Talk:Vaccines and autism/Archive 1

Attkisson
The following was added:
 * On January 9, 2019, Full Measure, hosted by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, alleged that the U.S. government concealed the expert opinion of one of their own expert witnesses in a 2007 hearing in the federal vaccine court. In a sworn affidavit, Dr Andrew Zimmerman stated that he believes that narrow circumstances might exist in which the combination of pre-existing mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination could trigger autism spectrum disorder, and when he told this to government attorneys he was dismissed as an expert witness. His opinion is based on personal anecdotal evidence with his own patients and not based upon any scientific research data.

I reverted because it is atrociously sourced. First, Attkisson is a known antivaxer, so anything she says about vaccines is, at best, motivated reasoning, if not outright conspiracist bullshit. Second, the Snopes source is not the main Snopes database of debunked claims, so the fact that Attkisson's claims are false is in quite small writing down at the bottom. Third, YouTube links to antivax propaganda that is shown to be false by the only thing close to a reliable source offered by the person adding the content? Seriously?

The comments date to 2007, before Wakefield's fraudulent paper was retracted. It predates the large number of studies since that retraction which show no association, causal or otherwise, between vaccines and autism. This fails WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE (and of course WP:MEDRS). Guy (Help!) 00:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Go read Wakefield’s paper. I bet you never have. It is far from a critique of all vaccines and it is FAR from the sum total of vaccine data we have now. There are HUNDREDS of studies in peer reviewed journals that critique aspects of our current vaccine schedule. CMTBard (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Institute of Medicine
The IoM study cited by the CDC on their page does not rule out autism caused by vaccines. It says that we still can’t determine one way or the other. CMTBard (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a mountain of research showing no link. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t take into account this currently accepted and often-quoted massive study the National Academy of Medicine (formerly IoM) did, which is currently cited by the CDC on its pages relating to the topic. That study itself DID find causation between Dtap and autism, it also did find causation between MMR & encephalitis (which often is an aspect of autism). It also was dogmatic that many of the larger questions regarding vaccines as a whole and autism CANNOT BE DETERMINED yet. CMTBard (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

My references and quotes were taken directly from this recent study by the IoM and were in no way unreliable sources, “fringe science” nor were they biased. Please return them as your current page does not correctly represent current research. CMTBard (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My sources were the SAME SOURCE used under the heading “MMR and autism”— the same study you yourself quote to say that there is no causal link between MMR & autism— that same study concluded there IS a causal link between Dtap and autism. That same study concluded that they could neither reject nor establish causation for the vast majority of adverse effects and all vaccines.

It’s the same study— you are insisting on only quoting the one part that supports your personal view, not presenting the entire body of evidence available, which says, mostly “we don’t know the causation relationship for most vaccines and autusm” but also says “we did find causal link between Dtap as autism” and “we did find causal link between MMR and factors which may later lead to autism, such as encephalitis”. CMTBard (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your quote minig of a single source doesn't change the scientific consensus that vaccines don't cause autism. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a question of consensus, it's accurately stating what the most recent National Study said about some vaccines actually possibly causing autism. This article is incomplete without that. It's not quote mining-- that was taken from the actual conclusions of the same study quoted in this very article. YOU are the one quote-mining, not me. A major study from an unbiased, private research center released this information -- you are gladly quoting one part ("no causal link between MMR and autism") but leaving out an equally relevant part of their conclusions ("yes causal link between DTap and autism"). You can't definitively state that "there is no link between vaccines and autism" when the most recent comprehensive study-- accepted by our own CDC-- says that there IS a potential link between at least one of the vaccines on our schedule, and autism. CMTBard (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

And actually, to truly be verifiable, we need to state the overarching conclusion of that study: it was not "no causal link between vaccines and autism"-- it was "overall, we cannot reject nor verify a causal link between vaccines and autism"-- in other words, "WE DONT KNOW IF THERE IS A LINK". Sure, they ruled out one causal link: MMR and autism. But they affirmed another one: DTaP and autism. And they also affirmed multiple other adverse events related to autism, as I mentioned above. This is not a cut and dry issue, and to present it as such is false, and NOT verifiable. CMTBard (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what the report says. Please see here and here . The report says "Additionally, evidence favors rejection of five vaccine-adverse event relationships, including MMR vaccine and autism and inactivated influenza vaccine and asthma episodes." As Guy said, the totality of high-quality research rejects this association. Furthermore, additional high-quality research has reached the same conclusion of no association since the publication of this report. Vaccines do not cause autism. This is the scientific consensus whether you agree or not and it is what vast amounts of research have concluded as well. The report comments on inclusion body encephalitis. That's not the same as autism. It very clearly says the evidence they had at the time favored rejection of an association between vaccines and autism. The report actually had a separate section for other associations titled "Evidence Inadequate to Accept or

