Talk:MMR vaccine and autism/Archive 2

Role of BMJ in para 1
Does not seem appropriate to characterise reporting by BMJ as a "declaration" because of the following:

1. This implies a regulatory / judicial role, which is inconsistent with the role of the BMJ as a commercial medical journal. 2. The article cited is editorial opinion piece and is marked as such. One author has a wider regulatory role but their views are marked as personal in conflict of interest section. 3. It is not usual for the BMJ to comment (with bad grace) on the work of or within other journals, e.g. Showalter, Comment on BMJ 1999;319:1603, it would be a stretch to infer that the BMJ has some special moral authority in this regard 4. BMJ and Lancet frequently come to different and occasionally opposing conclusions e.g respectvie meta analysis in LMWH and periop thrombosis in 1992

Some confusion over preceding edit and subsequent 2 'undos'. Setting up a medical journal (BMJ or Lancet) as an impartial unimpeachable source is what caused the whole MMR mess in the first place. Would be ironic if the same mistake is made in this article. 92.16.50.16 (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Movement of BMJ report out of the lead is inappropriate, as their assessment in 2011 is an important part of this controversy (so it deserves mention in the lead). It is also not appropriate to move to the "Media" section, as this is not a "media" related issue, but a scientific one. The IP needs to read WP:BRD and stop edit warring. Yobol (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree that BMJ have a neutral standpoint (see points 3 and 4 above). In addition, Godlee et al BMJ 2011;342:d1678 failed to properly address conflicts of interest in their editorial. The issue not scientific but legal / authoritative. Allegations / Evidence of fraud should ideally be referenced to GMC / NICE / Lancet investigation.

Why are we suggesting "the BMJ says fraud" instead of "there was fraud[ref #] or more properly "some commentators alleged fraud" ? Is it because the BMJ is involved in the research / regulates the research or because we think that the authority of the BMJ as an institution lends weight to our statement. The latter is flawed and dangerous.92.16.50.16 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for "points 3 and 4" or is this just your opinion/WP:OR? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Points #3 and #4 are irrelevant to the discussion of whether BMJ is a reliable source for this content. The IP seems to be suggesting that BMJ is not a reliable source for said content as a scientific matter due to perceived differences or COI issues. I see no reason from the above discussion to suggest BMJ is not reliable for said content, only rather extraneous material unrelated to this topic. Yobol (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly ! In a nutshell, the BMJ is widely read and has a strong reputation but the opportunity to take a pot shot at a rival and some would say more prestigious publication is not beneath them. As a source it's an editorial with a grudge and flawed COI and so I think it qualifies as a "statement of opinion". I would suggest the term fraud be used earlier in the paragraph and BMJ article cited in the usual way at the end of the sentence. If someone can find a sentence on fraud in the GMC verdict, that would be preferable, otherwise I do not think BMJ and GMC should be used in the same or adjoining sentencse as this will (intentionally or not) confuse lay readers.

Sources: Point 3: Showalter, Comment on BMJ 1999;319:1603 Point 4: “Low molecular weight heparins seem to have a higher benefit to risk ratio than unfractionated heparin in preventing perioperative thrombosis” Leizorovicz A et al. BMJ 1992 VERSUS “There is no convincing evidence that in general surgery patients LMWHs, compared with standard heparin, generate a clinically important improvement in the benefit to risk ratio” Nurmohamed et al. Lancet 1992 Point 5: Conflict of interest correction within article, Godlee et al. BMJ 2011;342:d1678

KR Nernst 92.16.50.16 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempts to portray this as a dispute between the BMJ and Lancet is utterly unconvincing. Yobol (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the BMJ contribution is a relevant part of the history of the controversy and, as such, is appropriately weighted. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not cite the original Deer article instead ? Would that not make more sense ? http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

92.16.50.16 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility and it wouldn't be the first time. In any case Godlee et al were careless in getting their COI wrong first time round but that's not really the point. The point is 1. the BMJ has an important and prominent role in presenting research, opinion and digested guidance NOT regulation or arbitration 2. Articles in medical journals should be critically appraised and presented in context. This article has no right to criticise the media if it's authors fail to adhere to this. Nernst92.16.50.16 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Rather depends on one's view of the editorial role of medical journals (eg ), I suppose. The editorial in question concludes, We [ie the BMJ] hope that declaring the paper a fraud will close that door for good. Imo, it's appropriate to mention both Deer and the BMJ in the sentence -- something I've tried to do in this edit . —MistyMorn (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Great edits but it still feels a little heavy/clumsy. Regretting trying to tweak it as suspect we'll end up full circle. Fantastic reference as well (you're wasted on medicine). Favourite part was the quote from the first Lancet editor: "we shall exclude from our pages the semibarbarous phraseology of the Schools[of medicine], and adopt as its substitute, plain English diction". Perhaps, it is worth taking a fresh look at tomorrow; many don't go beyond the introduction and elegance here may be as crucial as precision and clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.50.16 (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

When I first read the article, the term 'BMJ declared fraud' seemed to stand out at me. Initially I thought the BMJ were pontificating again but re-reading the editorial and Deer article added some clarity. Deer's article alleges that Wakefield fabricated his data, and the corresponding editorial states that since the GMC haven't reported this as fraud, the BMJ will say "J'accuse". No legal authority has found Wakefield guilty of fraud and he attempted to sue channel 4 over similar allegations so it's not a stretch to say that this could be libelous. I would guess that the BMJ lawyers thought this was defensible through fair comment, especially since the C4 suit failed. Deer's article in November (BMJ 2011;343:d6823)pointed out miscommunication between wakefield and the lab. It could therefore be argued that the paper was an error instead of a fraud, weakening the fair comment defense. I have changed the article accordingly.2.98.182.152 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gain consensus before making such major changes. What is the point of your changes? I think your changes obfuscate what Deer did. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing potentially libelous comments is the main point. Maintaining readability and consistency are others. I think the changes clarify what Deer did 2.98.182.152 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're not the judge of libel. Everything is supported by WP:RS. And keep your comments about these edits off my talk page. We discuss these edits here, not all over Wikipedia. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither are you or the BMJ. I'm afraid you need a court for that. And why did you put " If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page" in your original message if you did't want anything on your talk page !? 2.98.182.152 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know everyone has me pegged as a kitten hating vaccine denier but can we please all read the page on libel before releasing our itchy trigger fingers over the 'undo' button. If it's a reliable source that's fine, we can report that a reliable source has made a libelous comment. We can't make libelous comments on wikipedia. It's irritating I know. Sorry about that. 2.98.182.152 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * These are serious accusations you're making here. Have you read WP:LEGAL? —MistyMorn (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure have and i'm NOT making a legal threat but am happy to remind everyone that "it is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" WP:LIBEL. I thought we were making progress with the best edits coming from MistyMorn. I'm not sure why we're now focused on the 'revert' button instead of the text !?2.98.182.152 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As I read it, fraud is being used for its common-sense, widely understood definition to refer to acts of deceit for personal gain or aggrandizement – as a synonym for, perhaps, charlatan – rather than as part of an accusation of a specific criminal offense.  Given the spectacular failure of Wakefield's 2005/6 libel suit in the UK (in which he not only failed to recover damages, but was required to pay Deer's legal fees) and the speedy failure of Wakefield's 2012 libel suit in Texas, it seems that the BMJ and Brian Deer have a reasonable legal clue.  It seems reasonable, in this instance, to use the exact word choices of a reliable source – in this case, the BMJ – in our article precisely to avoid the risk of introducing incorrect or even libelous material. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the geolocation of the OP of the editor who started this thread and the current edit warrior. This is getting out of hand. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the BMJ editorial specifically refers to Scientific fraud as defined by Office of Research Integrity in the United States. It further states that it's purposes in accusing Wakefield is to make up for the failure of the GMC to do so. The inference of criminality is clear. The previous libel actions sadly did not go to trial and without a judicial or even regulatory verdict it does give us the right to say what we like. The subsequent edit is more precise than the former and uses a more specific quote from the article, and if anything enhances the accusation. Why is everyone so angry tonight ??!! I agree it's all nuts !2.98.182.152 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I note that removing potentially defamatory material is one of the excemptions to the 3 RR rule. I don't think it should come to that so does anyone know how to ask the "Admins" for help with this ? 2.98.182.152 (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by others, this doesn't look like libelous claim. The exception to the 3RR rule certainly does not apply.--McSly (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On what basis ??? "It is the communication ... implied to be factual, that may give an individual, ... a negative or inferior image". I'm not particularly keen to break the 3RR rule either. Can we PLEASE ask someone neutral / experienced for help with this or at least tell me how it's done ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution requested. Can we please focus on the text of the article instead of reverting. A critique of my last edit and suggestion for an alternative would be a good start2.98.182.152 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did do you keep reverting after you'd been warned about WP:3RR? CityOfSilver 23:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it's an important point and MMR wouldn't have happened if people stood up for integrity ! I never in my life thought i'd be defending Wakefield but you can't call someone a fraudster / paedophile / chicken rustler without PROOF ! There is strong evidence, strong inference but a judge / jury of peers of Wakefield has not said he deliberately falsified data. We can say everything up to that point but we can't put words in a judges mouth because we don't like Wakefield and don't think he's been vilified enough.2.98.182.152 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 (talk)
 * The sources appear to be reliable. If there are reliable sources backing up negative claims about a living person, those claims are allowed.  City O f  Silver  23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tried for a compromise edit, hopefully all here can live with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was terrible, weasel worded edit that indicated you hadn't even read the citation. It says that Wakefield committed a FRAUD. Our article on Andrew Wakefield says he committed a fraud. I changed it fraudulent, which is the same thing, because that's what the freaking source says. Why are you so afraid of a sock puppet anonymous IP who fake threats legal action? I can provide dozens of more sources to both articles, including Time magazine which calls Andrew Wakefield's activities one of the Scientific Frauds of the century or something similar. Wikipedia's lame ass is protected from legal action, because we editors have done our jobs, and actually looked up these articles. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, definite weasel. Where is that in the source? Please elaborate how it is an accurate portrayal of the source. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It was actually a good first step. I don't mind debating the point and if i'm wrong then leave it at declare. Darkness Shines and MistyMorn are the only ones to look at the words and try to come up with something better. No one's making or is afraid of legal threats but all of us are mindful of making the same mistake as Wakefield. You're twisting the facts to suit your own purposes. How are you different from him ? (User name is Nernst, I hope that's helpful though I don't see how. I try my best when I have time but I don't edit often and rarely bother to log in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is an editorial, it is not more than an Op-Ed, which you guys are using for statements of fact, which is contrary to policy. So I would suggest you quickly come up wit han alternative or I will have to revert you per WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat of an edit war? Because as best as I can see, the article is fully sourced, and has been for months. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS, a publication in a peer-reviewed publication, such as the British Medical Journal, trumps your opinion Darkness Shines, by a lot. By a WHOLE lot. You have nothing to stand on to delete that citation, our referring to it, and our verbiage. Lucky for us, we get to stand on principles like WP:MEDRS, and not your opinion. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a threat to adhere to policy. Editorials may not be used for statements of fact, which is what the article currently is doing, so either change it or I will. Simple really. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't think it's reliable, take it to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets just leave it. I don't think it's about the article any more. We can always look at it another day when everyone is calmer 2.98.182.152 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly reliable for the opinions of it;s authors and that is it. Stop trying to change the subject, the source is an editorial an as such may not be used for statements of fact per WP:RS. That is policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where? This isn't a WP:NEWSORG. This is a journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter where it is printed, it is still opinion. However I am more than happy with the compromise made by MistyMorn, are you guys? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but what they are describing isn't opinion, even if it is an letter from the editor; they are reliable for the claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's not opinion please cite exact source and quote, else, see next section. KR Nernst (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Good efforts all round with special thanks to MistyMorn and Darkness Shines but I suspect the lack of progress is my fault for raising the temperature. Lets start again, try BDR and if consensus lacking choose a noticeboard based on what everyone thinks the issue is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.162.45 (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of Fraud
Briefly, sequence was as follows
 * 1. Wakefield publishes Lancet paper based on erroneous or fabricated data while pocketing legal fees and patenting a vaccine that exploits uncetainty
 * 2. Deer interviews parents of study participants and reports major discrepancies with Wakefield's paper, also finds financial irregularities
 * 3. Wakefield's view unsupported by subsequent research, GMC stike off Wakefield citing study protocol issues.
 * 4. BMJ publishes editorial "declaring" deliberate fraud based on inconsistencies identified by Deer and strong financial conflict of interest. BMJ cite failure of GMC to convict Wakefield of fraud as the prime reason for their allegations.

