Talk:Lancet MMR autism fraud

Title
I am concerned that the title of the article implies that the lancet was committing fraud, when they were actually duped into publishing Wakefield's paper. I don't recall any consensus to put "lancet" in the title. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The alternative is Andrew Wakefield MMR fraud. This is less BLP-ish. And the paper was fraudulent, so there's that. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote for keeping Lancet in the title as this is what is searched for by people looking up the background story. They do not remember Wakefield but they are still being referred to the "reputable medical journal- Lancet-". I would think that we want to keep WP user friendly and easy to search. I know that the Lancet retracted the article so maybe do more highlighting of that to defend Lancet a little more?? --Akrasia25 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say have Lancet MMR autism fraud redirect to MMR autism hoax. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To me, this title suggests that the Lancet were behind the fraud. Dallas66 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that Lancet is in the title. It is easier to find the article and it is how people will be looking for this article. Put in all the text on the retractions we want to make it clearer that Lancet was not behind the fraud. https://www.google.com/search?q=lancet+mmr+fraud&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS781US781&oq=lancet+mmr+fraud&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.3731j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Also, as you read this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ it is clear that Lancet was slow in retracting (12 years) and only published a small short paragraph --Akrasia25 (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lancet may have been slow, but we can't imply the committed fraud without RS that say so, I think the current title is misleading. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You think Brinks Mat were implicitly responsible for the Brinks Mat robbery? Guy (Help!) 12:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Made clear in the lede where the findings of fraud came from. Dallas66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Brinks Mat robbery" implies that Brinks Mat were the victims, eg "the robbery of Brinks Mat" meaning Brinks Mat were robbed. Lancet MMR autism fraud sounds like the lancet committed fraud, eg "MMR-autism fraud committed by Lancet". 14:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And the phrase Lancet MMR autism fraud implies that this was a fraud on the Lancet. There is an obvious alternative: Andrew Wakefield MMR autism fraud. I prefer that, but this is less problematic per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer MMR-autism hoax, but I am not convinced that Andrew Wakefield MMR autism fraud is a BLP vio, since it is well established that he published a fraudulent study. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MMR autism hoax is not specific, there have been others (e.g. the Hooker fraud). Guy (Help!) 16:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, what about Andrew Wakefield MMR autism fraud violates BLP? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wakefield is alive and well and spreading his bullshit. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But why is it a BLP vio to accuse him of something many reliable sources establish that he did? (If I am misunderstanding WP:BLP let me know.) Tornado chaser (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Other types of fraud" section seems to be mostly Original Research, I'm not sure how much of this we can really keep.
Firstly, I'd like to THANK YOU for what appears to be a GREAT (and well researched it appears) addition to this article! Thank you for building this!!!

One thing we have to be careful about in Wikipedia is not including Original Research WP:OR.

The paragraphs in the "Other types of fraud" sections: while well explained and accurate as far as my knowledge of criminal and civil fraud; the OPINIONS of whether Wakefield could be held accountable under those laws is not referenced. Are these your opinions, or do we have a source for these paragraphs? Thanks --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noting the research -- it was a bit of work. I think it is important in setting the record straight that people be able to refer to the primary sources. I removed those parts of that section which refer to what type of fraud claims might be pursued. The statement that Wakefield was not pursued for other types of fraud appears clean given there are no references which can be found to any such action. The explanations of the types of fraud are standard and cited and help to clarify the general use when people say "Wakefield committed fraud" and help distinguish his scientific fraud from that. Can remove that whole Other Types of Fraud section if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNSteinmetz (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great now!! I agree with your points about scientific fraud, (accountability being scientific community rejection/doctor's license removal) and criminal and civil fraud.  Thanks again!!!  Great addition! --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But after this comment all of this detail was deleted! I’m sorry but the editing here strikes me as nonsensical and tedious in the extreme. I am rather well qualified to perform this type of investigation and have published extensively on biomedical topics in high profile journals. I also spent quite a few hours figuring out the actual facts from primary sources. I give up and now Wikipedia loses a knowledgeable contributor. Instead you can revert to your amateur editing and interpretations based on secondary and tertiary sources. I will simply post it as was on my own website. And now will wonder about the quality of Wikipedia articles more. PeterNSteinmetz (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What you have developed from primary sources would be great for your own website or an article in some magazine or newspaper, but we can't use it here as is, directly from your hand. That's not what editors are allowed to do here. Only after it's published in an independent RS, such as that magazine or newspaper, can we then use them as our secondary sources. We can't accept it directly from you. That's what we call "original research". -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well it is good to understand the restrictions, thanks. I guess you can see how this certainly discourages contributions from those who actually do write at a professional level on a topic, but if those are the policies, that’s that. I tend to have little interest personally in aggregation of secondary sources and focus on getting to the underlying data and facts, but that is evidently not a good fit here. I imagine others who work professionally in an area are in the same boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNSteinmetz (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, the policy exists to solve the problem of disputes over what claimed "fact" is true. Anyone can believe they "know" some fact, but without some method of determining who is correct, any dispute as to the accuracy of content would be extremely time and resource intense to solve.  The easy solution is that if the scientific community accepts something as fact, than it should be (relatively) easy to find a source stating such.  So arguments between (potentially equally intelligent and rational) editors can be resolved based on what the sources say.