Reject a Causal Relationship". The vaccines/autism bit was NOT under that section, so they were not being as noncommittal as you seem to think. There are numerous other high-quality reviews published since this report that agree there is no such association. It's been examined every which way and the answer is no. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My apology, I mistyped that they affirmed a causal link w Dtap, I was having a lot of trouble reading the charts on my phone and misremembered. You are correct that they did not affirm a causal link-- they did not affirm one but nor could they reject one. (top line of chart on page 727). However, the vast majority of adverse effects investigated could neither be affirmed nor denied, and this in and of itself shows just how UN"settled" the question of vaccine safety is-- autism is but one part. As far as encephalitis goes, I will open a new topic to discuss that, as well as to present articles supporting a far wider discussion on autism & vaccines than what the current wikipedia article would suggest exists. CMTBard (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * CMT, read above. It literally says "Reject a causal relationship" verbatim. I don't know how else to say it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

...it says that only about MMR & autism. Not about dtap-- dtap is says it cannot reject it. It also says it CAN affirm MMR & encephalitis (as well as varicella & encephalitis) CMTBard (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The document doesn't even comment on DTAP and autism here.

This is from the chart: "vaccine: DT, TT, or aP containing adverse event:Autism	Epidemiologic Assessment: Insufficient	Mechanistic Assessment: Lacking	Causality Conclusion:Inadequate" CMTBard (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC) (page 727, top line)

Also, chapter 10 (on Dtap) "The authors observed an increased risk but concluded that the study design was insufficient to infer a causal relationship between the administration of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids vaccine and encephalopathy." (p 535) "AUTISM- Epidemiologic Evidence- The committee reviewed one study to evaluate the risk of autism after the administration of DTaP vaccine. This one study (Geier and Geier, 2004) was not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because it provided data from a passive surveillance system and lacked an unvaccinated comparison population. Weight of Epidemiologic Evidence: The epidemiologic evidence is insufficient or absent to assess an association between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism. Mechanistic Evidence: The committee did not identify literature reporting clinical, diagnostic, or experimental evidence of autism after the administration of vaccines containing diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, and acellular pertussis antigens alone or in combination. Weight of Mechanistic Evidence: The committee assesses the mechanistic evidence regarding an association between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism as lacking. Conclusion 10.6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism." (p 546-547) This is far from reassuring, as it essentially says that there has not been any good research on whether Dtap and autism are linked, and that while one mechanism which is known to lead to autism (encephalopathy) has been noted, there are no good studies on that either.  It did not affirm that there is no link where the Dtap is concerned. CMTBard (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Research Presenting Autism & Vaccines as an Ongoing Discussion vs. a Settled Issue
It should be noted that autism (or ASD) is a purely behavioral diagnosis-- not a medical one. You can't verify it by blood test or brain scan, or any lab diagnosis. So, anything that causes physiological damage can't exactly be said to "cause" autism-- but there are underlying physical conditions that seem to cause autism behaviors (ex. pain, neurological damage, immune system malfunction, gastrointestinal pathologies, yeast overgrowth, etc.) which are more easily measured medically. Vaccines can and do cause damaging physiological changes in some children (which is why we have the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program)... autism is a behavioral diagnosis that can arise from multiple (often simultaneous) physiological malfunctions. This is why most people choose to use the language of vaccines "contributing" or not "contributing" to autism, rather than using the language of direct "causation." Some studies will go so far as using the term "causal link." This study aimed to catalogue biophysical markers that could identify autism medically -- this ties into the question of vaccines and autism because it suggests that children with autism have difficulty handling oxidative stress and in methylating (crucial in excretion of toxins)-- ie they may be less able to handle the stress of vaccine adjuvants and/or simultaneous vaccines.

