User talk:Clinicalnurse

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Clinicalnurse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Brian Deer
I have undone your additions to the Brian Deer article. They do not appear to me to be properly sourced to reliable publications, and they may also contravene our biographies of living people policies. I would suggest you propose any further changes on the article talk page (Talk:Brian Deer) and seek consensus from other editors before making further such changes. It may also be worthwhile reading the conflict of interest guidelines in case you have any connexion with Andrew Wakefield. DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no conflict of interest Mr. Brian Deer, I merely am an informed citizen that is calling you out for what you are: a fraud, a liar, and an irresponsible journalist with hidden agendas. The only thing I have going for myself is that I am honest, you cannot say the same about yourself. The truth will triumph in the end and you will be shamed. Clinicalnurse 17:31, February 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not Brian Deer, and if you persist in calling me, any other editor, or indeed Brian Deer "a fraud, a liar" etc you will find yourself blocked. Please read our policy on personal attacks. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand, it's only acceptable to call people frauds if it comes from your end, whether it's the truth or not. Then shame on you too sir. Clinicalnurse 17:48, February 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it is acceptable to call someone a fraud if they have been found guilty of fraud and if you provide a reliable source as evidence. But if they have not, or you cannot, then it is not acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editors, the issue of reliable source- herein lies the problem. Publications such as the Lancet or the BMJ are accepted as being reliable sources. Journalists such as Brian Deer can publish defamatory articles therein and then reference his own articles in these publications as a reliable source. Unfortunatley there is conflict of interest at work here that is on the surface not evident, however, those journals and many others receive most of their funding from pharmaceutical companies that promote the sale of vaccines. It stands to reason then that they would protect the interests of their billion dollar pharmaceutical advertisers and it would behoove them to support any articles that argue in their favour and suppress any evidence to the contrary. BMJ has been asked to print a retraction of the slander against Dr. Wakefield in light of evidence recently come to light to support the fact that he did not commit fraud. If they have any integity they will, but I will be very surprised if they do. Medical journals are controlled by big pharma, it is unlikely that any apoligies will be forthcoming. In the meantime, lies will be taken as truth and they will continue to be considered a reliable source, when in fact the only thing that is reliable is the huge paychecks that they receive to keep the truth suppressed and keep the money making machine rolling. Clinicalnurse (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors, please consider this www.naturalnews.com/031231_mainstream_media_Dr_Wakefield.html. I'm not trying to create an edit war, I didn't even know what that was. I just want to help strengthen the validity of your website. I obviously am not going about it the right way, but maybe you do. Please help bring the truth to light :) Clinicalnurse (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Brian Deer isn't editing here, and even if he were, he would be allowed to edit under the conditions outlined in our WP:COI guideline. You, OTOH, are not allowed to attack anyone, including Brian Deer, especially making libelous statements which violate our WP:BLP policy. The so-called "evidence" is actually old stuff from the GMC case which resulted in Wakefield losing his license. If it's what I've seen, then it is also from the other doctor who also lost his license. It's not "new" and it's been debunked. You're refusing to accept the evidence of massive and deliberate fraud perpetrated by Wakefield and thus you are a "true believer". The evidence is indeed very strong on multiple fronts, not just the money he was paid and hid. I suggest you follow the money in this case, which shows exactly how much money Wakefield was being paid, most of which he was not disclosing. He had a massive COI. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep up with the tour will ya, we are talking about recent evidence now. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html Oh and don't pretend you know all the answers with your fancy talking, that does not make your statements any more valid. I am open for some real evidence, not a true believer as you claim, I don't believe some teenage hippy skeptochick who regurgitates numbers and who knows about as much as my sockpuppet about the subject. http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/04/how-the-gmc-framed-doctors-wakefield-walkersmith-and-murch-.html
 * I love how folks that know nothing about medicine, like Mr. Deer, have so much to say about it and do nothing but confound the issue Clinicalnurse (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This one is also worth reading: http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinicalnurse (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of us who edit medical articles are in the medical field.

The Daily Mail article is about some research from 2006, not anything new, and there are reports of this all the way back to that time. I can't find it on PubMed. Do you have the actual reference to the research in a peer-reviewed journal? Here's what I could find:

The NAA announced it in May 2006: http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/press0053106.php

Here's what I could find by Stephen J. Walker, from Wake Forest (nothing to do with measles):

"... there were no apparent differences between autistic and non-autistic sibling responses in this very small sampling group,.."

Cultured lymphocytes from autistic children and non-autistic siblings up-regulate heat shock protein RNA in response to thimerosal challenge.

Walker SJ, Segal J, Aschner M.

Neurotoxicology. 2006 Sep;27(5):685-92. Epub 2006 Jun 16.

PMID: 16870260

The neuropathogenesis of mercury toxicity.

Aschner M, Walker SJ.

Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7 Suppl 2:S40-1. Review. No abstract available.

PMID: 12142946

Although this isn't by SJ Walker, this shows a genetic defect involved with autism:

Rare familial 16q21 microdeletions under a linkage peak implicate cadherin 8 (CDH8) in susceptibility to autism and learning disability.

Pagnamenta AT, Khan H, Walker S, Gerrelli D, Wing K, Bonaglia MC, Giorda R, Berney T, Mani E, Molteni M, Pinto D, Le Couteur A, Hallmayer J, Sutcliffe JS, Szatmari P, Paterson AD, Scherer SW, Vieland VJ, Monaco AP.

J Med Genet. 2011 Jan;48(1):48-54. Epub 2010 Oct 23.

PMID: 20972252

You're welcome to search PubMed. Maybe you can find it. FYI, I'm in the medical field and have a child with Aspergers, so I'm always interested in findings and would love to see this. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's more about him:
 * http://www.wfubmc.edu/Research/WFIRM/Stephen-Walker,-PhD.htm

This has his research listed:
 * http://www.wfubmc.edu/Faculty/Walker-Stephen-J.htm
 * He had a presentation here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W81-4MH41NX-8&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=32&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236641%232006%23999729993%23638777%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6641&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=35&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=252e071676ae65e65b600104161c245b&searchtype=a

He may well be one of the researchers who, inspired by the original fraudulent Lancet study by Wakefield, wasted lots of time and money on a wild goose chase trying to confirm Wakefield's results. Lots of researchers did that and never found a link. Some thought they had but were disappointed. Just like when the wrong person gets put in jail, this mess has diverted lots of effort and time from efforts to find the causes of autism. Wakefield really set the whole autism community back and parents should be in a lynching mood. They should be suing him. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time, I will have to take some time to review the articles you listed and investigate further, if I come up with anything I will let you know :)


 * In truth I do tend to be fairly skeptical, I can however be persuaded in light of evidence. However real evidence that you can trust can be difficult to find, even in peer-reviewed journals. There is criticism that even these do not paint a true picture because there is so much pressure behind the scenes on the doctors and researchers that the data can be heavily manipulated to their advantage to fulfill their personal agendas ie. grant money, fame, etc. Examples of manipulated data includes the actual benefit of the drug Lipitor in saving lives and the safety of dental mercury amalgams. If you haven't seen this before, I think you will find this article very interesting. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/


 * There is sooo much money involved here with the vaccine industry, we have no idea at what lengths they would go to to protect their goose that lays the multi-billion dollar eggs. You must remain skeptical even in face of peer-reviewed articles, because they also could just be damned lies as Dr. Ionnanidis discusses in the above article. Have a good day and good luck with your son. Clinicalnurse (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Brian Deer. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

A discussion concerning you
I have started a noticeboard thread about you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You are very welcome to comment in it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)