 * from: WP:FLAT --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the thing to bear in mind is that (a) we're not qualified to judge who really is an expert and (b) some experts, as you undoubtedly must know, get bees in their bonnets and promote fringe theories. Should we allow Luc Montagnier, a Nobel laureate, to edit our article on homeopathy? or Brian Josephson to add his belief on parapsychology as fact to articles?


 * We definitely value the contributions of experts. But we're not allowed to be a publisher of original thought, because that would place us (non-experts) in the position of being arbiters of Truth.
 * Bear in mind that most of us here are completely sympathetic to your thesis of fraud. In fact it was I who named the article with "fraud" in the title. Guy (help!) 08:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know of many renowned subject matter experts editing here, most of whom do it anonymously (and we protect their right to do so): Nobel laureates, a president of a nation's medical association, many physicians and researchers, top journalists, etc. If you choose to help us here, you'll learn a whole lot. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have prepared the first archive page and placed a link to the draft sub-page in the box. Editors may find this study of primary sources to be interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * So does this mean I can research an article about all this and have it published on Wikipedia in the say that editor PeterNSteinmetz has now succeeded in doing? Has anybody checked whether what he says is true? I can see mistakes even from the little I know about it. And yet it's now indexed by Google as a Wikipedia research resource. Can anti-vaxx campaigners give their slant, and have them published also? I think (talk) needs to explain why he's done this Dallas66 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , BullRangifer put it in an archive because it has interesrting sources. It's not going into Wikipedia because it's a novel synthesis. Guy (help!) 21:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right. It is a subpage to this talk page, not to the article. It is not "published" by Wikipedia. It's unacceptable OR and SYNTHESIS, but it's still interesting. It's quite possible to find interesting details in primary sources, which spur one to then try to find them in secondary sources and use those sources.
 * Peter made a common beginner mistake, and his proposal was rejected. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got tp say I'm having a hard time figuring out what's going on here. The whole thing about the Wakefield fraud is it was discovered and published by the London Times in a news investigation. The British Medical Journal editorial says exactly that: that it was this guy Deer from outside medicine who got the story. So the primary sources would be the data he got and published ina whole bumch of reports. It's like here there's some kind of fear of that, like there's an agenda going down to make it look different. Dallas66 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The material I had originally submitted and was determined to be a novel synthesis has now been published in the Skeptical Inquirer. https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/the-scientific-frauds-underlying-the-false-mmr-vaccine-autism-link/ My understanding is that this is considered a "reliable source" in Wikipedia-speak, so I gather you all can now directly cite it here if you wish. PeterNSteinmetz (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Here may be the snag Peter. That Wakefield's study was fraudulent was discovered in a newspaper/medical journal investigation by Brian Deer, and you are going over his findings again, but with no new sources or findings. Your sources in your article (which seem to be cited on Wikipedia already, either here or at Andrew Wakefield) are his journalism, editorials and anaylses published with that or developments from it - e.g. judge Mitting on the British Medical Council case, which, again, was held in response to the journalist's invetigation. So it could get misleading to give a sense there's additional evidence. The referencing becomes circular. Dallas66 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, Dallas66, my article was intended to pull together the specific frauds in a very concrete way, which has not been easily accessible before, and to point readers at the original sources that they can check themselves. Believe it or not, there are still anti-vaxxers out there who think that this was all a setup of Wakefield by big pharma. My intention was to make it easy for people to simply go and check the primary sources, the things which Deer reported on, in a simple and readily accessible way. No reason to rely on Deer for most of this.


 * The main original sources which I cite are NOT Deer's articles (because those are secondary) but rather the original research publications, the MRC transcripts (which were not even presently available on the web -- I had to put them back up), etc. Of 22 sources cited in my article, only 3 are to Deer, for cases where his articles are the only readily available statement of that data.


