Talk:MMR vaccine and autism/Archive 4

Category
Three vaccine"controversy" articles have now been renamed to remove the word "controversy", which gave undue weight to fringe ideas. I put this through CFD rather than simply move them so that the bot will do the spadework. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In line with the renaming of MMR vaccine controversy to MMR vaccine and autism, I have proposed renaming category:MMR vaccine controversy to category:MMR vaccine and autism to match the parent article. See.
 * In line with the renaming of vaccine controversies to vaccine hesitancy, I have proposed renaming category:Vaccine controversies to Category:Vaccine hesitancy, to match the parent article. See.
 * In line with the renaming of Thiomersal controversy to Thiomersal and vaccines, I have proposed renaming category:Thiomersal controversy to category:Thiomersal and vaccines, to match the parent article. See ,

Name
From the discussion above, I think I have assessed and calculated this correctly.

That seems to make myth a clear winner, right? Guy (Help!) 22:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How is "Support (any choice)" defined? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Choices are listed in order above, I put the choice order into a table. An item that someone did not identify as a choice, was left blank and not counted (so if your only opinions were hoax or myth and not controversy then that would be hoax=1, myth=2 and controversy=-1 with first choice being all 1s, first or second being 1 or 2, oppose being -1, and no opinion on that choice being null). Sorry, that was probably obvious by about word 5. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, if I understand correctly, "Support (any choice)" equals "first or second or third or fourth or fifth choice".


 * I don't think you should count a fifth choice as equal to a first choice. You certainly should not say that something with one first choice vote is the winner over things with 8 and 9 first choice votes.


 * The instructions said "Please rank the front-runners in order of preference" A lot of us didn't put "controversy" in our list and ranked the other four in order of preference. You should have told us that our last choice might be counted as support. If I knew that I would have only voted for one. In fact I am going to change my vote as soon as I post this.


