the bath water' and that people were starting to avoid vaccination, ironically at a time when any possible problems with the triple were better understood.
The resultant polarised views help nobody, and the vilification of some people who originally questioned the safety of a triple vaccine, was i think over the top. (some of the characters involved were possibly over evangelic about the results they had found however), and the resulting climate of some parents NOT giving their children vaccines, helped nobody either, as herd immunity is at the heart of much of the efficacy, as well as the risk to the individuals concerned.
It is though possible to still vaccinate un-vaccinated teenagers at a later date, as or before they enter the wider world, so if you have a non vaccinated child, I would still recommend you have them vaccinated, and if you are still unsure of the triple, then consider separate vaccinations, timed apart, but you will have to pay privately for this in the UK and i am unsure as to whether it is still really necessary, now that the triple is so closely monitored.
Anyhow back to the omissions. I enrolled on MediaWiki so as to contribute and noted that the opening sentence read "Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false."
Fine, but there is an "although" and while the "although" does not claim a link with autism, it does link a 4 year period (88-92) of the triple MMR with the Urabe strain of mumps, to quote "a demonstrable increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination."
So I submitted my edit with citation references (read from 'although'
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there was a problem with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [3]. It was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the Department of Health in September 1992. Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which caused encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis, involving swelling of the brain or of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, that can lead to brain damage, deafness or even death. The Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.( [4]
The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998..
References
My submission was "Reverted good faith edits by Stogjol (talk): Nothing to do with autism, undue prominence of a rare adverse reaction (TW))"
and while I agree my edit may have nothing to do with autism, it very much has a lot to do with MMR vaccination, and the history discussed in much of the ensuing wikipage.
I should be pleased to hear your responses. Thankyou. Stogjol ( talk) 14:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
those young babies who had adverse effects born in 1988-92 were lumped in, or considered possible 'autistic' when this furore broke out. Subsequently although no link with autism was found, it was the reason why some people starting looking into possible causation. Remember diagnosis at such an early age is fraught. Although this info about Urabe only started to come to light in and around 2007, it is I think extremely relevant to a page on MMR Vaccination and Autism, especially a page that is discussing the history of the subject. Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The minutes of another meeting of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, in May 1990, show that there was " a special concern about "reports from Japan of a high level of meningoencephalitis associated with the administration of MMR". This I would suggest is not "undue prominence of a rare adverse reaction " as quoted, nor is it I would suggest ' unjustifiably prominent' especially as it, the meningoencephalitis, was one of the very reasons a link with autism was first postulated. Remember there were cases at the time presenting to Practitioners whose symptoms were being attributed to recently given triple jabs. Many of these cases were thought to be early signs of autism, but are now signed off as "meningoencephalitis" or similiar. But it was many of those very cases that initiated investigation into causation and links with their preceding triple vaccinations; the subject of this Wiki page. Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
No, but the references do explain why there was justifiable concern. Behavioural anomalies at such an early age, were perhaps grouped, and as it turns out wrongly labelled as autism, or were those lesser affected infants turning up later in the 90s and beyond, as possible 'autistic spectrum' children?
The release of the UK documents in 2007 under the Freedom of information Act, is certainly an important proof of what many suspected from the end of the 80s to the early 90s; that there was a possible problem with the triple vaccine for a time, and that it did affect a great number of children and their families, hence the protracted legal issues described further on in the wikipage.
My edit does not dispute the 'no link' premise, but it does begin to explain why there was such a movement towards that way of thinking. My edit i would suggest gives the page a better balance, and also begins to show an acknowledgement that MMR vaccines are not always 100% safe and have to be constantly monitored, and that while they did not cause autism, they did for a short while cause some cases of meningoencephalitis., and that is a fact. Stogjol ( talk)
It gave not just me, but many of my new parent patients much concern for many years from 88--90s and beyond.
The sources are indicative because the affected children born 88-92, were appearing as possible 'autistic' in the late 90s when this whole concern became more mainstream. While your page states “and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, etc” which my edit does not refute, my added info preceding, does however allow readers to see that there were a number of children with encephalitis-type conditions, who had had a compromised triple MMR vaccine, and whose parents, their friends and their GPs had been seeking answers for many years before 1998. Stogjol ( talk)
What is unreliable about the sources cited?
The report "Risks of Convulsion and Aseptic Meningitis following Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in the United Kingdom" [1]published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 165, Issue 6, 15 March 2007, Pages 704–709, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk045 states "that Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines containing the Urabe strain of mumps were withdrawn in the United Kingdom in 1992 following demonstration of an increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination."