Q&A
 * Is the source reliable ? Yes, the BMJ is respected peer reviewed journal. It has a longstanding rivalry with the Lancet but the issue is serious enough for the editors to know better than to play politics.
 * Is the article suitable? Probably not, it's written by 3 senior editors but is an editorial and still qualifies as opinion. The primary source (Deer's article) is far more general in it's allegations of fraud.
 * Is the allegation potentially libelous ? Yes. The editorial is clear in it's assertion that Wakefield deliberately falsified data. A subsequent Deer article examining the pathology reports in the paper showed confusion over the terminology rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead (BMJ 2011;343:d6823.)
 * Could Wakefield sue ? No, he already has 2 failed libel actions and his strongest defense would be incompetence rather than deliberate falsification. The BMJ were banking on this when they published.
 * So why does it matter ? At its heart MMR was about a willingness to distort facts to fit a pattern. This is no different. We can say there is evidence of fraud, fraud is highly likely or many senior scientist say he is fraudulent but we can't say " he IS fraudulent " without a judge / regulator verdict. The BMJ don't play to the same standard as a judge / regulator and neither do we so are not entitled to make the same sorts of calls. This is not an article where we can afford to screw up on integrity.

Suggest another editor kicks off BDR. Will have another look tomorrow

KR Nernst78.144.162.45 (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles that may be useful as part of the discussion include WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RS, WP:RSOPINION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.162.45 (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nernst, surely you mean WP:BRD when you type "BDR". You continue to demonstrate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia process.  "BRD" does not end each day when the 3RR is exhausted and must be renewed each day with a new revert.  You have already 'kicked off BRD'.  You kicked it of 3 days ago with your first edit to the article in this area.  The "D"iscussion part of BRD is now still continuing here on the Talk page.  We now need to discuss without reverting.  There is no justification at this time for you to revert the article.      13:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine, what are your thoughts on the topic, Zad68 ?Nernst (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

IP editor warned about 3RR
I have left an "official" warning about the 3RR but it is clear they already know about it. 22:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They apparently ignored it. Why do we let these IP's just get away with stuff? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor is and he has now been editing in this area under 3 different IPs.  WP:EWN case has been opened and has been updated with information about the IPs Nernst has been using.  We'll see what happens now.    13:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done Colombo, I don't really see what the fuss is about since I've been using the same computer at the same physical address each time and stated on 2 or 3 occasions that it's the same person, to avoid confusion. I'm not savvy enough to change IPs myself, I presume the routers is doing that for me. If it's helpful and really means that much to you i'll stay logged in and transfer the talk comments to my talk page but I really don't see what difference it makes. I'm not on here often enough to worry what people think of me and I think the suggestions should be examined objectively, irrespective of 'whose gang we're in'. Any chance you could now use that incisive detective mind to suggest some edits ? Cheers Nernst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.145.216 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Research
Would someone please explain why you continue to delete the following text from the research section: "Through a meta-analysis of primary studies, Hobson, Mateu, and Coryn (2012) concluded "...although the odds of [autism spectrum disorder (ASD)] attributable to receiving or not receiving an [measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)] vaccination are not statistically equivalent, the odds of ASD diagnoses are, however, substantially smaller for those receiving an MMR vaccination than for those who do not" (p. 10) . Based on seven independent effect sizes, the OR = 0.25 (95% CI, LL = 0.09, UL = 0.76) under the pooled random-effect model and the OR = 0.33 (95% CI, LL = 0.25, UL = 0.45) under the fixed-effect model ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.33.49 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a bad cite. See WP:MEDRS. The journal is not indexed in PubMed. It does not state that it is peer reviewed. It doesn't even have an impact factor. You are trying to force a citation into an above average article that is of marginal, if any, value. World Medical & Health Policy is an open access journal to publish whatever sounds good. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The journal is peer-reviewed. See http://www.bepress.com/press/38/ and http://www.psocommons.org/wmhp/about.html. The journal is indexed in the following: CAB Abstracts, PAIS International (CSA), Scopus, Social Work Abstracts, and WorldCat (http://www.psocommons.org/wmhp/about.html). The U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, also list the journal as reputable (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hsrinfo/literaturesites.html). The U.S. National Library of Medicine website stated, "HSR Information Central is not an index of all health services resources on the Web. Rather, it contains selective links representing a sample of available information. Items are selected for their quality, authority of authorship, uniqueness, and appropriateness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.33.49 (talk)


 * I share SR's concerns about citing the meta-analysis. It is very recent, in a new journal, and hasn't been cited yet as far as I can tell. We have to be very conservative in medical articles, and we try to only report conclusions that have been evaluated and put in context by independent expert authors. If this result gets cited widely or discussed in other journals or textbooks, please don't hesitate to bring it back to this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I also would not use this article as a source, mainly because it has never been cited. Also consider the journal far from the top shelf. Too low for my taste and for my understanding of MEDRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Orlady (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