 * Looking at the above table, I think conspiracy theory got the most support. But I also think that we should ask someone uninvolved to look at the numbers and determine consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going with any support, I was looking at first or second versus opposition, with absolute opposition weighted highly (we're after consensus here, not a vote). Myth gets 11 support and no oppose. Conspiracy gets most support but some strong opposition. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This whole discussion is being driven by a false narrative that seeks to make Wikipedia clearly POV pushing. There is controversy, the people who talk of this work up a controversy, plain and simple. No matter how much you disagree with them calling their ideas other than controversy ignores reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not controversial. It's established fact that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. It's scientific consensus and it's not controversial just because anti-vaccine propaganda refuses to acknowledge this fact. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the correct answer. There is no controversy. Bradv 🍁  07:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's pretty offensive. The discussion is actually driven by the fact that painting the MMR autism link as a controversy is itself POV-pushing: it's a public health issue caused by one of the worst examples of scientific fraud ever recorded, it's a controversy in the same way as "teach the controversy" in creationism - acceptance of the claim that there is a controversy embodies inherent deference to a fringe view. My preference, as the initiator of the discussion, is for a value-neutral title (MMR vaccine and autism), a and I changed my view on the details of that as a result of thoughtful discussion here, but I think I am in a minority here and there is a supermajority for framing it explicitly as a myth, hoax or whatever. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The only controversy is that unfortunately many people now believe what has become a myth ("a widely held but false belief or idea") as a consequence of a slightly different conspiracy; Wakefield never believed the vaccine caused autism. We know he committed a massive fraud. What I see underemphasized in these articles (maybe I missed them) is that Wakefield planned to make a fortune in diagnostic testing, treatments, and developing a replacement vaccine. So it started as a profit conspiracy by Wakefield which is now a myth believed by thousands who are looking for something to blame for their child's autism or by those who do not trust governments or pharma/corporations for assorted reasons. It is not a hoax, because hoaxes are typically not driven by some type of profit motive as compared to a conspiracy. MartinezMD (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current name is far better than "controversy". I can live with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I stated in the initial part of the section above, I'm seeing all of these opinions and votes, but is anyone considering WP:Common name and other things stated at  the WP:Article titles policy? A number of reliable sources use the name "MMR vaccine controversy." And I don't see "controversy" as endorsing the validity of the fringe claims. "Controversy" is not meant to imply that what the overwhelming majority of scientists state about the matter is controversial. It's meant to get across the point that Wakefield caused controversy. His paper is controversial. This is a contentious topic, after all. The article also currently still uses the word "controversy" in parts, such as in the "Media role" and "Disease outbreaks" sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Numerous reliable sources use Myth when discussing claims that autism is linked to vaccination. "Autism-Vaccine Myth"(Psychology Today), "Vaccine-Autism Myth"(Time), "Vaccine Myth"(Science Mag), "Anti-vaccine Myth"(BBC), "Myth of MMR and Autism" (Child-encyclopedia). Also, not that is necessarily matters, but "MMR vaccine and autism myth" gets 226,000 hits on google vs 136,000 hits for "MMR vaccine and autism controversy". UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Common name doesn't really help here - fraud, hoax, myth and controversy all have support depending on how you frame the search and the context of the results (medical sources give one result, tabloids quite another). This is a case of competing, more or less equally supportable titles, where we fall back on editorial judgment and WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE etc. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2019
MMR vaccine and autism → ? – This is a procedural listing. Since 20 January there has been a huge discussion about renaming the article without a formal RM, and we need an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural close as no actual target is proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that "MMR vaccine and autism myth", "MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory", and "MMR vaccine and autism hoax" all have broader support than the current name, wouldn't it be prudent to move it to one of those rather than leave it here? Even if discussion continues between those three, right now it seems to have defaulted to one of the least popular names per the above discussions. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Philosophically, I agree, but all of those also include a value judgment in the title and that is likely to be controversial for antivax-sympathetic editors - the discussion above may well result in consensus for one of these, but this RM is premature as no resolution has been found yet. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions
This page has now been moved, and while it appears to follow the general consensus of the discussion above, it still is not a perfect name. For one, it doesn't include the word "vaccine", which is both unclear and inconsistent with our article at MMR vaccine. Secondly, connections between two subjects in article titles are supposed to use an en-dash rather than a hyphen. would you please consider moving this article instead to MMR vaccine–autism myth? I believe it still conforms to the consensus above, as well as to our naming conventions. Bradv 🍁  04:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s a bit unorthodox, but this whole process has been. But let’s give others a chance to weigh in to make sure your suggestion at least seems to have general support. At least a day. If no one objects, I’ll do it.  —В²C ☎ 05:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did go ahead with the en-dash correction, however. —В²C ☎ 06:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You would move this page again? Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever the community wants; my role here is at your service. —В²C ☎ 07:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that the community wants you to stop your page move disruption. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reverted. Born2cycle has a looooooong history of page move disruption, and there is clearly no consensus on any alternative title at this point. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I'm not sure the consensus for moving this page is as clear as it should be. The current name, "MMR vaccine and autism", isn't taken seriously as an option in the discussions above, and the numbers aren't clear as to which is the favoured alternative. I propose that if this page is to be moved again it be done via a proper requested move, with a clear target, and discussed / !voted upon in the usual fashion for at least 7 days. Bradv 🍁  14:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. Happy with that as a solution. I think it's what I suggested, in fact. We could just do ranked choice. The following are the obvious candidates, excluding those that have large numbers of hard Oppose in the first discussion:
 * MMR vaccine and autism
 * MMR autism conspiracy theory
 * MMR autism myth
 * MMR autism hoax
 * MMR autism fraud
 * Any others? Guy (Help!) 15:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason you are omitting the word "vaccine"? And I'm not proposing rehashing the entire discussion in the form of an RM – I'm suggesting that if someone thinks we have a clear winner, propose it as a target and we'll discuss in the usual fashion, with due consideration paid to naming conventions. Bradv 🍁  15:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think that the word vaccine is important here. Natureium (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I just forgot. I guess we don't really have any consensus yet on whether it would be "MMR-autism, MMR vaccine - autism" or what. Further off than I thought :-( Guy (Help!) 15:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How about something like: MMR vaccine and autism fallacy? Natureium (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Whatever we decide, it absolutely must make clear in the title that there is absolutely no validity to the lies about links between vaccines and autism. Facts are ←facts, and there is no legitimate controversy, and it is our responsibility to present facts. These lies are resulting in genuine harm to people. They must be rebutted clearly and plainly. oknazevad (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you are suggesting titles like MMR vaccine autism question and MMR vaccine autism possibility, that's not even something that's being considered. Natureium (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Controversy also implies it, hence the widespread rejection of tat as an idea. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When a page title is difficult, one of the first considerations might be can the page properly exist with an agreeable scope. Excuse this tack, and I imagine it has been proposed before, but if the 'link' between the vaccine and autism is in referenced statements only between those articles it does not need a title. As I type I see some flaws in this approach, but it may be worth some consideration if not disposed of before. cygnis insignis 20:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Name 11.7 beta 3
Are these all the options currently under consideration? I excluded some that are bad English. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2019

 * reopened by creator of malformed and duplicate proposal
 * closed again cygnis insignis 20:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

MMR vaccine and autism → ? – Let's try and get a consensus for a new title for this page and settle this long running debate, and end the drama at the same time. From what I see of the previous discussions, there are 2 outstanding questions.