Here are a few references on the topic-- all of which at the very least show ongoing discussion and investigation of the possibility of autism being linked to some aspect of the current CDC (United States) vaccine recommended-vaccine schedule, rather than a "decided" or "settled" topic: (please note, this is FAR from an exhaustive list, and I'm not trying to "prove" a connection with autism and vaccines-- my entire goal is to show that this is not a settled topic, but rather a multifaceted issue which continues to be discussed, studied, debated and researched from many angles. It is a dispute, it is controversial; it is not disproven once and for all.) - "Autism could result from more than one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms. Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment." - "The mass of scientific evidence compiled by researchers clearly indicates that the incidence of autism occurs following vaccination and is most closely associated with the schedule of vaccines culminating in the MMR vaccine. That vaccines suppress natural immune function is not in dispute e.g. those with naturally low levels of immune function (immigrants from tropical climates) show greater predisposition to autistic spectrum disorders." - This is regarding differences in response to the MMR in African-American males in particular - A letter to the editor regarding this article suggests vaccines are likely responsible for the aluminum levels leading to autism, and has various suggestions for replacing aluminum in vaccines with calcium phosphate, zinc, or other substances. - "Vaccines manufactured in human fetal cell lines contain unacceptably high levels of fetal DNA fragment contaminants. The human genome naturally contains regions that are susceptible to double strand break formation and DNA insertional mutagenesis. The "Wakefield Scare" created a natural experiment that may demonstrate a causal relationship between fetal cell-line manufactured vaccines and ASD prevalence." - "Foreign human DNA taken up by human cells will be transported into nuclei and be integrated into host genome, which will cause phenotype change. Hence, residual human fetal DNA fragments in vaccine can be one of causes of autism spectrum disorder in children through vaccination. Vaccine must be safe without any human DNA contaminations or reactivated viruses, and must be produced in ethically approved manufacturing processes." - "Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism." - "A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted." - "Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk." - "We found that blood mercury levels at late pregnancy and early childhood were associated with more autistic behaviors in children at 5 years of age. Further study on the long-term effects of mercury exposure is recommended." - "Thus, our studies, although not directly addressing the controversy surrounding thimerosal and autism, and still preliminary due to small numbers of mice examined, provide, nevertheless, the first report of gender-selective toxicity of thimerosal and indicate that any future studies of thimerosal toxicity should take into consideration gender-specific differences." - "Evidence of the neurotoxicity of aluminium cations (Al3+) includes: an association between chronic aluminium exposure and the development of AD; the involvement of aluminium adjuvants in the development of ASIA; and epidemiological evidence pointing to an association between the use of aluminium adjuvants and ASD. There is good evidence to suggest that immunisation may accelerate or precipitate the transition between subclinical and overt symptomatic autoimmune conditions within the first 30 days post-immunisation, particularly in those younger than 50 years of age. The immune response to immunisation may be influenced by variations in HLA, TLR and cytokine genes. Moreover, aluminium exposure is associated with the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines and with the development of chronic oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and glial activation or dysfunction; these changes in turn are associated with ASD." - "Our previous ecological studies of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has demonstrated a correlation between increasing ASD rates and aluminium (Al) adjuvants in common use in paediatric vaccines in several Western countries. [...] Injections of a “high” and “low” Al adjuvant levels were designed to correlate to either the U.S. or Scandinavian paediatric vaccine schedules vs. control saline-injected mice. [...] These current data implicate Al injected in early postnatal life in some CNS alterations that may be relevant for a better understanding of the aetiology of ASD. Repetitive administration of aluminium to neonatal mice in amounts comparable to those to children receive via routine vaccinations significantly increases anxiety and reduces exploratory behaviour and locomotor activities. The neurodisruptive effects of aluminium are long-lasting and persist for 6 months following injection." - "This study is the first to report an association between virus [measles] serology and brain autoantibody in autism; it supports the hypothesis that a virus-induced autoimmune response may play a causal role in autism." - "Data presented here show that ASD-GID children have (1) medically significant gastrointestinal dysfunction, (2) high risk for oxidative stress based on pathophysiological measures of F2-IsoP levels, and (3) more severely disrupted social function." - "Exposure to environ-mental toxins is the likely etiology for MtD in autism. This dysfunction then contributes to a number of diagnostic symptoms and comorbidities observed in autism including: cognitive impairment, language deficits, abnormal energy metabolism, chronic gastrointestinal problems, abnormalities in fatty acid oxidation, and increased oxidative stress. MtD and oxidative stress may also explain the high male to female ratio found in autism due to increased male vulnerability to these dysfunctions." - "The safety of the combined vaccine regimen per se, rather than that of individual vaccines or vaccine components, is an important aspect of vaccine safety that has not been examined. ...The data suggest that vaccine exposure may be associated with significant disturbances in central opioidergic pathways in this model. ...These results raise the possibility that multiple vaccine exposures during the previous 3-4 months may have had a significant impact on brain growth and development....the results of this pilot study warrant additional research into the potential impact of an interaction between the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines on brain structure and function. "

Again, the question is not only "is it mercury?" or "is it aluminum" or "is the the MMR?" or "is the Dtap?" or "is it multiple vaccines given at once?" but rather any and all of the above. Gender, age at vaccination, and ethnicity also seem to dictate susceptibility. One factor (ex "MMR") could be ruled out without proving that "vaccines do not in any way contribute to autism"... and even then, as the debate remains ongoing among both practitioners and researchers, it's more accurate to refer to the issue as "disputed" or "debated" not "disproven."