MMR vaccine controversy → MMR vaccine fraud – Wakefield's paper was a fraud. There is no longer any doubt about it. While there was never a scientific controversy, now there isn't any other kind of real controversy anymore either. Using "controversy" in the title gives the anti-vax crowd way more credibility than they deserve. It's a fraud, plain and simple. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tempted Oppose. I'm OK with controversy. (13:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)} Andrew Wakefield, who was struck off the medical register, said the “British Government is entirely culpable” for the outbreak and accused officials of “putting price before children’s health” – despite a widespread consensus that it was the panic over his flawed research that led to the surge in the disease. The number of reported measles cases in the current Swansea outbreak is over 800, exceeding the 622 cases in Merseyside in 2012. Independent 13 April. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  03:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * but can't quite "Support". I hate the word "controversy" in articles at all, it's a WP:WTW, and it's even worse when it's in the article title.  I really would like to see this article named something else but I think MMR vaccine fraud puts a bit too sharp a point on it... but I can't think of anything better.    04:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The suggested change editorializes unnecessarily, in my opinion. From the opening sentence it should be crystal clear to any reader that the controversy is based on a fraud. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not editorializing. In the lede section, we have five sources behind the statement that the study was fraudulent, and another source calling it a hoax. All the reliable sources use fraud or similar words to describe this, so the word "fraud" is simply stating the facts. At this point, "controversy" is so out-dated that it's the word that's editorializing. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If we could put citations in article titles, i would agree with you. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to leave the title as it stands; there was a controversy (as Ego White Tray notes, much more a sociopolitical one than a scientific one, but a controversy nonetheless), and it does no harm to name it as such. Appropriately, we describe most aspects of the controversy in the past tense, as many of its most despicable players and effects are finally, mercifully starting to fade. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I fully agree that this was a fraud and has caused human suffering and death.SylviaStanley (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also support a move; the new title would be more neutral. bobrayner (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose; although I am sympathetic and have no problem calling the study a fraud, the MMR vaccine itself is not a fraud, nor was any fraud committed in the application of the vaccine, and I fear the proposed title implies one of those two things. Something like MMR vaccine scare or MMR vaccine research fraud would be better.  Powers T 18:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the controversy itself was not a fraud, even if it originated from reactions to a fraud. The alternatives proposed by LtPowers look good to me, specially the scare. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with LtPowers that the title implies a problem with the MMR vaccine rather than a study about the vaccine. I think "controversy" is fine in the title; it was a controversy, though not a real scientific one. Yobol (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support a move to something like MMR vaccine scandal to match five articles in and four articles in . If this article is moved, I would support a move of  to match the new name. Green Giant (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No, it was definitely a controversy. Perfectly accurate description. Whether or not the original paper was a fraud, it developed into a major controversy and still is one. The article is not just about the original paper but the controversy which developed around it. Labelling it a "fraud" would also be negatively labelling all those who honestly campaigned against the vaccine, not just because of the original paper's claims but also because of what they saw as the government trying to force something they didn't want on them (it was a much wider issue than the original paper). It's that that would be POV, not the current title, which is about the most neutral it could be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. NO, just from first glance. WP:NPOV. The was controversy, we cover history, not just today's position. The nom's argument in part fails WP:NOTADVOCACY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the critical failure in the proposed title, the vaccine was NOT a fraud. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yes Wakefield was a fraud, but the name just causes confusion; it looks like it is saying MMR is a fraud. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Documenting anti-vaccinationist activities
What is the best article here for this subject? UNICEF is doing this, and as a RS, we should be using their information. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe Vaccine controversies, though that's rather big already. Maybe Anti-vaccination activism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Litigation
Skeptical Raptor appears to have a concern about the litegation section of the article containing litigation. Much more in the spirit of wiki to discuss before making a change that is challenged than revert three times. Can he explain his case here? Cjwilky (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You've got that backwards, the onus is on you to make your case for inclusion (per WP:BRD). You were bold, it was reverted, now discuss your proposed change, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, I get that, however my original edit was definitely done several months ago, no idea how it appears as though it was done 20 May??!!
 * So we're talkning about my addition of:
 * In 2012, judges in Rimini, north-east Italy awarded the Bocca family Euros 174,000 (£140,000) after the Italian Health Ministry conceded the MMR vaccine caused autism in their nine-year-old son Valentino. Up to 100 similar cases are now being examined by Italian lawyers and experts suggest the case could lead to other families pursuing cases. 
 * Litigation is about litigation is it not? This case is very widely reported, isn't that recent, so the "Newspaper" reference irwolfie mentioned is a bit strange. What would be eligable in your opinion? Cjwilky (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All I see is a bit of churnalism amongst the usual suspects (who are unreliable for medical claims anyway) with highly speculative text and then the story fades away. WP:NOT applies. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also having trouble finding any continued coverage of this trial outside of the nutter community. It's hard to assign it any significance if it was only a flash in the pan. Searching in Italian turns up only news articles from about the same date, and then... nothing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll be applying the same editing "guideline" on the homeopathy pages and so on then? Meanwhile, there's nothing to suggest that the story was made up nor that the litigation wasn't paid - or the Skeptoid blogs would be on it like a rash. So are you saying that it didn't happen? Are you doing orginal research here? Cjwilky (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The newspaper has highly speculative claims, and with the typically false balance that the scientifically inept journalists of the UK tabloids add to make it look like there is a controversy to sell papers. There is no debate, and subsequent coverage (i.e lack there of) indicates that this was just a story that got a little splash in the newspapers because they want to appeal to their borderline illiterate demographics; it is utterly undue and not reliable for using as toilet paper. I don't think it is even reliable for the Italian health ministry claim because these papers are utterly dishonest when it comes to these issues. That is an aside from it being WP:UNDUE material per WP:NOT and having no encyclopaedic merit. There is a reason these stories tend to not be written by the science correspondents, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And Irwolfie - are you saying papers are unreliable about medical claims or litigation claims? Cjwilky (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[11] costs, and risks versus benefits,[12] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[13] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results." WP:MEDRS IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would very much like to see information on this Italian case, giving proper details, in English, fn what went on, the experts who participated, the status of the court and so forth. The longest published report in news media that I can find is in the Daily Mail, which gives a largely hearsay account, and which is a newspaper with a poor record for accuracy and integrity on this subject. Surely, if the case was important, there would be public documents and professional discussion in English - the language of science. Bluehotel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Need citation
In the intro it says, “The scientific consensus is that no evidence links the vaccine to the development of autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks.” This factoid (I don't mean that term pejoratively; I just mean “statement”) needs a citation, probably several, because scientific consensus isn't formed by the opinion of one scientist, but of many.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look through the main article: MMR_vaccine, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Japan
"Measles causes deaths in Japan while there are none in UK"
 * A 25-year old who died in Swansea in april 2013 had been suffering from measles at the time. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22215185 Ssscienccce (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just added the date of the source, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Mistake
Under section 6.1 “Disease outbreaks” #“Impact on society”, it says, “A 2008 outbreak of measles in San Diego, California cost $177,000, or $10,376 per case.” This suggests 177,000/10,376 = 17 cases. However, Rahul Parikh is then quoted describing a 2008 San Diego outbreak (must be the same one) as having “11 additional cases”, implying 12 cases altogether, including the index (initial) case. Discrepancy?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The first number ($177,000) comes from this AOL Finance article, and the quote:
 * For example, in 2008 a measles outbreak in San Diego -- the first since 1991 -- was caused by a 7-year-old boy who was intentionally unvaccinated and contracted the disease in Switzerland. In all, 839 people were exposed, and 11 other unvaccinated children were infected. The high vaccination rate in the rest of the community helped keep the outbreak from becoming an epidemic, according to research published in the journal Pediatrics. 
 * The financial toll of that single outbreak amounted to about $177,000. The cost per case was $10,376.
 * You're right that something seems funny about the math.
 * The later reference, talking about 11 additional cases is from this CNN article. The relevant quote is
 * That family exposed 839 people, resulting in 11 additional cases of measles. One child too young to be vaccinated had to be hospitalized. 
 * Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child. The total cost of the outbreak was $124,517, about $11,000 per case and substantially more for the hospitalized child. That was just in the money the county and state spent to clean the mess up, and doesn't take into the account the costs to private insurers.
 * So we have two different total numbers at hand.
 * The answer can be found by going to the original primary published source, from the journal Pediatrics; free full-text appears to be online:.
 * County and state personnel reported spending 1745 person-hours on investigation and containment efforts, producing a public-sector cost of $124 517, or $10 376 per case. Direct medical charges for the case-patients and exposed infants totaled $16 163 ($14 458 for the hospitalized infant), or $1347 per case. Quarantined families reported average direct and indirect costs of $775 per quarantined child.
 * Total outbreak costs were $176 980 (Table 1).
 * So the smaller figure of $124,000 is the cost of investigating and containing the outbreak; the larger figure of $176,000 is the cost of containment plus treatment plus quarantines. The reason why the $10,376 number shows up in both mainstream media articles is because that was the figure that both journalists copy-pasted out of the Pediatrics article.  It would probably be best to replace or supplement our article's existing references with the proper original source; I'm always leery of relying on mainstream popular press outlets for any detailed medical, health, or scientific information.  (I do however have to give reluctant props to the AOL article for actually linking directly to their source in Pediatrics.  Most news outlets don't bother to do this, and it is a royal pain in the ass.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Was there ever litigation against Wakefield?
I am wondering whether there ever was litigation against Wakefield by parents whose children were affected (death or serious effects) by measle outbreaks? If so, could this be included in the article? I guess that it would be difficult to prove a causal link in a criminal court, but surely the evidential threshold that Wakefield willingly and fraudulently caused the loss of herd immunity in many communities would be met when claiming monetary damage? Maybe this is not the case - I am not a lawyer so might just be shooting in the dark. --81.17.17.162 (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Going into WP:NOTFORUM land but... Unlikely. A court would gauge intent, including the predicable consequences as intent. Someone would have to "prove" that he's either malicious or not an idiot. That's surprisingly hard to do. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting a DA's office to bring charges against known frauds is very difficult, it often requires a political motivation. Politicians in the United Kingdom do seem to me to have a seriously vested interest in going after Wakefield criminally in a court of law to examine his motives and behavior to see if he's culpable, if only to punish what has become a serious crime that allegedly resulted in people's death, yet politically so far no U.K. politican seems to have stepped up to suggest a trial to determine criminal culpability needs to be done least the next potential suspect step forward and decide to pull the same stunt.
 * I predict it will never happen. Wakefield no longer poses a threat since he has been removed, and while there are anti-science loons that think all vaccinations are dangerous and some kind of conspiracy, it is highly unlikely that the Western, civilized world will see another Wakefield happen. (My opinions only and only my opinions.) Damotclese (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's Talk About This Please
User_talk:McSly and User_talk:ToddlerMommy1983 can we talk a bit about the proposed changes that were rolled back just a bit? I was checking the differences and there does seem to be at least some desire to present serious, Good Faith editing here to expand upon the coverage of the issues, but as was noted in the edit reversal, it would be good to discuss proposed updates to a seriously controversial article first.

If the article is missing certain testable, verifiable, falsifiable scientific facts regarding the issues, it would be good to get them included, yet only if the updates cover verifiable facts. And yes, there is some difficulty in the WP:NPOV rhetoric and terms being employed in the article, yet that is going to be impossible to rectify without damaging the scientific findings described within the article.

If there are proposed updated that an Editor wishes to fight for, let's talk about it, please. :) Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? McSly is firmly on the side of WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:VERIFY. ToddlerMommy is a fringe science pushing, anti-NPOV writer. There is absolutely NOTHING that ToddlerMommy added that meets the sniff test of NPOV and real science. NOTHING. Another reason why Wikipedia fucking sucks. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Suing the Cultists
This is interesting, the concept of suing the cultists that don't innoculate their offspring which results in harm or death to other people's children. I wonder if another section for the extant article investigating the history of past lawsuits against parents is warranted. The situation is not hypothetical, it has happened in North America and in Europe, it might be informative to enumerate some successful and some failed lawsuits filed against parents who did not vaccinate and harmed others. Damotclese (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes there is a school of thought in several Law Schools in the USA that these people, if you can't arrest them for child abuse, can be sued for harming other children. A test case may be showing up soon on the Western side of the USA. The legal brief gave me a hard-on about the possibility of ending the stupidity of anti-vaxxers. Nevertheless, why not? It's an important concept, though it may better belong in the Vaccine controversy article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat surprised that we do not already have a flood of parents suing the ever-living fuck out of other parents who put the plaintiff kids at risk, not the lest of which for medical expenses, court expenses, and punitive damages. It's a clear-cut epidemic of utter disregard for other people's health and safety, so either parents are unaware that they could and should sue, else there are federal laws which limit successful lawsuit efforts -- or perhaps there's not enough extant case law for lawyers to know that it's a financially successful endeavor to accept civil suits files by victims of "ant-vaxxers."
 * There is case law already, though, which covers previous lawsuits against parents, and it seems worthy of collecting court cases and adding a section to the article. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh: Most case law finds in favor of the injured party however financial awards are almost always for medical costs and court costs, yet because the refusal to inoculate one's own children resulting in damage or death of other children usually finds that there is no malicious intent which precludes punitive damages being awarded to the victims. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Litigation Pt2
Two court case decisions in December 2012 awarded millions of dollars for autism caused by vaccines. That needs to be included. It's a huge detail to leave excluded on an article like this. The two cases awarded money to Ryan Mojabi and Emily Moller. Following the court decisions the government and vaccine companies themselves admitted to the link between the vaccines and autism. That's another huge detail to have excluded. To not include those details would leave an extremely one-sided, obviously biased article. --ToddlerMommy1983 (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source for the claim that government and vaccine companies themselves admitted to the link between the vaccines and autism?
 * We may wish to include something about the Italian court case, but again, we need reliable sources. The three blogs you cite won't be considered reliable. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I will look for a better source for the government and vaccine company admissions. So far it appears that the court transcripts for the two cases were unpublished, however, there are documents available from the vaccine court website (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/):
 * For the Emily Moller (Lowrie) case here is the document: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELL-SMITH.LOWRIE%2010-26-2012.pdf
 * For the Ryan Mojabi case here is the document: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELL-SMITH.MOJABI-PROFFER.12.13.2012.pdf.