 * I think some of those original sources are references in a more sporadic way through the current wording of this article, but not tied to the specific frauds in the original paper. I think incorporating that and laying it out more specifically in that way so that anyone can check would be a good thing for the Wikipedia article to do, but I am frankly too tired by all this picking on this rule or that rule to spend any time on it.


 * Honestly this criticism illustrates a point I had made earlier and is illustrated in the statements above; namely, there is a problem with the way Wikipedia treats attempts at pulling things together. I originally posted my article on Wikipedia, thinking it was just pulling together the original sources and providing references to them, but was told it was too much or an original synthesis, so couldn't be included (see above). Now that it is published in a reliable source, it is criticized as being not original enough. Perhaps in some sense we are both struggling with this intermediate area and how Wikipedia treats such things. PeterNSteinmetz (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

General cleanup
As you can see, I have tried to sort this page out, but I have not changed the content, apart from removals of repetitions which seem to be inherited from a past effort to split this topic from the general MMR-autism thing. I have also made a few small adjustments based mostly on facts in the Deer book, and added a quote from the British medical journal editorial. I am fairly confident that nothing has been lost. If you think you may have found something, please check for the same point in different words, as this had lots of repetitions. The main thing is that hopefully it is now in a logical order. Dreamwoven (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC) It may help to read the article first so as to check it all makes sense, so as to get an idea of the reordering, before checking the edits. Dreamwoven (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Overall, my impression this is a good restructuring and clearer. PeterNSteinmetz (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"the MRSA hoax"?
So there seems to have been a press scandal involving a person named Chris Malyszewicz at some point in the UK. Unfortunately the Bad Science article has no sources or even the year when this happened, the MRSA article doesn't mention the scandal at all, and Malyszewicz is otherwise unknown to Wikipedia. Mentioning "the MRSA hoax" without any explanation or source invites the interpretation that Goldacre thinks MRSA itself is a hoax. I haven't read his book and can't say if he does. Clarification needed.--2A02:8071:81C4:9A00:1CBB:E933:73FA:4344 (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Still confusing
Tried to eliminate some of the passages that repeat the same points, but my wikipedia skills are not entirely up to it. I think one of the main confusions is the mixing together of the MMR vaccine general issues with this fraud. If I get time I will try to see how much of the MMR controversy paragraphs are covered with the references in the MMR controversy page. If it's all there it might be useful to shorten that here.SallyStAustell (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Autism comments
"There is no biological plausibility for vaccines to cause autism as autism is not an immune mediated disease.

I deleted this peculiar sentence above for several reasons. The reference is an opinion/review article, not proof of the statement (the cited reference doesn't say there is no biological plausibility on these grounds, but only argues a case regarding immunity); this wikipage is about the lancet fraud, not whether MMR causes autism, which is a different wikipage; also autism is not a "disease." The editor might want to transfer this idea to the MMR/autism page, but I don't think it belongs on this page, which is about the lancet report and what followed. Dreamwoven (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Introduction clean-up
Throws the reader and adds no value or meaning to keep repeating 'fraudulent' 'false' and so on in the introduction, and the paper does not claim a causative link was found - only that it appeared to have been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sledgehamming (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Also, it is clear he's deregistered and discredited because it says the paper was withdrawn and he lost his license.Sledgehamming (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagreed with your assessment that the word "fraudulent" adds no value to the reader. The point of the lede is to show the summary of the article, and it is very clear that fraud is committed on this matter, and in my opinion it should be made clear in the lede. The fact that Andrew Wakefield is now discredited and deregistered is also a prominent fact, and should as well be placed on the lede. Per WP:BRD I will revert your changes to the status quo version and we can discuss from that point. Thank you.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   16:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that you have made something like 70 or 80 edits today. Could I politely ask you to take time out to see that the word "fraud" is in the lede, twice, and once again in the title of the article. Sp isthe word 'fraudulent'. I am leaving discredited, but I am also reverting the question of causal statements. If you take time out from your editing to check the paper, you will see that it does not make a causal statement, but actually nuances that, acknowleding that no proof had been established. Please respect other editor's contributions, in addition to the doubtless valuable contributions you make.Sledgehamming (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC) I would add that it might sometimes be better to take a rest from drive-by reversions, and think not from your opinions, but from expressing information in an accurate and economical manner. Keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it more accurate, or helpful to readers, I would suggest.Sledgehamming (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no justification for a clean-up of a well crafted, policy compliant lead, which has existed more or less the same for quite some time, and has been watched by some very experienced editors. Also, I have made about twenty edits today, (so far), just wanted to save you the trouble. I'm nice that way. Roxy the bad tempered dog 20:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course we should call a proven fraud a fraud, but consider that repeating it so many times has the effect of making the prose appear dogmatic, which can have the opposite effect on the WP:READER. BBQboffin (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Three is many? Not much room betwen zero and three for "too few" and "exactly right".
 * It seems you are following me around. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Danger of ranting
This article needs to stay close to a dispassionate, factual, style. Adding angry emotional denunciations, repeating over and over 'fraud,' 'fraudulent,' 'nonexistent,' 'discredited and deregistered' 'the fraud centered... on a fraudulent' etc etc is v counter-productive and achieves the opposite of what's intended. Various editors have noted this. Sledgehamming (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Various editors have noted the opposite. Stop edit-warring. It's WP:BRD. Discuss after the first revert instead of reverting the revert. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * To me, that paragraph and a lot else over vaccines on Wikipedia reads like the rantings of a hate group, not dispassionate encyclopedic information.Sledgehamming (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, then we know what you think. No consensus for that, though. Now stop edit warring Jeppiz (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sledgehamming, it's hard to emphasize Wakefield's "fraud" too much as that's what RS do. There is universal acceptance that he is one of the greatest medical frauds in history. Wakefield's supposed "link" between MMR and autism works like this: These children were not a properly selected group for any legitimate study. Lawyers for a group of parents who wanted to blame someone for their child's autism worked with Wakefield to discredit the MMR vaccine and make a lot of money. It also would then enable him to market a vaccine he was developing as a replacement, with an unfathomable profit for himself. He would have become a billionaire.