Back to the specific National Academy of Medicine study already cited by this wikipedia article, on its conclusion that they "favored rejection of a causal link between MMR & autism"-- the same study could neither reject or suggest a link between Dtap or autism. (top line of chart on page 727). Moreover, the vast majority of adverse effects investigated could neither be affirmed nor denied, and this in and of itself shows just how UN"settled" the question of vaccine safety is-- autism is but one part. As at least one scholarly paper indicated above, encephalitis can be a cause of autism, and this study DID find a causal link between MMR and encephalitis, as well as between varicella and encephalitis. (see p 726 as well as p 689)

A pilot study directly comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschooled students also is relevant: "...vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD [including autism] after controlling for other factors, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health."

In summary... I think this article could be more accurate by first calling the issue an ongoing debate rather than a settled consensus, and it would be helpful to list and link to several more of the facets of the issue being studied, such as genetic susceptibility to vaccine reactions (impaired methylation for ex.), efforts to find biomedical markers to autism (which then allow for more identification of causes), age, ethnicity & gender, Hep B, Dtap, human DNA fragments in vaccines, effect of vaccines on the gut, and more. It would be logical that an article on an ongoing topic of study would continue to be updated as more research is done, discussed and published. CMTBard (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That is really insulting. I spent hours culling, reading, citing and highlighting various sources and you don't even take the time to read them, instead responding within minutes with a single word. How is that neutral and intellectually honest?CMTBard (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you're trying to suggest that the question of vaccines' relationship to autism is open. And it's not. Period. Thus, I said no. Also, that huge block of text is mind-numbingly long and hurts the eyes. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

When I entered it it was not a block of text, I don't know how to make formatting stick. You are begging the question-- refusing to consider any evidence to the contrary of what you already believe, because it contradicts what you believe. Click through any of the links and see what actual published research (ongoing) is saying. CMTBard (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gladly, when you present sound research from high-quality sources. And not before. If you're unsure how to format your answers, then please ask. This is a good principle in general on Wikipedia if you don't know how to do something rather than struggle on your own. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. So, aside from the usual problem of the mutually contradictory "it's mercury!" versus "it's aluminium" narratives (they cross-cite, because the authors are all damned sure it's the vaccines one way or another), what you've done here is basically a Gish Gallop. Far form sowing this to be an ongoing field of research, you have shown it to be a scientific dead end now ignored by everyone other than committed antivaxers. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/19#727 - WP:SYN.
 * 2) https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/12 - WP:SYN.
 * 3) https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005385 - doesn't mention vaccines.
 * 4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355 - single author primary study, opinion based, as one of the responses says "Coincidental associations do not provide proof for the etiology of autism". Not WP:MEDRS.
 * 5) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/ - single author opinion-based piece, cites the 1998 Wakefield paper which was retracted after this was written. Ten years old, primary, not a review study, fails WP:MEDRS.
 * 6) https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/ - Anti-vaccine conspiracy theory on anti-vaccine website, fails every possible interpretation of WP:RS.
 * 7) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763 - primary research funded by the anti-vaccine Dwoskin Foundation. Speculative and not a review study, fails WP:MEDRS.
 * 8) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X18302141?via%3Dihub - cites Exley, cites Wikipedia, primary research stating opinion as fact without benefit of supporting citations, fails WP:MEDRS.
 * 9) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26103708 - primary research, asserts that ASD diagnosis reduced as a result of less vaccination, but this is contradicted by published data,  addresses the assertion made as fact and shows it to be false.
 * 10) http://www.soundchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/DNA_Contaminants_in_Vaccines_Can_Integrate_Into_Childrens_Genes.pdf - anti-vaccine website, get out of here.
 * 11) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534 - 2002, long out of date, superseded by large population studies showing no link. Fails WP:MEDRS due to age.
 * 12) https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/uteh/2011/00000074/00000014/art00002?token=004c170388ee06a6e5865462431636f5720415d23763c247b5e4e26634a492f2530332976261 - "Department of Economics and Finance", cites, Gods help us, the Geiers. Seriously?
 * 13) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21058170/ - also cites Geier, repeats the now-debunked false correlation in African-American boys/
 * 14) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717316479 - cites Geier, does not account for the fact that removal of thimerosal resulted in precisely zero change in ASD
 * 15) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18771903 - single author opinion, old, fails WP:MEDRS
 * 16) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11011-017-0077-2 - cites Geiers, Shaw, Exley, Tomljenovic. Junk.
 * 17) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013413001773 - Shaw and Tomljenovic. Junk.
 * 18) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9756729 - too old for WP:MEDRS (predates refutation of Wakefield)
 * 19) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068444 - unrelated to vaccines
 * 20) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26624860_Evidence_of_Mitochondrial_Dysfunction_in_Autism_and_Implications_for_Treatment - old (cites Wakefield) so fails WP:MEDRS
 * 21) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20628439 - animal model, old, fails WP:MEDRS.
 * 22) https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/videos/ - antivax site, GTFO.
 * 23) https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/19#727 - WP:SYN.
 * 24) https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/19#689 - WP:SYN.
 * 25) https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php# - zero-impact open acces,s identified as probably predatory. Fails WP:MEDRS.
 * Looks like you beat me to it Guy and you did it more concisely. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
In the first paragraph there is this sentence:
 * Vaccinologist Peter Hotez researched the growth of the false claim and concluded that its spread originated with Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 paper - only earlier paper in the peer reviewed literature, a single case study, rejected any causal link.