 * A quick examination of the offered PDF files does not support the claim that the MMR vaccination was found to be the leading cause of the children's distress. Reading the ODF we find that the children in question had previous medical conditions for which further vaccination was not recommended but which were administered anyway.
 * The court did not find that the MMR vaccination stand-alone was the cause of the children's problems, poor medical decisions were found to be the root cause. Also of primary note to the extant Wikipedia article is the fact that no medical findings were offered to even remotely suggest that the MMR vaccination was or is dangerous or that the MMR vaccination causes autism.
 * Wikipedia references must support the text, and these two proposed PDF files do not support the contention that MMR causes autism. Indeed, the two PDF files cover irrelevant court cases. Damotclese (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are other cases listed as well on the vaccine court website indicating amounts awarded to children for encephalopathy (leading to autism) caused by vaccines. The Moller and Mojabi cases are the largest amounts, both around a million dollars, but there are other cases where amounts were awarded for hundreds of thousands. Hope that helps. It's a start. I will keep looking.--ToddlerMommy1983 (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First, the Wikipedia article here is covering the extant MMR vaccinations, not all vaccinations which are used in the United States for all types of innoculations. Second, court findings are irrelevant, science decides whether something is true or not, Judges and juries have no say-so in what is true and what is not. Quoting or referencing court decisions is not relevant in text that examines scientific subjects, peer-reviewed journals are. Damotclese (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(This also is important: There is a statement by Julie Gerberding head of the CDC, on March 29, 2008, given publicly on CNN, that vaccines can at least cause symptoms similar to autism. The statement was given on Sanjay Gupta's show House Call.  Here is the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/hcsg.01.html.) --ToddlerMommy1983 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

On February 11, 2009 CBS news reported that federal officials quietly conceded the link between vaccines and autism. You can view the televised report here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/eveningnews/main3915703.shtml. --ToddlerMommy1983 (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the guidelines for reliable sources more carefully. In particular, we are looking for secondary sources which report on the issue. If it's an important topic, secondary sources are easily found. If it's not important enough to be report by reliable secondary sources, it's likely not important enough to be added to the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the reason those names (Mojabi and Moller) are circulating is because of David Kirby, a Huffington Post blogger and anti-thiomersal crusader (who would very much like to sell more copies of his not-very-good book on the topic). He wrote a rather hyperbolic blog post on HuffPost about the two cases; it has been thoroughly debunked on Respectful Insolence.  Aside from the usual  frothing in the fringe blogosphere, there seems to be no meaningful coverage of this non-story. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also note that the changes by ToddlerMommy1983 had a lot of original research and synthesis in them, compounded by the lack of reliable sources. I reverted their original edit in large part because of those issues. Hopefully they can be helped to understand what we mean by OR/RS/Synth and work on adjusting their editing. I'm going to leave a post on their talk page to see if I can start them down the Path of Righteousness. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And post left (and sheesh I can get seriously windy at times!) that will hopefully do some good. Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

TippyGoomba, did CBS news not count as a good secondary source? Did you even check the sources I gave you? I gave you original legal documents from the cases themselves. Please check the sources I just listed for you above. I am looking for better ones and I have read your sources article. I fail to see my mistake. Please explain.--ToddlerMommy1983 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, it sounds like you take a biased position on this. Remember, a lot of money from sued governments and sued vaccine companies has gone towards destroying the people standing up to them. They list a lot of research that has not found a link between vaccines and autism, but there is a lot of research in any field that failed to find the right answer...what always matters in shaping our understanding of science are the few studies that found something surprising. Because of the financial and social impact of this controversy, a lot of money was thrown behind keeping a lot of this out of major news media outlets, destroying Wakefield, and destroying bloggers like David Kirby. Perhaps it is true he made errors, perhaps not. Do you really trust paid "debunkers?" Yes, that makes it harder to find good sources, but I have found them for you. I have found televised admissions covered by CNN and CBS for you. I have found actual court documents from the Moller and Mojabi case for you. Check them out. I posted them above. I looked all night to find them for you.--ToddlerMommy1983 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire, yes, I understand your reasoning. I have found better sources and posted them above on the talk page. Please read them before slamming me. Thank you.--ToddlerMommy1983 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe when toddlermommy realizes that the government and drug companies have never said that MMR causes autism she will want to write to the anti-vax websites who peddle this tosh and explain to them that they had misled her. Bluehotel (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A decision made in a vaccine compensation court is not evidence of a link between MMR and autism. In vaccine compensation courts, temporal association can be enough to lead to an award of damages. The implication that there may be evidence that contradicts the medical authorities is misleading. The 'evidence' cited is, by its nature, not capable of contradicting the reliable, peer-reviewed research that has been published on the lack of association between MMR and autism. Roxy the dog (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Vaccine courts (hell, almost any court) employs the post hoc fallacy which is specifically deprecated by real biomedical science. ToddlerMommy needs to understand this. I'm sure she'll start telling us that the package insert is a reliable document. Don't get me laughing.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ToddlerMommy1983, legal documents are irrelevant. It is science that determines whether MMR vaccinations are dangerous, not Judges, not juries, not CBS News.
 * Also if you have a testable, verifiable, falsifiable report from any medical establishment spokesperson of any credibility which states that the MMR vaccination causes autism, trott it out here for everyone to see so we can get it added to the article under discussion, please. Damotclese (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here being conflated that should not be. The immediate question is whether the Italy court case should be covered in the article. If the answer is yes, it's an entirely separate question how it should be covered. That would depend on what the sources say. I'd wager a valid source would let science weigh in on the issue, but I've yet to see acceptable sources.
 * ToddlerMommy1983, please review WP:NOTFORUM, your 16:16, 8 August 2013 post is a clear violation. To the substantive question, the CBS article doesn't mention the Italian court case, so I'm not sure what edit you're try to use to support it. I don't see anything interesting in the CBS link so I'm curious what edit you have in mind. The remaining sources are primary sources which don't demonstrate the importance of the topic. I'll repeat again, if it's worth time in the article, it should be worth mention by secondary sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Italian court case, the CBS article, and indeed any court cases are only relevant if they mention the MMR vaccination yet even then, if references which only find in favor of the plaintiffs are offered, that's a bias since there will be court cases where the plaintiffs have lost the case.
 * If any court case mentions vaccines in general and not MMR in the specific, such references are not relevant and must not be used.
 * However if any court case or news article is used as a reference, it should only be used in the context that anti-science beliefs and ideologies, lay people making unscientific decisions about fields they are not trained in has caused the MMR vaccination controversy, and that among medical scientists working within the field there is no such controversy.
 * It's the same phenomena we see about core biology sciences, the advent of species, the modes and methods of the evolution of species. Among scientists there is no argument that evolution happens, that it is a directly-observed phenomena. Among ideology-driven, anti-science-driven ideologues, court cases have found in favor of cultists. Such is the same with MMR vaccination.
 * So any references offered for the MMR vaccine controversy must note that while courts have awarded for plaintiffs, courts have also found against, while noting that no such court and no such popular media report are in any way a matter where science found that MMR vaccinations cause autism. The science on that fact is very clear: MMR vaccinations do not. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like a reliable source and I feel it's important to report on the Italian court case in order to refute the link which is once again being drawn. Additionally, the case apparently based its decision on Wakefield's research, which makes it VERY relevant to this article. GDallimore (Talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone who was quoted in that article, I probably have a WP:COI issue but I am concerned it is an opinion piece. It isn't a "Forbes" article per se, it really is a blog post. Emily Willingham is probably one of the best pop science writers on the planet (I can't even think of a second place writer), it concerns me that it isn't a published article in a Law Review or something. But I'm only giving a slight half-hearted, barely useful objection. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering the source is consistent with the most reliable scientific sources, it does not appear to make any exceptional claims and so could be used. Personally I don't think it has much due weight, but at the very least it will stop the people peddling this fallacious nonsense about the court in Italy on this talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all ideal, but I think it's an acceptable compromise for the moment. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen to use that article as a source, for the reasons SkepticalRaptor gives: it is an opinion piece and it itself sourced to a blog (no offence SR, but a blog is a blog). WP:WEIGHT does not allow for Wikipedians to be pressured into including something. I feel this new section will just attract further additions (in the opposite direction to "balance" NPOV :-))that are themselves sourced to "science writers" opinion pieces in newspapers with no more solid foundation than the blogosphere. -- Colin°Talk 09:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But also, court cases are not reliable references when discussing the issue, even if the court cases actually focused on MMR vaccination -- which neither do. It is irrelevant what Judges or Juries in civil or criminal trials or hearings decide, the only legitimate reference suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia covering MMR effectiveness or side effects are scientific findings'. So neither reference are legitimate. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But this isn't an article on MMR effecitveness or side effects. It is on the controversy. So notable controversies, such as stupid court decisions, are on-topic, but we do need the very best sources. Colin°Talk 17:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio
This recent edit is not only poorly sourced/unsourced but large parts are taken verbatim from articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/26/dr-wakefield-vaccine-film.aspx here]. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also it is in any event not accurate, the text stated No Fraud Committed in Wakefield Study Found which is not accurate. Fraud was indeed found however being able to legally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that fraud was intended is why no fraud charges have been filed (as yet.) In order to successfully prosecute fraud, motives matter, awareness that what one has done constitutes fraud bust be evidenced. Because of this, Wakefield and his collaborators could be shown to literally actually believe what they sell and advocate to the general public, and the financial incentives for advancing the hoax would be irrelevant.
 * So the text is misleading, and as such fails to be encyclopedia which is the charter of Wikipedia. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be a bit pedantic, by definition, fraud requires intent. If you didn't intend to deceive, etc, it's not fraud. In Wakefild's case, there's actually substantial evidence that he did, in fact, commit fraud (i.e. not only was his research flawed, but he committed deceptive acts to support his claim.) There's actually a full section on the Andrew Wakefield page discussing the evidence of his acts of fraud/conflicts of interest.    Joel Why? (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I neglected to mention that it's POV bullshit, since we can dismiss it on uncontroversial technical grounds. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are indeed decisions of the Vaccine Court which have made such findings (as in the last section of the deleted materials), it should be easy enough to find reliable sources reporting this. I reviewed the link that was provided with this assertion, and it was not informative on this point. It also relates to material that is now long out of date, but presented as if it represents the current state of the legal environment. bd2412  T 20:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy
She's widely known as a proponent of the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Per her wikipedia page with a large section on this: Jenny_McCarthy

Doesn't seem like a huge gap to include a see also reference. Can the editor who reverted this explain his/her objection?Mattnad (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with her inclusion with some caveats: First, her role is spreading this BS is so major that she should be mentioned in the text of the article, which would make the see also unnecessary. Second, she should not be the only thing in the see also. Third, she shouldn't be in the see also without at least a short explanation of why. So, until she's in the text of the article, among with other entries such at Thiomersal controversy, vaccine overload and other topics, I suggest "Jenny Mccarthy, celebrity known for her anti-vaccine campaigns". Ego White Tray (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes she is certainly widely known. As well, she knows as much as a stick about the topic really, but as long as we make that clear I am fine with it.  Thanks for taking it to talk.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Mattnad (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OR?
How does WP:OR apply to all that this revert removes?

I could see removal of "yet" per SYNTH, but the whole thing per OR?