There was nothing scientifically valid about this "identified association" or the candidate selection process. Wakefield, as a scientifically trained physician, knew that association does not prove causation, and that experiments should include blinding and control groups, yet he placed his own financial interests ahead of his ethical obligations. The claimed link was indeed "not a hypothesis" but a fraudulent claim that he continues to perpetuate to this day. In the beginning, he could have claimed to have misunderstood things and made mistakes, but instead he doubled down on his deception, described as an "elaborate fraud". Wakefield is listed among the Great Science Frauds. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre's 'support' for Wakefield
On 5 August 2021, User SallyStAustell edited the article to add the subsection 'Support for Wakefield'. Along with Melanie Phillips, SallyStAustell twice quotes Ben Goldacre, but takes him out of context (apparent if the linked articles are read in full):

https://www.badscience.net/2005/09/dont-dumb-me-down/

https://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

At times tongue-in-cheek, both articles were published originally by The Guardian, 'Don't Dumb Me Down' (8 September 2005) and 'The MMR Hoax' (30 August 2008), retitled 'The Media's MMR Hoax' on Goldacre's website.

Why do I mention this? Because in 2003, Goldacre had already voiced his scepticism of any link between the MMR vaccine and autism in his article 'Never Mind the Facts' (The Guardian, 11 December 2003) https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/dec/11/science.highereducation.

That's almost two years before SallyStAustell's first citation, and almost five years before the second. Far from being specifically supportive of Wakefield, both articles detail Goldacre's disdain for how the supposed MMR vaccine-autism link was reported in the media. The quotes referring to Wakefield are merely asides.

Goldacre has been critical also of others who still purvey this misinformation, namely Melanie Phillips, in his article 'The MMR sceptic who just doesn't understand science' (The Guardian, 2 November 2005) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/nov/02/health.science.

In other words, if Goldacre was already unconvinced by the paper's findings (as published by The Lancet), and if Goldacre was critical of people (non-scientists especially) who still insisted the findings were correct, how was he ever supportive of Wakefield whose findings they were?