The 2007 Documents released under the Freedom of information Act and reported in the Telegraph [2]and elsewhere, describe "reports from Japan of a high level of meningoencephalitis associated with the administration of MMR" and Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, told one of the parents in a letter: "As soon as the Department of Health had clear evidence that there was a risk with Urabe-containing MMR and that there was no such associated risk with a different strain of mumps virus (the Jeryl Lynn strain) used in an alternative MMR vaccine, the department moved quickly to discontinue use."
References
This clearly indicates that there were problems with the triple MMR between 1988 and 1992 and as I have told you, it was well known that there were problems well before the Lancet 1998 event. That those problems were 'meningoencephalitic' and not autistic, confirms the wiki-wording of no linkage, but the page inaccurately states that such a suggestion of linkage only came into the public domain at the time of the 1998 Lancet article, which is not the case, as I am attempting to explain to you. The cases that were being seen by many Practitioners in the years 88-92 and beyond were often loosely diagnosed, and as these children grew there was understandably a suggestion that their condition fell into the autistic spectrum. That it took until 2007 and an enforced release of documents, to confirm the actual problems with the triple MMR of those years and the meningoencephalitic type diagnosis, meant that much rumour and conspiracy remained even after the events of 1998.
My edit does not conflict with the page's content as it stands, if anything it explains better why there were allegations of causal linkage and thus it merely helps balance and expand understanding of a timeline.
Compare
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false. The link was first suggested in the early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, characterised as "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years".[1] The fraudulent research paper authored by Andrew Wakefield and published in The Lancet claimed to link the vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders. The paper was retracted in 2010[2] but is still cited by anti-vaccinationists.[3]
to my suggested edit
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there was a problem with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [1]. It was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the Department of Health in September 1992. Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which caused encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis, involving swelling of the brain or of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, that can lead to brain damage, deafness or even death. The Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.([2]
The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, characterised as "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years".[3] The fraudulent research paper authored by Andrew Wakefield and published in The Lancet claimed to link the vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders. The paper was retracted in 2010[4] but is still cited by anti-vaccinationists.[5]
I would suggest to you that the revised edit gives a much fuller view of the facts Stogjol ( talk)
I'm not sure that you understand how this wiki page on MMR vaccine and autism reads to the visitor. It's opening denies the link with autism - fine, but then states that "The link was first suggested in the early 1990s" without any mention of why those links were being suggested for the best part of a decade, only concentrating on the more public tirade against the artificial 1998 Lancet report as the instigation, without any understanding of the preceding years which contributed to such an outcome. If the facts of the meetings in the UK, of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (which only surfaced in 2007) had been made public much earlier, then speculation as to any links with autism would have been less likely. Stogjol ( talk)
also "What is unreliable about the sources cited? " Stogjol ( talk)
i am not, and have not wanted to make any link with autism, at any stage in this discussion or my edit.
But without an understanding of the problems of the Urabe MMR and its effects in Britain in the 8 or 9 years leading up to the 1998 Lancet report, this wiki page to my mind is missing important information. The very fact "of the Urabe vaccine or the associated aseptic meningitis" was only revealed in 2007 and as such, it provides the reason why there was ever a misguided attempt at linkage with autism in the first place.
My references simply acknowledge the meningoencephalitic cases resultant of the Urabe MMR being used in the years 1988-92 Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, I am not trying to make a link with autism, I am simply explaining that the Lancet report of 1998 did not emerge out of a vacuum, but from out of what we now know were the resultant cases of Urabe MMR in the years 88-92 that were incorrectly diagnosed or suspected to be autism. We know now that these were encephalitis-type conditions (because of the FOI revelations in 2007), and that is what my references cite. Your wiki page already states “"The link was first suggested in the early 1990s" without any mention of why those links were being suggested for the best part of a decade. That is a vacuum. My edit seeks to fill that space, and does not make any link with autism.
Stogjol (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 23:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a "a vaccine-driven worry for autism in the 80’s", I am simply seeking to insert some factual reasons for the questioning of the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in the 9 or so years leading up to the Lancet articles in 1998.
in order to seek some resolution I suggest the following edit:
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there were problems with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [1] and “withdrawn in the United Kingdom in 1992 following demonstration of an increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination." Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which could cause encephalitis-type conditions, and the Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.([2]
The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud,....