How 'bout we talk about whether any coverage of the phenomenon of continued reliance on the withdrawn study would improve the encyclopedia?--Elvey (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To put it in very simple words: the source doesn't say explicitly "Fringe "evidence-based" media continue to rely on the withdrawn study". This is a conclusion that you made yourself via your own personal study of the source. Thus, original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I consider that reply non responsive; it ignores the "all" and "whole thing" qualifiers. Compromise to be attempted.--Elvey (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Now, this edit warring. :-(  This total revert] in particular steamrolled both a compromise and an unrelated technical edit that was in no way shape or form even conceivably OR, and SandyGeorgia made no attempt to discuss it here on the talk page.  I propose a restore but w/o the "yet" that I accidentally put back. --Elvey (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , please have a look at WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, along with WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE (WP:DTTR might help also). The entire edit is original research, and gives undue weight to a non-MEDRS source. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Shouting the same thing louder doesn't help. Simply pointing me to 5 project pages doesn't help either.  AGAIN: Please engage in actual, you know, discussion.  AGAIN: Please comment on whether any coverage of the phenomenon of continued reliance on the withdrawn study would improve the encyclopedia.  AGAIN: Please address the unrelated technical edit that was in no way shape or form even conceivably OR.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 03:20, March 7, 2014


 * (ec) There are a lot of fringe pseudo-medical web sites that rely on misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the scientific literature.  I can't quite see why we would want to pick out this particular purveyor of essential oils for extra attention.  (Are you familiar with the old saying "There's no such thing as bad publicity"?  Why would we want to draw extra attention to what seems to be one of nearly countless non-notable companies?)
 * Incidentally, Elvey, Sandy isn't shouting; his use of capital letters is just the way that 'shortcut' links to Wikipedia policy pages are formatted. The 'unrelated techical edit' was a bit of housekeeping to remove a non-functional archive.org link; it's baffling to me why you would include it or ask why it was removed, as your own edit specifically described it as non-functional.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a valid point, in that the the extra attention to a non-notable purveyor isn't desirable.  It's just the reliance on a notable, WITHDRAWN paper that is special. (And I'm giving up, ao it's not relevant that there seems to be some ignorance of the fact that WP:RS is clear that a source can be reliable regarding its own views even where it is not a reliable source in general, and MEDRS applies to sources of medical information.)
 * Incidentally, by "Shouting the same thing louder", I just meant that he was saying the same thing again / more vociferously, not "THIS" kind of shouting. Also, per WP:LINKROT: "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer." Thank you for actually communicating by addressing the unrelated technical edit that was in no way shape or form even conceivably OR, and should not have been called such or edit warred over. --Elvey (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , the problem with your edit is not limited to the original use of the "fringe" terminology; the entire edit is original research. I find it unusual to point someone to our policy on WP:OR three times, and still have to explain it; the words on the page do a better job than I can:


 * First, nowhere on the page you cite does the author draw the conclusions you make-- your edit is the very definition of original research. But even more,
 * Second, please see WP:MEDRS-- we wouldn't be likely to use that source even if it did draw the conclusions you make.
 * Third, the author of that page is a LCSW, PhD student. Really, why would be advancing such a paper into an "encyclopedia".
 * Finally, please work on your combative attitude-- if you aren't able to understand our policy on original research, your learning could advance faster via adopting a collaborative attitude. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is what we're arguing over:




 * None of that is a "conclusion". It's is straightforward reporting of what Aromatic Science did - descriptive, not conclusory.  The cited article "directly supports" the claims regarding the media. But you seem to be so determined to interpret OR and SYNTH with such a broad brush that I give up.


 * I have asked you twice, "AGAIN: Please comment on whether any coverage of the phenomenon of continued reliance on the withdrawn study would improve the encyclopedia. AGAIN: Please address the unrelated technical edit that was in no way shape or form even conceivably OR."  Your projection of a combative attitude has been demonstrated by your refusal to do so.  Good bye.  I give up.--Elvey (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That "Media continue to rely on the withdrawn study" is your conclusion, not a secondary source conclusion. That is classic original research.  Why we would even care what some PhD student, who's a social worker, publishes on an inconsequential website is a separate matter ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, you seem to be so determined to interpret OR with such a broad brush that I give up.
 * Conclusion: "a judgment or decision reached by reasoning." --Elvey (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the first sentence is not supported by the source given. You're presenting a conclusion that presumably is intended to describe a large number of media outlets, but supporting it with a cite to one instance of the problem occurring on a single fringe website.  (I'm also a more than a little reluctant to describe the particular website you linked to as a "media" organization.) In that regard, you're actually not bumping against OR and SYNTH, but just making an outright unsupported statement.
 * That said, even if you had done a bit of digging and compiled a list of websites that still cite Wakefield's paper, you would still be using Wikipedia to publish your original research and your personal conclusions. In the Internet age, everyone can be their own publisher.  Finding a couple, or even a couple dozen, instances of something in people's blogs and on fringe advocacy websites would still leave me reluctant to draw a conclusion about an entire class of organizations.  If one is not systematic in the way that one samples and analyzes media sites, one can very quickly run afoul of the "the plural of anecdote is not data" problem.  (Television news has this problem a lot.  "We found two instances of [Bad Thing].  Find out how the [Bad Thing] epidemic will affect your children!"  Come to think of it, this sort of faulty reasoning is a big part of why anti-vaccination advocates are able to persist.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well argued. But for the third time, I have given up on coverage of the phenomenon of continued reliance on the withdrawn study.   Please do see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot#Robots.txt however.--Elvey (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive.org dead link
(copied from above) ...Please do see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot#Robots.txt however.--Elvey (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that. Looking back at this article's edit history, I see that a few days ago, an IP corrected a URL in a link within a reference to point directly to a URL at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) – http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx – instead of to an archived version of (presumably) the same page once hosted on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20070623134938/http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx.
 * The original link redirects to the updated URL for the document cited in the reference: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Immunization-Safety-Review-Vaccines-and-Autism.aspx. The archive.org link is non-functional – because the IOM's robots.txt file disallows external archiving – and unhelpful&mdash;because it points to a URL where the resource in question isn't actually now found.
 * For some reason, Elvey, in this edit you added a link to the broken archive.org page after the working IOM link, noting in the footnote text that your archive link was broken. The edit also included the re-addition of a bit of original research, discussed in the thread above. Your edit was reverted by SandyGeorgia, removing both the broken link and the original research.
 * Yesterday, you reverted part of SandyGeorgia's edit, restoring the link to that non-functioning archive.org page for the wrong IOM URL. In the edit summary for your revert, you directly quoted some very specific and remarkably-on-point instructions from WP:LINKROT.  As it turns out, the LINKROT instructions happened to apply so well in this situation because you wrote them, and added them to WP:LINKROT without previous discussion, one minute before you saved your revert to this article.  Seriously?  Rewriting a policy page (or, in this case, a non-policy how-to guide) to try to 'win' an editing dispute is pretty much textbook tendentious editing.
 * I subsequently reverted your edit, once again removing the defective archive.org link, with the explanatory edit summary There's no point to preserving a link to a *non-working* archive.org entry when the direct link to the actual source page is live. You've now just reverted again, with the much less helpful Yes, there is.
 * Well no&mdash;there isn't. You're providing readers with a link to the wrong URL for a non-functioning archive page.  I have now removed the link to the dead archive, and I have updated the URL in the reference to point to the current (non-redirected) IOM page URL.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to disagree with the reason given, which is of course fine, if done with civility. However insisting that "there isn't" one is refusing to get the point.  There's policy on _that_, IIRC.  You seem very vested in removing the suppressed archive, and making this personal.  Please stop.  I've provided reasoning and an example that shows where it's worked in practice.


 * Most seriously, your TE accusation is based on a patently false representation of the facts. I demand a retraction.  Specifically:


 * This was my edit summary: "per WP:LINKROT:"do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer.""


 * in fact, "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer" has been part of WP:LINKROT for a long time. Since 2012, at least.  My edit to the guideline simply clarified how the existing guideline applied in cases like this, to the point that anyone not getting it is obviously refusing to get the point.  The rule is, "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer." NOT "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer except when the URL does not work any longer is an archive url."


 * I happened to notice that the source in question is (unsurprisingly) in pubmed, so referencing thereby makes any archiveurl unnecessary. Although your misguided edit warring is offensive and you seem dead set on reverting as often as needed to keep the archiveurl out, I see a way to consensus, which is to go with a pubmed reference instead, which hopefully you won't edit war over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 21:37, March 10, 2014


 * Bump. I demand a retraction.--Elvey (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

BRD

 * Elvey, please, you are wasting valuable voluteer editors' time. Every time you suggest an update which violates various Wikipedia guidelines and another editor fixes it, many editors who are on the extant article's watchlist must bring up the changes and spend time confirming the need to revert your proposed changes. We do not reference or make citation to dead links. Period. If text requires a citation, we have the "citation needed" tag which alerts editors of the need to find suitable references, yet providing testably broken links wastes our time.
 * I also have to agree with a number of other editors volunteering their time here. It is possible to determine what legitimate references and citations are: We select the academic, scientific references as primary sources. People's uninformed opinions and the opinions of unscientific individuals and ideology-driven groups of individuals are not suitable references for issues of science. Such references are suitable as examples of anti-science opinion and bias when offered in relation to text whose context is the core anti-science, ideology-predicated denial of vaccination however such opinion pieces as one finds on the Internet are simply not suitable in conjunction with text describing real world science.
 * Nobody likes edit wars. If there is a desire for third party arbitration please consider my comment here to be such, and I would ask Elvey to please refrain. Thanks.Damotclese (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone clarify what it means to "beam" something?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC):
 * Done. WTH? for a typo? --Elvey (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Damotclese, please, YOU are wasting valuable voluteer editors' time.  WHAT PART OF