 * 1) MMR or MMR vaccine?
 * 2) Conspiracy theory, Fraud, Hoax, or Myth?

If I've missed anything out, feel free to add it to the questions above. Iffy★Chat -- 09:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a perfectly good discussion ongoing above. Please withdraw this unhelpful and premature request. If you have an opinion, add it above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If anything, more questions have been raised than answered since the previous RM attempt. Given the recent attempts, I won't be withdrawing this RM. Iffy★Chat -- 10:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Another open-ended move request is not helpful. If you have a new title in mind, make a case for it. Bradv 🍁  14:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason it's open-ended is because the 2 questions are still unsettled after a month of discussion. In fact, it was you who re-opened the vaccine question after B2C's previous close omitted vaccine from the choice he made. Iffy★Chat -- 14:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in retrospect I probably should have just asked him to revert it outright, or done so myself. The problem with yet another open-ended move request is that there are so many different options that it will be impossible for a closer to make a decision. The format used for RM will work much better if someone champions a particular title and makes a case for it. I would propose the title I mentioned above, MMR vaccine–autism myth, but I'm not convinced it's better than the current name and I haven't seen a compelling argument for a move. Bradv 🍁  14:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason I omitted vaccine from the choice I made is because it was omitted from Guy's candidate list above, and I missed the discussion below it about it being missing. It would have been simple to remedy, and, in fact, I was going to (as I noted I would, after giving others a day or so to chime in) but then Guy reverted, etc. The reason I chose the myth variant is because in the table under it was shown to have more support than all the others (19), and no opposes. So, putting all that together, I agree the best choice in terms of reading consensus at this point (not my personal choice; this is not a !vote, I'm not participating in that) is MMR vaccine–autism myth.  --В²C ☎ 22:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually what you did was a WP:SUPERVOTE. At this time there is no consensus at all for any specific alternative, and no particular rush to achieve one since the POV issue with the original title has been fixed, with general agreement that it's an improvement. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I think MMR vaccine controversy is less sympathetic to antivax than the current title, and therefore was better. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you do, that is wholly expected given the many comments above noting that "controversy" in the title gives spurious legitimacy to the idea that the MMR-austism hoax was ever anything other than bullshit ginned up by antivaxers. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What? many people think "controversy" gives this BS spurious legitimacy, therefore of course I would think "and autism" gives it even more legitimacy? That makes no sense at all. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just wait while you read this talk page, its archives, and those of the other articles around so-called "controversies" in vaccination. Or, better still, leave these articles alone because you get it so very consistently wrong. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SUPERVOTE, ? I haven't even thought about what I personally would prefer the title to be here. I only tried to ascertain "the best title of the options available" based on the discussion, per the instructions at WP:THREEOUTCOMES, as I just explained to you at length on my talk page. Please stop trying to ascribe some kind of nefarious motivations to my behavior. --В²C ☎ 23:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So you divined the target through pure proctomancy. Whatever. You didn't help. At all. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I only claimed I tried to help. I’m sorry it didn’t actually help, but I thought there was a good enough chance to give it a shot. Anyway, what did you think the following would mean to others?