I'm not sure what the stuff after the dash means. It makes little sense grammatically and I'm not sure if it's asserting there was only 1 paper (a case study) published prior to Wakefield's work, or something else entirely. I'm going to remove it for now but if someone can parse it and re-write it that'd be neat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump tweet - vaccines to autism
Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases! March 28, 2014 Donald J. Trump has said in the past that vaccines cause autism. In September a month ago he advocated for vaccination. It is challenging to pin down what the position of the White House is, but Trump has a platform and is a prominent voice in the conversation about vaccines and autism. I think there is a place for the Trump tweet in this article because it is so concise. I put it in the lead but it might be better placed elsewhere in other context.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , that tweet is patently false. Including it in the article misleads the reader. – bradv  🍁  23:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To what extent is the position of the President of the United States relevant to this topic and the public discourse?
 * If the president's positions were sufficiently influential to merit mention, could you propose a way and content to include this tweet in the correct way?
 * I see no reason to comment on what is false or true. I only shared this because it seemed important enough to use as supplementary media on the side.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , what benefit does it serve the reader? That tweet says more about Trump than about the subject of this article. – bradv  🍁  17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , what benefit does it serve the reader? That tweet says more about Trump than about the subject of this article. – bradv  🍁  17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How did anyone decide to include this photo of McCarthy? McCarthy seems to be a media figure which had minor prominence in the United States for a short range in time. Trump has an international presence, more attention, and political power to influence the funding that is the basis for global vaccination practices. We do not necessarily need to demonstrate that Trump is more noteworthy on this topic than McCarthy for inclusion because there is room for multiple media complements on the side, but relatively to McCarthy and the other media figures named here, I am guessing that Trump as president speaking on health would have more standing to be in this page than any of the others. Is Trump not among the most prominent commentators on this topic, and is this tweet not a representative statement of his demographic's view the vaccine/autism discourse? Why is Trump's view trivia, but the other seemingly more minor figures get included?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump knows even less about vaccines than he does about ethics. This is trivia we don't need. Guy (help!) 17:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , McCarthy is one of the celebrities mentioned in that section, so having her picture makes sense. I suppose if you want to include a paragraph about Trump's statements on the matter they could go in the same section. Assuming, of course, that there are suitable sources. – bradv  🍁  21:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I presume it was on the basis that blondes with big tits are inherently notable and their opinions important - that's the underlying cause, and probably also the cause of its insertion. Guy (help!) 21:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that if we are going to include a picture of anyone, it should be Robert F. Kennedy Jr. BD2412  T 00:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to have pictures of both RFK and Jenny McCarthy. With that said, they're both big figures in the anti-vaccine community with strong media presences and published (nonsensical) books on the topic. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps throw in Wakefield and have a collage, then. BD2412  T 03:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object. I don't know if you're being facetious but I think McCarthy's picture is just fine. The only thing is this is a relatively short article so only a few pictures are needed at most. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wakefield is another who should clearly be in there, yes. He made the bullshit, McCarthy mainstreamed it. Guy (help!) 13:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Rebuke as a lede?
Does any other article in Wikipedia fire off with a rebuke of the subject? Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoatCheck (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, you'll have to check the other articles. If you think this is a problem, you can propose a change here.--McSly (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, most articles on hoaxes, conspiracy theories and frauds start by identifying them as such. Guy (help!) 21:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sheesh
Yeah this article probably has some of the most vandalism i've ever seen on one article, nice! MelonIsYes (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)