 * "I happened to notice that the source in question is (unsurprisingly) in pubmed, so referencing thereby makes any archiveurl unnecessary. Although your misguided edit warring is offensive and you seem dead set on reverting as often as needed to keep the archiveurl out, I see a way to consensus, which is to go with a pubmed reference instead, which hopefully you won't edit war over. "
 * DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? Please stop beating a dead horse. Besides, per WP:BRD, the deletion of the archiveurl was Bold, my revert was the Revert.  What followed was several re-deletions and per BRD, each each re-deletion was inappropriate; the first was the beginning of edit-warring, per BRD.  It's BRD not BRRD.  (But it's just an essay.)  --Elvey (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , I have reinstated my posts which you deleted, perhaps inadvertently. Please sign your entries; I have had to add the unsigned template twice recently for you.  Also, please refrain from excessive markup in talk page discussions.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like there was an edit conflict; if there was any such deletion by me, it was inadvertent as was my unsigned edit, obviously. Calling out such trivialities seems silly to me, especially when you have just engaged in strictly verboten action: modification of my posts that substantially changed the meaning of what I'd said: !  I guess you're unable to accept guidance, like that given when I warned you about said edit warring; please stop fighting.  Anyone happy or unhappy with the consensus I believe I have forged?  I think this is certainly an improvement!  Kudos to me for inserting said pubmed reference, and kudos to Jonesey95 for improving said reference. --Elvey (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil, Elvey. We are all volunteers here. If you can not be civil the next step will need to be formal. So long as you refrain from utilizing dead links again for references and citations, I have allowed you to waste enough of my time. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Damotclese If I did in fact "suggest an update which violates various Wikipedia guidelines", I'd be happy to apologize.  Would you?  I apologize for any such suggestions, even though I believe I have made none.       Every time you suggest an update which violates various Wikipedia guidelines and another editor fixes it, many editors who are on the extant article's watchlist must bring up the changes and spend time confirming the need to revert your proposed changes. Please do not make up policy, like We do not reference or make citation to dead links. Period.  that conflicts with actual policy.  Someone "deleted a URL solely because the URL did not work any longer".  I simply restored it, because it is our policy, for good reason, that we "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer".  We certainly don't need a third opinion, Damotclese, and if we did, I would want one from someone who actually reads and comprehends the relevant comments with an open mind.    --Elvey (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
If you're going to do a drive-by neutrality tag on this article, you better stay and discuss it, and point out where there's an issue with WP:NPOV. Cause if you don't, one or many editors will simply delete it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Autism Class
The article does not address autism outside of mistaken and conspiracy belief. If others feel that the article justifiably should be tagged as an article on autism -- as opposed to vaccination conspiracy beliefs -- let's discuss it and put the class back. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This topic is about to re-emerge (Aug 23 2014)
An associate professor of chemistry at a Christian university is making news with more assertions that MMR vaccines lead to autism.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-focus-autism-foundation-finds-133000584.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/08/senior-government-scientist-breaks-13-years-silence-on-cdcs-vaccine-autism-fraud.html

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154522223040296&set=a.10150730585595296.713739.507175295&type=1&theater

http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16/abstract MBVECO (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Meh. The first three are essentially press releases about the last one: a badly-done 're-analysis' of decade-old material, by an axe-grinder who managed to get a low-quality paper into a no-impact journal.
 * http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/andrew-jeremy-wakefield-plays-video-director-while-african-american-babies-die-or-something/
 * http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/
 * No need to waste any time on this character unless he gets any real coverage. And I don't imagine any credible researchers are likely to be citing his paper. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A whistleblower has come forward:

[Article from the examiner is blacklisted?] http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/891667-autism-and-vaccines-cdc-whistleblower-exposes-vaccine-dangers-lies-and-cover-ups-video/ http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164046 --72.5.190.133 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A CNN iReport is hardly commentary on anything. I is as useful as some guy's forum post.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the Meh assessment.  20:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look at the "theepochtimes.com" web site it is basically a pay-for-advertising propaganda source which attempts to appear as if it's legitimate news. There are weight loss scams and outright frauds being sold on the web site as if it's "news" so yeah, "meh."
 * Also the Examiner.Com web site is also a pay-for-we-post-anything-you-send-us web site though they have some scruples about getting sued for blanket fraudulent advertisings. Such web sites are obviously "poor sources" for references and citations.
 * Thanks for keeping the article cleaned up of nonsense. Damotclese (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This will shed some light on this 'whistleblower' bullsh... err, stuff.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is so "meh" it sets a new standard for "meh." Yesterday, the 0 impact factor journal, Translational Neurodegeneration, was so offended by the low quality of the article, they've removed it from their website, first step to full retraction. Of course, this is a serious condemnation of the quality of the peer review. As Gorski mentions in that post you cited, Hooker's work was below even the lowest standards of statistical and clinical significance. This is a manufactroversy, laughable at best, but could be scary, if more children die because the promotion of Wakefield's fraud continues, and kids don't get vaccinated. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

CNN.com published a story on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

(A fairly awful piece of journalism, I might add, which opens with this gem: "The debate over a link between autism and vaccines continues.")

May be worth mentioning this latest incident in the article, if only to make sure readers understand just how uncompelling this "evidence" is. Joel Why? (talk)


 * JoelWyh is so right!!! Unpopular and resent scientific evidence - needs to be labelled uncompelling. Even if it 's only to maintain  belief.--Aspro (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a really pseudoscientific conspiracy theory. Our own User:SkepticalRaptor has covered this matter on his great blog, with several very well-written posts. Here's one of them: The fictional CDC coverup of vaccines and autism–movie time. You will find more coverage there about this nonsense. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Does that blog count as a scientific refutation? --Aspro (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need 'scientific refutation' of a non MEDRS compliant paper that is in the process of being pulled from a 0 impact factor journal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh! “Impact factor”. Scientific gobbledy gook. Much like Galileo Galilei  was not allowed a “Impact factor” under the Roman Catholic church. I spent six year in R&D. So, Let me ask you – dose the sun still  revolve around YOUR earth?--Aspro (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a PhD in experimental psychology, but in all honesty, the fact that you 'spent six year (sic) in R&D' or the fact that I have a PhD matter precious little. What matters?  Sources.  Oh and impact factors are decent estimates of a journal's quality.  The science is settled.  Move on.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with you that sources is what matters on WP. Yet if you practice anything of (say) Eric Berne MD, he might say “move on” means you lack a valid and worth while  argument. Try   Industrial Psychology. One can  not  bury one's  mistakes there  – one has to swear before a coroner the whole truth and nothing but the truth,  if say  employee looses it.  I could add more but I think you get my drift. Coming back to AW. Is the science  really settled?--Aspro (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, I usually think that someone "lacks a valid and worthwhile argument" when they dismiss rational arguments as "scientific gobbledygook" and compare themselves to Galileo. I can't speak for Eric Berne, though. MastCell Talk 04:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have requested page protection. This is getting tiring and is a big time sink. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A little googling seems to established without doubt that an editor here has a strong COI.  Doesn’t the tenants of WP mean anything to you. Or where you born into this world knowing that you're right I everything? WHERE did I compare myself to Galileo ? There is something called scientific integrity (Which is different from saying what ever is necessary to put dollars in your pocket). --Aspro (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Undisclosed conflicts of interest? Lack of scientific integrity? Willing to say anything necessary to make a buck? I think you have me confused with Andrew Wakefield. You might want to refine your Google search terms. MastCell Talk 03:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ....and Aspro, keep in mind that WP:Outing will get you blocked extremely quickly. Even if you can easily discover the real life identity of an editor on the internet, one who has not revealed it clearly here, never disclose that information here or use it to harass or intimidate. Who people are in real life is usually irrelevant. Here we are Wikipedia editors. We must keep a safe and trusting atmosphere here. What happens at Wikipedia stays on Wikipedia, and what happens "out there" stays out there (or something like that ). -- Brangifer (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Aspro thinks he's Galileo, so we're all mere peons. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to smile. :) Every anti-science conspiracy believer thinks they are Galileo or think they are Einstein, or think they're the Wright Brothers, they think they're the lone truthful voice calmly, rationally speaking the truth against a gale-force storm of Satan/Monsanto/Illuminati/OPEC/Whatever-funded conspiracy. :)
 * The fact is that the science in the extant article is settled and no amount of denial, wishful thinking, and conspiracy belief will make vaccinations cause autism.
 * Speaking of human psychology and human behavior, the reason why people want to pretend there are these massive conspiracies of which they fight against is because people want to feel as if they are more informed, more awake, less sheeple than others. They want to pretend they're aware of vast forces arrayed against them and which they are the equal to Defend The Truth against. When they contrive Satanic conspiracies which they bravely fight against, they feel special, important, strong and courageous fighting against their own delusions.
 * For the extant article, the science is settled. Time to move on. Time to get over it. Find another page that needs editing work and get to it. Damotclese (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How to include this in this article
In keeping with a parallel discussion ( Talk:Andrew_Wakefield ) and suggestions there, let's start working on developing a short section for mention of this debunked antivax debacle. They really screwed up and they have been exposed. It has gotten mainstream traction in RS, so it's worth mentioning. Let's start collecting sources here and working on wording:


 * Sources (please add more):


 * Withdrawn article at Translational Neurodegeneration:
 * "This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation."


 * Journal questions validity of autism and vaccine study. Debra Goldschmidt, CNN, August 28, 2014.


 * Snopes exposes the claims and provides sources


 * Whistleblower Claims CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link. "The claim, however, may just be more unsubstantiated fuel from the anti-vaccination movement." Time, Alice Park, Aug. 28, 2014


 * Did a high ranking whistleblower really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African-American boys? - Dr. David Gorski, Science-Based Medicine. SBM is a RS here for such matters per expert and WP:PARITY.


 * The fictional CDC coverup of vaccines and autism–movie time. SkepticalRaptor.com. You will find more coverage there about this nonsense. While this is not a RS, it provides rationale, ideas, and sources.


 * Suggested headings:


 * Conspiracy theories
 * CDC cover up


 * Suggested wordings:


 * In August 2014, Translational Neurodegeneration published an article (by whom?) about a whistleblower who claimed that the CDC had manipulated data and covered up evidence of damage caused by the MMR vaccine.[refs] Anti-vaccination sources (which?) quickly spread the claims,[refs] and press reports soon appeared repeating these claims.[refs] The claims were quickly debunked (by whom?)[refs] and Translational Neurodegeneration retracted the article, stating that it was "removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions." ref

I think you get the idea. Let's brainstorm. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your outline is fine. It just needs the blanks filled in with the most reliable possible sources. That means articles, preferably peer-reviewed, and not links to any self-published sources. The retraction notice, Time, and CNN are okay. Snopes only if there isn't anything better; notwithstanding its reputation, it is self-published. --Yaush (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this particular issue isn't a MEDRS or BLP subject, we only need RS and/or expert opinion to document what happened and the reaction, so Snopes and other news and skeptical sources should be okay. Of course the sources you mention would be the front line sources because they are most notable.
 * I'd appreciate others adding more sources we can use and suggesting better wordings and format. I threw that together pretty quickly, just to help organize things and get an idea of what it might look like. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this exercise. I think folk are a tad too keen to argue a case.  Once this page becomes a knock-about over what's on blogs, a nightmare begins. I would recommend waiting until there is some kind of clear RS consensus and the obscure journal's inquiries are complete.  Actually, I've seen material from less obscure journals kicked back on Wiki for lack of credibility. Bluehotel (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I will note that the article hasn't, technically, been "retracted". The journal website states the article is "removed...pending further investigation"&mdash;the matter is still under editorial consideration. (Presumably there are editors and editorial board members bouncing emails back and forth, with contents that boil down to Shit damn damn. What's the least embarrassing way we can make this attention go away?)