 * —В²C ☎ 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ok to make a mistake every now and then (although it's a shame the inappropriate move was compounded by blunders). What is a problem is not getting it afterwards. The simplest approach would be to say "I see what you mean, I'll try to avoid that in the future." If you still think you were 100% correct and above reproach, the correct response would be "I disagree but I hear you and I will not make any further comments regarding the title of this page" (in that, "you" refers to the multiple people who have raised objections). Another good approach would be to say nothing at all—did you not hear all the complaints about your inability to leave an argument? Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural close, as before, this is premature, we're a long way from a consensus for the final title yet. See the section above. When that discussion has ground its inevitable course then there will be an obvious answer, adding this template has no effect other than to invite the kind of fuckup we saw above. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your view of the WP:RM process is not the one held by most admins and page movers regularly involved in RMs. If we were to only open RMs when a title was already agreed to, there'd be no point in waiting the extra week, as there is already a consensus for that agreed title. I agree that RMs work better if there are less options to choose from, but from what I've seen above, the opposite has been happening. Iffy★Chat -- 13:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My good faith is wearing out, since I see no consensus forming in the foreseeable future, shall we move this back to the pre-discussions title and leave it for another time, or do you want a consensus for a title? Iffy★Chat -- 20:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to stop with the unilateral moves and involved closes, I think we should have an RfC, as I see no other way to establish consensus. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The one thing that we definitely do have consensus on is that the "controversy" title is bad. This is just a case of several nearly-equal options and people haven't worked out which one to choose yet. There's no rush. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What about a simple poll?
Would it be of value to have participants choose between these two titles? --В²C ☎ 06:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MMR vaccine and autism (current title)
 * MMR vaccine–autism myth (proposed alternative)
 * Or is it MMR vaccine / autism myth, or is it MMR vaccine autism myth, or is it hoax, or is it conspiracy theory? Have you actually read the discussions above? Guy (Help!) 07:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is focusing on just these two makes the other possibilities irrelevant, for now. They can be considered, one at a time, versus the winner of these two, with a new winner selected at each stage for the next comparison. Or you can present the list of all possibilities at once and use some kind of priority voting scheme, but I rarely see those work satisfactorily. Or continue the banter tha5 doesn’t seem to be making any progress. I’m just thinking whittling down a winner from between two choices at a time is simple and will at least result in some definitive progress. —В²C ☎ 08:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

New study
There's a study mentioned on CNN, and I'm not sure whether this is the same one that's currently mentioned in the #Research section or if this is new. Is it worth adding to that section? It's also worth noting that the article twice uses the word "myth" to describe the relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism, which is relevant to our ongoing naming discussions on this talk page. Bradv 🍁  20:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I expect that outlet was promoting 'controversy' and think the use of 'myth' is a cynical inversion 'what, you believed our recurrent stories that made a connection'. Not a reliable source, as I am lazily objecting, but prove me wrong and they never made this a 'talking point'. cygnis insignis 13:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Outbreak?
how many cases make an outbreak? I see few outbreaks listed had like one dozen cases... 109.194.25.131 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * An outbreak is when you have a sudden rise above the usual background amount expected, and it's different in every disease. Once you have a disease considered eliminated, even a single case might be called an outbreak (imagine if someone suddenly developed smallpox) for example. Epidemiologists in health departments will usually make a judgement call. When you have cases affecting unrelated people (instead of limited to a household), it will be more likely to be called an outbreak. The outbreaks listed in the article should be particularly notable, otherwise it will just degenerate into a list of outbreaks. MartinezMD (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

POV tag 29-01-2020
Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!

It is very difficult sometimes for us to take off our ideological blinders and see the other point of view. Sometimes this is age-related, as in Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development. The kind of person who is likely to be editing Wikipedia may be at a more black-and-white stage of their thinking. That is why we have policies about this.

I would like to see the article reformatted more along the lines of a standard debate, with a point-counterpoint approach. The method I propose for accomplishing it is this: Simply do not revert edits by the other side. Treat them with respect, as you would like to be treated, instead of using your power to silence their voice. The points I would like to see included from the anti-vax side are things like:

1. Methodological errors in the studies that purport to disprove a link. 2. A notable lack of safety studies on any vaccine or ingredient but the MMR itself. 3. Wakefield's defense to his critics, e.g. that all he did was call for investigation of a link, and that there were no significant conflicts of interest. This, to me is the most significant lapse in the article. Does not the accused have a right to defend himself?

I have no problem seeing the weak points in the anti-vax argument exposed. What I do have a problem with is seeing it made into another witch hunt. That ain't what we're about. If you are concerned about the truth getting out, then have a fair trial. The result will be much more satisfying.

Alfarero (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're addressing several subjects above, so I'll just address the last part. We give WP:Due weight to content from RS, and no weight (IOW no mention at all) to content from unreliable sources. If the views of anti-vaxers is mentioned in RS, then we can cite those sources to document those fringe views, and we present those views as clearly fringe. They must not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a bullypulpit to violate our policies against the WP:Advocacy of fringe views.
 * We do not place mainstream views across from fringe views in a false balanced manner. Mainstream views get much more weight and dominate an article, whereas fringe views get scant and negative mention. That's how it's supposed to be here. We are a mainstream encyclopedia, not Conservapedia or Fringeopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , your proposal isn't going to gain any traction. The only side anyone should be on is that of the Encyclopedia and its editing policies - if you're here to push a side, you're here for the wrong reasons. Edits that rely on dubious sources, or which present a fringe theory as a counterpoint to the balance of mainstream scientific consensus, will be reverted. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no valid reason for giving Wakefield any deference. He was found not to have made a mistake, but to have been outright fraudulent for personal gain and his license was stripped. He should not be given any weight whatsoever. MartinezMD (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than the important WP:GEVAL mentioned above, the article must reflect what independent reliable sources say about them rather than their own fringe view and advocacy (WP:RS, WP:FRIND). For science there is no real debate about this, it's long been disproved.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "disproved." If you mean that if you repeat a Big Lie often enough, it causes people to stop thinking, then sure. QED. But in point of fact, Wakefield's thesis was not disproved. It was merely shouted down.