I trust this helps us further achieve a more understandable timeline of the situation I and other Practitioners experienced in those interim years before exposure of all or at least , more of the facts became better known in 2007. Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I also submit the following contained in one of your own Wiki pages in further support of my suggested modified edit
"After the start of the mass MMR immunisation programme in 1988, additional evidence that the strain was linked with viral meningitis surfaced in a number of countries, and by 1990, many had withdrawn products containing it. In November 1992, it was withdrawn in the UK, following the publication of government-sponsored research[3] which confirmed a high incidence of transitory mild meningitis.[4] Since that time, government agencies have acted to prevent the importation of single vaccines containing this strain.[5]"
/info/en/?search=Joint_Committee_on_Vaccination_and_Immunisation#Position_on_MMR Stogjol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
There were cases of young children having adverse reactions after having the MMR vaccine that I and fellow Practitioners were coming across in the late 80s and early 90s. That their families, friends and Physicians knew about these, but had no firm evidence, meant that there are no common citations from that time, excepting research papers and Government statistics that were beginning to be prepared, but that weren’t as such in the public domain.
That these cases existed (often undiagnosed or of unknown aetiology except that symptom onset often followed inoculation), and were being discussed in public, was very evident at the time; I described earlier how we ourselves as parents, looked very hard into the literature at the time, to try to help us decide whether to give the triple to our own son. I told you also that many patient families of mine at the time asked for similiar information.
It was this background that eventually brought about more the more formal medically orientated questioning of the efficacy of the triple vaccine, and the suggestion that there might be a problem or indeed a connection with autism.
That all this was later revealed in studies and FOI releases in 2007 described in my references, proves that there were cases (not of autism, but of varying symptomatology, and as such there was indeed a “ a concern before Wakefield,” as you put it, albeit a continuing general concern about the side effects of the triple vaccine.
Your stating that there were NO general public concerns with MMR at the time is indeed false, although I agree it didn't hit mainstream media until Wakefield, and that was an allegation of a link with autism. Stogjol ( talk) 10:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Remember also that Wakefield and others were active in the years before the Lancet article in 1998 a more typical view of the time can be had from this Comment made years later in the Guardian by Brian Milne 17 Apr 2013 19:33 (find by recommendations (if viewed/sorted by recommendations 67)
"We once lived in Swansea and were aware of the risks caused by Urabe MMR vaccines in the UK in 1992. Our children were born a decade later. We are also aware that at no time did Andrew Wakefield advise parents not to get their children vaccinated against measles, mumps or rubella. He advised single vaccinations. Our GP refused to help us to achieve that. My wife and I are both professionals in the field of childhood and I have long term contacts within the WHO who said that there was no good reason why we should not have the single jabs. There are elements of both cover up and honesty counter acting each other. We fortunately left long before this measles 'epidemic' became news, but not before there were more rumours than clear advise. Tabloid newspapers have a lot to answer for and medical people who were stubbornly refusing to help people also have to take their share of responsibility." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/17/measles-outbreak-mmr-jab
For a more complete and comprehensive view on MMR in the UK I would recommend https://www.manchesteropenhive.com/view/9781526126764/9781526126764.00013.xml
here for example, with reference to the pertussis vaccine you mention , which was really before my time in practice, but informed hesitancy of uptake of the newly released MMR in the late 80s
“This is not to say that qualitative investigations into the issues surrounding hesitancy had not been conducted before the crisis and its aftermath. Questions about parental attitudes were being asked of pertussis vaccine and MMR going back to at least the 1980s.138
138 Karen A. Roberts, Mary Dixon-Woods, Ray Fitzpatrick, Keith R. Abrams and David R. Jones, ‘Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence’, The Lancet, 360:9345 (2002), 1596–9; C. A. Peckham, Action Research for the Crippled Child, British Postgraduate Medical Federation, Institute of Child Health and Department of Paediatric Epidemiology, The Peckham Report: National Immunisation Study: Factors Influencing Immunisation Uptake in Childhood (London: Department of Paediatric Epidemiology, Institute of Child Health ; Horsham, West Sussex : Action Research for the Crippled Child, 1989); Richard J. Roberts, Quentin D. Sandifer, Merion R. Evans, Maria Z. Nolan-Farrell and Paul M. Davis, ‘Reasons for non-uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella catch up immunisation in a measles epidemic and side effects of the vaccine’, British Medical Journal, 310:6995 (1995), 1629–39; Rachel Casiday, ‘Risk communication in the British pertussis and MMR vaccine controversies’, in Peter Bennett, Kenneth Calman, Sarah Curtis and Denis Fischbacher-Smith (eds), Risk Communication and Public Health (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 129–46; Calman, ‘Communication of risk’.
Stogjol ( talk) 11:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
IMO, there are quite a number of inaccuracies being introduced to this article, for example talking about lawsuits in the 1980s and Merck being the only manufacturer being willing etc... People seem to be writing off the top of their heads, for some reason. Also the part about the link being suggested in the late 1980s etc which came to notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet study. This really is original research, essay-writing, by an editor who gives little of where this comes from.