I suspect, further, that there is a strong chance that it actually won't be retracted. Journals tend to be very reluctant to retract already-published (or already-accepted and -posted, at least) articles against the wishes of the original authors. Often the threshold required for an involuntary retraction is proof of out-and-out egregious misconduct: data falsification and forgery, gross plagiarism, etc.. Things that can (even winkingly) be attributed to errors in judgement (making poor choices of statistical tests that happen to give remarkable conclusions, for example) tend not to clear this threshold. While I can hope for more fortitude from these editors, the usual approach is to add an accompanying editorial "statement of concern" that acknowledges (and soft-pedals) the criticism and declares that debate is scientifically healthy, maybe run a couple of the critical letters they received along with the authors' rebuttal, and then call it a day.

See, for instance, the way Science handled – or bungled – the Wolfe-Simon paper in 2010:. The authors claimed they had found an extremophile bacterium that could use arsenic in place of phosphorus; in reality they had simply failed to eliminate trace amounts of phosphorus contamination from their buffers. The likely mistake was identified by several scientists as soon as the advance paper went online, but Science has persistently failed to withdraw it. The likelihood that a backwater, no-impact journal like Translational Neurodegenration will get it right is...not good.

As an aside, as far as I recall (I don't have the PDF handy) Trans Neurodegen didn't publish an article about a whistleblower or a CDC coverup. All Trans Neurodegen did was publish a (badly-flawed) re-analysis of some old data. The 'backstory' about conspiracies and whistleblowers is all from other (generally unreliable) sources.

Finally, per Bluehotel's remarks, I share the concern that we're really just feeding a teapot tempest that only seems noteworthy because so many of the echo chamber's insiders show up here. Editors who deal with other fringe science topics (like cold fusion and reactionless thrusters) are used to this sort of thing; we get it every time a gullible "science journalist" warms over a press release from a cold-fusion charlatan who just published a crappy paper in a no-impact journal (or posted a crappy manuscript on ArXiv). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight and explanation, TOAT. The only thing I would kinda, sorta, mildly dispute in what you said is that this isn't a single, gullible "science journalist"; rather, there were a number of articles on this. But, yes, the echo-chamber effect definitely plays a large part in this and related stories. Better to cover it here, including the explanations about how this isn't worth the e-paper it was formerly printed on, than to not address it, leaving readers who have heard about the study elsewhere in the dark.    Joel Why? (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The concern that I have is that we would convert an ephemeral mention – something that once scrolled across people's news feeds for a couple of days before going away again – into a perpetual monument. We draw more attention to this by immortalizing it in a Wikipedia article, and we would implicitly endorse the (false) idea that this really was a big thing that prompted significant debate, rather than a short-lived blogosphere storm that managed to leak into a few news outlets.  We need to fight the WP:RECENTist temptation to turn articles like this one into up-to-the-minute blow-by-blow timelines.  Generally, we're far better off waiting a month or six (or more) to see if there's any long-term impact, or if this just fades back into the background noise of general conspiracy theory mumbling.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the BS Hooker article has been withdrawn. If you go to the original link on the Trans Neurodegen website, it gives a 404 error (well, it's more of an "oops, that link doesn't exist.") A search of the table of contents for the recent online published articles for the journal lacks the BS Hooker article (although they have another one where he co-authors to the Kings of chelation therapy for autistic children, the Geiers. Oddly, PubMed is behind the times, and still has the abstract, and PubMed Central still has the full article. Yesterday they both had a big red tag that the article was removed. I think it's more than removed now. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The PDF has been pulled from the journal website (the link is up, but it gives you a 404 error) but the abstract page (this link) still has the aforementioned "pending further investigation" message. It still says "Published: 27 August 2014".  The first two entries in the journal's own online table of contents are an editorial "expression of concern" notice, and the paper itself (albeit, oddly, without a title).
 * Incidentally, the journal's entire TOC is a bit eyebrow-raising. The journal is less than three years old and has 68 total published items (including editorial notes, review papers, case studies and research articles), but it's managed to publish both the current (bad) Hooker paper, as well as two papers from the Geier family. Those three articles appear to be the entirety of their content related to autism.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For this extant Wikipedia article, I have serious hopes that no editor considers the translationalneurodegeneration.com source to be reliable since I have been skipping through that web site and I'm disgusted by the flagrant anti-science / pseudo-science nonsense that they are dishing up. I fully expect that I could sugbmit a "peer reivewed scientific research paper" to these people and they would publish it with zero review of my claimed doctorates, degrees, peer review credentials, or legitimacy of the claims. All that appears to be needed to have translationalneurodegeneration.com carry something is that it feed conspiracy beliefs held by Newage (rhymes with Sewage) believers.
 * It would be amusing to submit such a paper to them to see if they publish it, but that's going beyond the effort to edit Wikipedia pages and to keep them free from obvious nonsense. Damotclese (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a "journal" which "subscribers" pay to maintain, it lacks any serious scientific acumen, from all appearances just to judge by the web site. Yes, not a valid source for references or citations. It's snake oil with a thin coating of science. BiologistBabe (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hooker has no academic or research credibility. He was an engineer, which by itself means little, but in the context of discussing immunology and neurodevelopmental disorders...no, he's got nothing. He's on the faculty of Simpson University, a school that pushes creationism. So, his scientific integrity is laughable at best. He took data from a published article, and using either n=5 or 9 (his "statistics" are so odd, I can't tell), which is a population number that's so low that the p value must be 1.0, meaning it's about as close to random noise as one can get. This manufactroversy is driving me crazy. I want to ignore it, but people keep bringing it up. I'm actually ecstatic that Wikipedia (at least some editors) have drawn a line in the sand and said "this is bogus, and we're not allowing it into articles." Makes me regret my years of criticism of this website. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest waiting a while before we mention this in the article. If this whole thing just goes away, as it probably will, then we can leave it alone.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You all make some very good points. As many of you know, I'm an ultra skeptic and only support inclusion of fringe material because it sometimes fulfills our goal of documenting the sum total of human knowledge. If RS pick up a story, or it gains traction in the alt med quackosphere to the point where good skeptical sources discuss it, then we can document it and include the mainstream debunking of the nonsense. That's one of the valuable functions of Wikipedia. It also includes criticisms and debunking. Just exactly when/how long we should wait to see when/if to do anything is another matter. I too think we should wait a bit longer and see what happens. Keep your eyes open and add sources you find. If this reaches a critical mass, then we can return here. If the quackosphere keeps pushing it, then we return here, because we are doing a disservice by not providing the RS which puncture this balloon. If nothing more happens, then we do nothing. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Todays featured article on Wikipedia was The Whistleblower. Of course, it is. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with above sentiment that we should wait to see if this has any lasting effects before mentioning. There will always be crap papers published in crap journals; if they have lasting effects, then we can include mention in an this encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Start SandyGeorgia's comment: "Since this particular issue isn't a MEDRS or BLP subject ... Brangifer (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)"
 * MEDRS and BLP apply to statements about living persons or dealing with biomedical and health issues pretty much anywhere they occur on Wikipedia, so I am unclear what is meant or intended by the quoted statement. At this stage, we have a still-developing case based on marginal sources (snopes and skepticalraptor's website, for example) that could be NOTNEWS any time soon.  And I wouldn't characterize the writer as an "ulta skeptic", either.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy. As you will see from my comment at 04:00, 4 September 2014, I too am waiting for this to develop and gain some history. It's doing that. I see frequent references to this matter, especially in alternative medicine, anti-vaccination, and conspiracy theory sources. I also see it rebutted every day by numerous scientific skeptical sources, one of the most eloquent and thorough being Skeptical Raptor's publications. They are excellent. I get Google Alerts about this every day.
 * Of course BLP and MEDRS apply when necessary. I'm not disputing that. This particular controversy can contain elements where those things apply, but the basic controversy is a fringe controversy, and general RS rules apply, much of it not being relevant to MEDRS. That would apply to specific biomedical claims, but not to lies and conspiracy theories. FRINGE and PARITY would also apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Architect of the fraud
Tylor, thanks for submitted a proposed update to the page however I have reversed it so that we might talk a bit about this. You changed the text from "architect of the fraud" to read "author of the fraudlent paper" which is accurate, however Wakefield did more to perpetrate this fraud than just write a fraudulent paper, he falsified data, abused children, lied to parents, and did a whole lot more than merely write a paper.

What Wakefield did was create from ground up a deliberate fraud and he did it for money, he plotted and colluded with lawyers to defraud money out of the government with the expectation of many more millions of dollars on the horizon as he concocted a fraud that destroyed the reputation of other corporations' vaccines while proclaiming his own products as safe and reliable.

I believe that the phrase "architect of the fraud" is more appropriate and conveys the full flavor of his crimes, more so than merely writing a fraudulent paper suggests. Damotclese (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose I hadn't considered that my edit was narrowing the scope of what he did, but that's true that he did more than author a fraudulent paper (and we can explicitly say that), but I think the exact phrase architect of the fraud, while accurate, may be a bit confusing for some readers (e.g., ESL readers, those with poor reading comprehension, etc.) and we should try to simplify the language. I understand he did all of the other things you're saying as well and agree we should say he did all of that, but I think we should use simpler language to do it (though in hindsight I suppose fraudulent isn't much simpler). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In the hope of not confusing some readers, unless a court has found that Dr Wakefield "falsified data, abused children, lied to parents, and did a whole lot more", is he not innocent in law? So how can Wikipedia judge him to be an "Architect of the fraud"?

MMR Vaccine controversy or vaccine controversy
This comment below was recently removed, I added it back in with an explanation as to why I feel it belongs in this article and then it was removed again. Can someone please explain, one why you did not follow BRD and two why you feel it belongs in the vaccine controversy article more than it belongs here?