Hence my removing Goldacre's name and his out-of-context quotes from the 'Support for Wakefield' subsection. 78.150.12.79 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is totally wrong. The claims by Dr Goldacre that the vaccine crisis was all a media hoax were blown apart by the Times investigation. Goldacre said exactly what Wikipedia said. He defended Wakefield and criticised the newspaper that exposed him. Its incredible censorship to remove this important information. Its nothing to do with Goldacre's views about Mmr or whether Goldacre was 'unconvinced' by Wakefield's paper. He said it was a 'perfectly good' study and condemned journalists for reporting it. This wikipedia article is about fraud exposed by the media. This looks to me like a cover up of how the medical establishment protects its own. Sallystaustell's entry is perfectly accurate and in context. 82.27.240.189 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At the time, he did call it a perfectly good small case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more than that because he did not know about Wakefield's multiple undeclared conflicts (money from lawyer who wanted exactly this result, patent for his own measles vaccine) or about the hand-picking of test subjects (children of people the lawyer worked for) or about the faking of the time differences.
 * So, at the time, the worst part he knew of was the blowing up of a tiny amount of data to a definitive finding. Now, everybody knows that there were even worse aspects. It is disingenious to emphasize a side comment made by someone who had only little facts at the time. The deletion is correct. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the interests of fulfilling our duty to document the sum of all human knowledge as found in RS, we should still mention this, but not necessarily in this article. It deserves a one- or two-sentence mention in Goldacre's article, something like "Before learning the details that confirmed Andrew Wakefield's duplicity, Goldacre defended him." -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't disagree with that, but it certainly doesn't belong here, especially in the form that it was written. Black Kite (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia article, 'Public understanding of the claims sharply changed in February 2004'. In December 2003, Goldacre had already voiced his scepticism of Wakefield's findings. That's three months before. Likewise, the quote being used to 'confirm' Goldacre's support


 * 'The paper always was and still remains a perfectly good small case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more than that, by media that are incapable of interpreting and reporting scientific data.'


 * was first published in September 2005. That's almost two years after Goldacre pooh-poohed Wakefield's findings. There is no 'At the time, he did call it' because Goldacre had already cried 'Bullshit'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6B6B:E881:0:C88D:4089:40AC:F1C2 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many things wrong with Wakefield's study. Some of them were immediately recognized by experts like Goldacre (and by people who only knew very little, because they were so obvious), such as the small number of subjects. You cannot base such extraordinary conclusions on twelve data points. So, In December 2003, Goldacre had already voiced his scepticism of Wakefield's findings. But as a small case series, it seemed OK to him.
 * Other problems were uncovered later by Deer. After that, Goldacre would not even have called it a perfectly good small case series report. Clear now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Some good may have come out of it.
After making the topic a hot potato that few would touch some 40+ researchers have taken the trouble to investigate the idea of a link of some sort between autism and the gut microbiome and have come away convinced.

Andrews research may have been inadequate to draw conclusions but the correlation does seems to be there.

Multi-level analysis of the gut-brain axis shows autism spectrum disorder-associated molecular and microbial profiles Idyllic press (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been multiple previous papers speculating a connection between autism and the gut microbiome; however, Wakefield's paper was found to have falsified both the links between MMR and colitis and between MMR and autism; therefore any such studies are irrelevant to this article. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Terrible article
The article is long and poorly written, and the lede doesn't contain a proper summary of why it was determined to be 'fraud' as opposed to him simply having a conflict of interest or conducting shoddy research. No one is going to read this full article to determine what the nature of the fraud is.

Seriously, read the lede. It is almost completely devoid of content. All it says is "bad man did bad thing and got punished". If he had a conflict of interest, faked ethical consent, manipulated data, misinterpreted his results, etc. (as suggested in the "Newspaper investigation" section), that belongs in the lede. But it appears from reading the article that not all of these allegations have been substantiated (e.g., by court findings)? For example, the "Manipulation of data" subsection doesn't seem to reach a conclusion on whether he actually manipulated data or not. Since the article is also called 'autism fraud ', not 'autism scandal ', the lede also needs to explain how it was determined that it was intentional. (Also, why is there a "Newspaper investigation" section? Shouldn't the section be dedicated to his actual malfeasance, not to a series of newspaper articles?)

The GMC subsection says: "Wakefield was found to have acted 'dishonestly and irresponsibly' and to have acted with 'callous disregard' for the children involved in his study, conducting unnecessary and invasive tests." If you're going to write an article that calls this fraud, as opposed to scandal, then the finding of the GMC that got him deregistered should be front and centre and properly explained in the lede. Why exactly did they find this?

The lede should describe the allegations, which ones have been substantiated (by GMC, etc.), which ones actually constitute fraud (i.e., intentionality) as opposed to shoddy research. A conflict of interest by itself isn't fraud, but faking ethical consent and manipulating data would be.

Bueller 007 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a first step, I added a rough description to the lede of what was wrong about the paper. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

What does this mean?
Would someone please punctuate this or reword it to make it unambiguous and clear?

Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging some who have participated above:, , , -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I got no response, so I studied it and figured out the likely intent. I then revised the wording and hope that resolves the matter. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)