There is talk above about 'questioning of the efficacy of the MMR vaccine'. That is a quite different issue from its safety, and I don't believe there has been serious questioning of efficacy since MMR was licensed in the US in the early 1970s. Nor do I think there was any serious talk of autism before Wakefield. The editor needs to give references, or this material needs to be rolled back. Dallas66 ( talk) 16:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
re "Nor do I think there was any serious talk of autism before Wakefield. The editor needs to give references" I agree, but there were general concerns about the side effects of the MMR vaccine from its introduction in 1988 in the UK until its replacement (MMR2) in 1992. Wakefield's allegations in 1998, did not not appear from out of a void, but rather at the end of a continued informed hesitancy of uptake of the newly released MMR in the late 80s (and from earlier pertussis vaccine problems) as well as presenting cases of undetermined aetiology described in my posts above. Though none of this suggests a link with autism, I think it is important to understand where that allegation might have spring-boarded from.
For references please see my posts above in the section Missing information relevant to MMR vaccine (and history of its supposed link to Autism) made after your input and dated 29 April UK time.
Stogjol ( talk) 13:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In the section on Litigation, under the UK subheading, the final sentences reads as follows:
Several British cases where parents claimed that their children had died as a result of Urabe MMR had received compensation under the "vaccine damage payment" scheme.[116]
I was surprised when I read that, so I checked the reference, but it's decidedly dodgy - it's a 2007 'comments' thread, which (if you scroll down far enough) includes a brief to-and-fro between David Salisbury (then director of vaccination for the Department of Health) and the FOIA Centre, in which FOIA asserts that such payments had been made, but providing no more information, no evidence and no references to the actual cases involved.
It doesn't seem to me that this is a reliable source - I'd suggest that, if a better source can't be found, this sentence be removed altogether. I'm a bit of a newbie though, thought I'd raise it here before being bold. Girth Summit ( talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I've done a bit more digging, and although I couldn't find anything specific about the cases referred to in the comments thread, I suspect that it was two cases where it was alleged that MMR had caused encephalitis. Given that this article is about the MMR/autism controversy, that doesn't seem relevant even if it were to be properly sourced; I've therefore gone ahead and deleted the sentence. Girth Summit ( talk) 17:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
My Yank ears perk up disturbingly, in response to the lack of "for" as the clause's next and final word, or something like "to have occur." (This is the full current sent:
I see my instincts about syntax as normally pretty reliable, and my professional-copywriter informant shares my criticism in this specific case. This request for consultation comes from my concern that i might just be deaf to a syntax that is an idiom of UK or Commonwealth usage of English. Whatcha think?
--
Jerzy•
t 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I propose this article should be moved. Obvious candidates include:
Rationale: Scientifically, there is no controversy, and essentially there never was. Virtually all research from the time of the original fraudulent Lancet paper either failed to confirm its findings, or contradicted it. To describe this as a controversy is to give undue weight to the fraud and those who perpetuate it still. The statement in the lede that it is perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years is pretty compelling evidence that we should choose a less musteloid title. Guy ( Help!) 14:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I would support such a move, MMR vaccine and autism is a good compromise to please one side particularly, but MMR-autism hoax is close to relaity. I opt for the latter. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Reading up on this topic I came across the article Chemtrails conspiracy theory, and I wondered why this couldn't be a decent solution here as well? Carl Fredrik talk 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
IMO the term "fraud" fits well. See my comment for my explanation. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Because vaccines are government approved and mandated, people who think vaccines are harmful must inherently not believe the government or mainstream medicine. “These powerful interests aren’t telling us the truth.” Look through any anti ax literature and you will see this theme. Jehochman Talk 00:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hoax works fine and is supported by this source [8]. Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
How about MMR-autism research fraud? It was Wakefield's deliberate research fraud that started this whole thing off. The BMJ called it 'fraudulent'! [1] The myth and conspiracy theories grew up in the wake of this paper's fraudulent assertions. Kitb ( talk) 18:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Please rank the front-runners in order of preference:
Conspiracy theory, myth, fraud, hoax in that order. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 03:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The feeling of a need to move this article happens to be founded, whether we've realized it or not, in the fact that 90% of this article should be located in an article named Andrew Wakefield MMR fraud scandal, or something like that. If we did that instead, we could clean up this article and devote it to the controversy which exists between the misinformed public and the medical/scientific community, because that controversy does exist.
This article could then have a (1) section summarizing the Wakefield/fraud article; a (2) section devoted to the misguided faux controversy, and how it is not a controversy in medical/scientific circles; and a (3) section devoted to the conspiracy theories. Other section would still exist.
I really feel that would be the right thing to do, because the current content does not match the title, and never will, no matter the title. There is far too much here about Wakefield. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts? Guy ( Help!) 16:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)