''David Grimes commenting on the anti-vaccination movement stated: − "The anti-vaccination movement has been fueled by fraudulent science (the Wakefield vaccination-autism link scandal), celebrity claims of causality (e.g., Jenny McCarthy and Aidan Quinn), and apathy. Apathy derives from naiveté; many parents of young children today did not live through the "bad old days" before immunization. Vaccination has become a victim of its own success, and our nation has become complacent as a result. An entire generation of Americans has grown up unaware of the danger of measles. VViking Talk Edits 19:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Page title
Hi. In reading over Talk:MMR vaccine controversy/Archive 2, I think there's still an actual problem to (try to) address in calling this article "MMR vaccine controversy," as I think using the word controversy is a bit contrived and ill-fitting. That said, I understand how titles such as "MMR vaccine fraud" or "MMR vaccine hoax" might be less than ideal. What about "MMR vaccine research fraud"? Or perhaps others have thoughts about a better title? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Another data point: incoming redirects. In continuing to think about the current page title, I'm wondering whether a split out article about the 1998 Lancet piece makes sense (e.g., 1998 Lancet autism article). The remaining content could then be reincorporated into MMR vaccine, maybe. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also wondering about the title, or rather the first line in the lede, because the "controversy" has taken on a life of its own that doesn't need Wakefield. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Richardson mcphillips, would changing "centers on" to "started with" help the situation? That aspect of the first sentence jumps out at me as needing improvement. The Wakefield fraud is part of the history of this particular vaccine controversy. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Brangifer: I think that's a big improvement.  Thanks. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern MZM, but I don't think limiting the article to the research fraud or hoax is appropriate, because of the life-of-its-own that MMR took on, thanks to people some "celebrities" and others. The controversy started with the fraud and Wakefield, but took on a larger life. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested minor edit
The text that reads "...at the Royal Free Hospital that contradicted his claims." I believe should read "...at the Royal Free Hospital that contradicted his own claims." The addition of the word own underscores that the individual was lying in the section covering his financial conflict of interest yet it also would help to ensure that readers are aware of who was contradicting the claims. It's a minor point. Damotclese (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Damotclese, good idea. It removes any ambiguity. ✅ -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a legitimate source for references: dailycaller.com
Who ever used the dailycaller.com web site as a source for references, that is not a legitimate source. If you wish to propose changes to the extant article addressing conspiracies by scientists, you'll need to find testable, legitimate sources. That's one reason why your proposed update was rejected. Damotclese (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

New paper
So far it's a primary source, but no doubt it will show up in reviews soon: It's worth reading anyhow. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And, it has now been added twice, primary source and laypress source.  , please read WP:MEDRS and WP:BRD, and discuss your edits on talk before reinstating them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we can't possibly include every primary study, or every newspaper article with no demonstrated lasting effect covering every primary study. The new entry should be removed.   18:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which highlights one of the problems that occurs whenever an article becomes too listy rather than prosified ... other editors tend towards adding to the list. This B-class article is overall quite well done, but the research section has always been a list, a collection, when it would be better to take one overall secondary review that discusses ALL of these previous works, and convert the entire section to prose.  Then editors new to the article might be less tempted to see another typical Wikipedia list, and add trivia to it.  Anyone who can locate a good overall review might prosify the list that is there now somehow.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the existing content is already a list, which is poor, and isn't really on the topic of the MMR vaccine controversy (the social phenomenon) anyway. Adding, or removing for that matter, a random research result doesn't seem like it's really going to move the overall article quality meter either way all that much.  Probably the entire Research section should be removed.    19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time I've seen a list or primary sources in a "Research" section; often, editors don't understand that secondary reviews discuss ongoing research directions and efforts, putting them in context, and that adding every primary source is often trivia. We discuss this in the WP:MEDMOS guideline ... In this case, everything that is in the Research section is well covered, and doesn't change or affect the overall conclusion. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But the guideline misses the cultural point that was covered in the deleted news article about this new paper, namely that there remains an education problem in many communities. The new report also points this out in regard to the statistics for second children not receiving the vaccine when the first child has been diagnosed with autism. --Bejnar (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then secondary reviews will mention that "new, cultural" point, in context, including limitations, and then it can be incorporated into the article as prose, not just tacked on to a list as a primary source. For us to mention this new cultural side would be original research.  In the meantime, the laypress is not going to adequately cover the limiations, pros, cons, etc of this primary study.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:OR when it comes from a secondary source. See not only the CNN report previous stricken, but here in Forbes, see also the NIH 2002 FAQ, which indicates with the question below that it was a concern, now secondary sources report on a primary source showing that the concern has had a real affect. Obiviously this is still a problem see this news story: California Vaccine Bill Stalls; Will Come Back Next Week. --Bejnar (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Q: Should I wait before vaccinating my second child? My paediatrician says it is okay to wait until he is older than two years old?
 * A: Because there is no evidence that the introduction of the MMR vaccine increased the number of children with autism, it is unlikely that delaying MMR will make any difference to the risk of your second child developing ASD.
 * --Bejnar (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now, that's a horse of a different color. If you intended to use a laypress secondary source to discuss a cultural issue, then you might have added such text to the Impact on society section, in which case, the MEDRS requirement might be relaxed depending on your proposed text.  But that's not what you did: you added a primary study as research, though that study has not been vetted by secondary review.  So, if what you intended was to discuss the cultural impact, then I might suggest that you propose some text here to be added to "Impact on society", and gain consensus before adding it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go ahead and write it since you need to vet it anyway, and need to make sure that it don't crush the guideline. --Bejnar (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If I were to write such text, I would want a better source than CNN, and would have to do the research ... got any? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the Forbes article above. Since it is a cultural phenomenon, until this latest study I have not seen statistical data on the rates, the cultural data is anecdotal such as "That's why I won't vaccinate my second child" in Kaufman, Sharon R. "Regarding the rise in autism: Vaccine safety doubt, conditions of inquiry, and the shape of freedom." Ethos 38.1 (2010): 8-32.doi=10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01079.x If you cannot accept primary sources and cannot accept anecdotal sources, there is nothing else, except those sources that report on this latest study. --Bejnar (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Retraction of Hooker article
Not sure how to get the quoting into the right place, but a retraction to the hooker article has been published http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/22 (on 3 Oct)131.217.33.146 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see from the discussions above, and several failed attempts to include mention of the Hooker "research" in the article, that the article does not mention this debacle, so mention of the retraction makes no sense at this point. Thanks anyway for bringing this here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn or retracted under pressure?

Despite concluding that the "present study provides new epidemiologic evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis”, the true reasons this report was pulled remain unclear. Set against this, and the personal nature of some MSM attacks on Dr Wakefield, might not this report be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.238.116 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's still retracted and thus not relevant. We certainly can't write about it based on vague, unsourced speculation or any other form of original research. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While there are good indications and reports that Dr Wakefield has faced groundless personal attacks from the press and powers-that-be, the fact remains that two doctors - both questioning the safety of the MMR vaccine - were forced to retract there reports. Is not this of public interest and worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.238.116 (talk • contribs) 21:54, April 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to propose additions to the article, if you can offer something cited by a reliable source. Please post here on the Talk page first to get consensus. In the meantime, we're here to debate the merits of specific changes to the article. Discussing them in the abstract, and without any references, is not very useful. (By the way, you should consider creating a user for yourself. But even if you don't, it's also proper protocol here to sign your posts using four tildes, whether you have a username or not.) -- DaveSeidel (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Liberty Beacon not legitimate reference
The so-called "Liberty Beacon" web site is a conspiracy, anti-science, anti-medicine web site and is not a legitimate source. The editor that suggested that the quack medical web site was suitable needs to find a suitable reference or citation if he/she wants to re-introduce his/her proposed change. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ETA: Check out this person's Facebook page at Liberty Beacon Facebook for background. Damotclese (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

'Architect of the fraud’?
Seems a very loaded term. For, unless a court of law has convicted someone of willfully defrauding people, no one should state that he has committed any crime. Or has Wikipedia found Dr Wakefield guilty of daring to question the safety of the MMR vaccine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.238.116 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Google offers several synonyms for architect, including: "engineer, inventor, mastermind." Would you find one of them more appropriate? More seriously, who is "Wikipedia"? This page is edited by various people who attempt to be pretty scrupulous about following the facts and citing to them. And it's a very transparent process. Unless you have substantive objections from reliable sources that pass the criteria in force for a Wikipedia article, this sort of commentary is a waste of everyone's time. We're not here to discuss our personal opinions. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While the comments were not to someones liking, they did involve real questions. For unless the doctor was charged with fraud, does not the term 'Architect of the fraud’ remain little more than someones personal opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.238.116 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we use exact quotes, and the term "fraud" is found in many reliable sources. Other times we paraphrase, and "architect of the fraud" is a nice summary of several sources. That's what they mean. Do you have a better suggestion based on the sources? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone recently removed the word "fraudulent" from the text and I see that another editor reverted that change. This is a fairly important issue for editors to keep in the extant text since it is a disservice to researchers when the full facts and appropriate wording is removed. In this particular instance, the fraud was deliberate, it was specifically a money-motivated quack medical fraud perpetrated against society for the purposes of making money, and inasmuch as that is outright, blantant fraud, and researchers who are on school assignments or otherwise evaluating the issue need to be well aware of the full scope of the prolonged incident. The evidence to indicate fraud counteracts weight wording which would not be appropriate for other Wikipedia articles, however for this extant article is is appropriate. Damotclese (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend Damotclese read a small article by Glenn Greenwald about how media reporting can be inaccurate or flat out opposite of the truth. There is much much more money involved in selling of vaccines that not selling them. If fellow knowledgeable people take pride in pointing out the conflicts of interest, why is the elephant in the room so invisible??? Billions are at stake and to be made by over vaccination. (I am in medical field and believe in benefits of vaccinations!). Please, please do not jump on the wagon with the majority and notice the elephant! (this was my opinion piece I guess and may be not fully related to the topic. just out of frustration)

Fraudulent???
"the paper is one of the most famous examples of research fraud."? How many times in one sentence can you fit fraud.

1. ...started with "a research" that turned out to involve many conflicts of interests and was later fully retracted.

or

2. ...started with a "fraudulent" research paper that was later found to be fraudulent and was retracted by Lancet due to its fraudulent nature and the media was critisized for letting the fraud catch the light of publicity. Fraud fraud. Isn't this a little similar to the tactics of Church of Scientology???


 * Sign your posts. Use four tildes like this ~ -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 08:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That removed section looks informative and legitimate
The proposed addition here appears to me to be suitable for inclusion in the extant article. I don't agree that "we don't need it," I believe that the proposed text is informative and suitable for inclusion.

Damotclese (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In April 2015 a study done in the United States of over 95,000 children assessing possible links between the MMR vaccine with autism concluded that there was no link.
 * I think I agree with the removal - per WP:MEDRS, reviews are greatly preferred over primary sources, and we are already citing several reviews that essentially say the same thing: MMR and autism have no link. Having another primary source really makes no difference when we are citing review articles that cover hundreds of primary sources. Cannolis (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While I understand the reasoning behind removing it, this is a new study, demonstrating that there continues to be no demonstrable link between MMR, autism, or IBS. That's a valid piece of information. I think it should remain as a "place-holder" until it can be replaced by a secondary source. But I will abide by consensus, of course.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. I can see your point, but at the same time, the most recent secondary source we have cited is a review from 2014, which is quite recent, and should suffice to support the same conclusion as this primary source does. I think if we were trying to discuss another point, like how this controversy has led to a gross amount of time and money having to be wasted on disproving a link that was fraudulent from the start, then having sources like this that show continued research 25+ years later would be very informative. But to simply disprove the link, I think the multiple reviews already cited rather thoroughly cover that. It is just a single sentence in the article though, so I don't think keeping it would be a significant problem either since it is not a controversial finding and supports the rest of the info in that section. Cannolis (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)