 * I want to make it crystal clear that I am not anti-vax. I am pro-impartiality. But unlike most people, I have actually read Wakefield's paper. And it was quite modest and transparent. All that he did was to examine tissue samples from a dozen of his patients, take histories, summarize the literature, and say, "Hey. We need to study this." His concluding statement was, "Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."


 * That's what everybody's upset about. He didn't try to prove a link. He suggested it. Using hard evidence. I guess that makes some people uncomfortable. But I don't think the paper deserved retraction. It's just a bit of a fixer-upper.


 * It struck me, as I reflected on this, that the link between vaccines and autism does not qualify as pseudoscience. To be pseudoscience, it would have to make theoretical claims. It does not. It only makes evidential claims. "This leads to that by this biochemical pathway." And so it is a legitimate hypothesis and needs to be examined as such.


 * It is regrettable that so many conflicts of interest are involved and this has become such a contentious debate. My hope is that we could discuss it rationally. I, for one, would like a straight answer. And the reason I have taken the time, and put my heart and soul into writing these comments, is that I think you guys are muddying the waters.Alfarero (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . You don't seem to have read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Please do so. The purpose of this page is to discuss changes to the article. If you have a change in mind, please propose it and put it in the form of "Please change X by Y" or "Please add X between Y and Z" followed by the sources supporting that change. Make sure you make that proposal in your next edit here. If no specific proposal is made, we can close this section. --McSly (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a specific proposal. Please present the issue journalistically, not polemically. Structure the page according to Wikipedia guidelines, giving each side space (not to say equal space, I don't care about that), and describing each point of view in the third person, as if it doesn't matter to you which is right. Stop using "violence in the service of truth. (John Paul II)" Allow the dissenting faction a voice.Alfarero (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's now clear that Alfarero has no intention of proposing anything useful and is just using that page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Any uninvolved editor should feel free to close that discussion per WP:TALK so we can all stop wasting our time. --McSly (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I stand by what I have said, but I see that you are correct that it was a waste of time. Your minds are closed. Please feel free to close this discussion. I would be happy to delete the whole thing, but I do not want to delete anyone else's responses without their permission.Alfarero (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

In hindsight I just feel like bringing a little levity to this situation. Because, have you noticed? All of us here are not only vaccinated, but autistic! Alfarero (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And the true agenda ^ emerges... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering WP:NOTFORUM and that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, unless you can provide WP:MEDRS supporting those conspiracy theories, nothing can be done. — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can tell you the real cause of increases in autism diagnoses: the diagnostic criteria have changed. As simply as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't get out much.Alfarero (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are skating pretty close to a personal attack in that comment. Read WP:NPA, and tread carefully. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm serious. He obviously hasn't lived through the tragedy of seeing a family member regress into autism. He hasn't had to fight with the school for a positive, productive IEP. He didn't grow up in the Sixties, like I did, and so he has no basis for comparison. His comment is rude, dismissive, and wrong on the facts.Alfarero (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I’ve seen some novel interpretations of what Wakers did, but this one is really imaginative. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not an "interpretation." I just reported what the paper said. I guess that is the problem here. You guys simply cannot be objective. That is why I made the concrete proposal that you stop reverting the edits of those who dissent from the official position of the medical industry. And, please don't misunderstand me. I don't want to "skate close to a personal attack." You guys are engaging in egregiously partisan behavior. I have suggested a solution. I will wait and see what you decide.Alfarero (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rubber-stamps the medical orthodoxy. It always did it and will always do it. Satisfied? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 'you don't get out much' is a personal comment, and a negative one - that is prohibited. If you don't understand that, and persist with that sort of behaviour, you can expect to be blocked from editing. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And Wakefield wasn't de-licensed for that mere claim, but for not disclosing a conflict of interest and for breaching medical research ethics. Every scientist in entitled to have occasional theoretical mistakes, see Why MEDRS?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this article is now covered by the discretionary sanctions relating to pseudoscience and fringe science
I've done this as a response to the discussion above. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)