Talk:MMR vaccine and autism

hoax

Can we redirect this page to 'MMR Vaccine hoax' ? Calling it a controversy is being generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.246.66 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

While I have to agree that it's silly that vaccines are being pointed at for "autism" (Autism doesn't make you retarded...), renaming it a "hoax" would be a very noticable show of bias. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Hoax" is the wrong word because Wakefield didn't do it for fun. "Fraud" is the right word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

MMR vaccine is still controversial. It's misleading for Wiki to suggest otherwise. Maybe Wiki editors tend towards the conservative or establishment view but it is wrong to suggest that view is the only rational one. psic88 15:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psic88 (talk • contribs)

It's only a controversy among conspiracy believers, people with mental difficulties, there is no controversy among scientists. Damotclese (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Damotclese:@Psic88: Damotclese, Please do not imply that another user has mental difficulties, WP:NPA. Psic88, wikipedia is based on reliable sources per WP:RS, what source do you have to say that the vaccine is still controversial? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

People who suffer from False_memory_syndrome are suffering mental problems. You might want to go research what causes people to have false memories implanted as well as review the extant research in how the spectrum of mental difficulties people who suffer from the affliction harbor. FMS and the McMartin_preschool_trial was something I was involved with during the McMartin fiasco as part of the debunking of numerous false memories implanted in the children by adults with serious mental problems, including false memories where children were eventually led to honestly believe that they had been taken to Peru through underground tunnels, ritually raped, murdered, and eaten, and then were ritually brought back to life, returned to the Preschool in time for their parents to pick them up in the morning. So I have extensive background in the psychological difficulties of people who suffer from FMS.

Also, vaccinations causing autism is a conspiracy belief harbored by individuals with mental difficulties, just as are so-called Sandy Hook Truthers, false memory implantation via mass media manipulation of weak minds is a phenomena resulting in False Memory Syndrome, as is "Pizzagate" and Flat Earth beliefs as well as belief in "Chemtrails", all of which are harbored by people with mental difficulties stemming from false memory implantation. Damotclese (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Damotclese: I didn't say mental issues can't cause false beliefs, I said it is a personal attack to say someone must have "mental difficulties" because they argue something counter to scientific consensus, you can be wrong without being mentally ill. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You have strange ideas about what constitutes a "personal attack." Mental illness is not a joke, and if you think that the mental health profession covering people with mental difficulties are some how "attacking" their patients, then you have a behavioral problem. That's the last time I will discuss this issue with you. Damotclese (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Damotclese: I never said mental health professionals are attacking there patients, I said attempting to diagnose another editor (not a patient) as having a mental problem is not appropriate, especially when you use that diagnosis to discredit them, as you have done with me and Psic88. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The CDC Whistleblower

I can't find any information on the page about the CDC whistleblower and the associated findings as presented in the "documentary" Vaxxed. This seems like new information that would definitely have it's place in the "Media" section, and perhaps elsewhere too.

Anyone knows if there has been a rigorous external review of what is presented in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jul059 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Respectful Insolence
• Snopes.com

It's a lie. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724093057/http://www.wwaytv3.com/healthwatch-disputed-autism-study-sparks-debate-about-vaccines/01/2011 to http://www.wwaytv3.com/healthwatch-disputed-autism-study-sparks-debate-about-vaccines/01/2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202050830/http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/ID/PIDnote_Jun07.htm to http://cps.ca/english/statements/ID/pidnote_jun07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807002358/http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTgyNA%3D%3D to http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTgyNA%3D%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110035155/http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/07/andrew-wakefields-lethal-legac to http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/07/andrew-wakefields-lethal-legac
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/vaccine/Hastings-Cedillo.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514063807/http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Abell.BANKS.02-0738V.pdf to http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Abell.BANKS.02-0738V.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/mumps/gen_info.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1968100%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

POV Tag

I'd just like to say that you need to speak to Andrew Wakefield himself or someone in order to make this article unbiased. Animal28 (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It is well established that his article was fraudulent and has caused a great deal of harm. I don't need to talk to the river to know it is wet. The Tag has been discussed multiple time so it goes. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The extant article's contents have been discussed, vetted, refined, discussed again, over and over and over, there is nothing which has not been hashed out repeatedly over the years and nothing in the extant article violates WP:NPOV. Editors who find this article and don't agree with the referenced, cited, vetted content should examine the archived Talk:: page content if they find something they believe to be WP:NPOV, and they will find that whatever they're feeling is inaccurate or "unfair" has already been discussed endlessly. Damotclese (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we need to speak to Bernie Madoff and present his point of view credulously, in order to write a neutral and accurate article on the collapse of his Ponzi scheme? MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to speak to Andrew Wakefield about vaccines. Let me ask him about his patents. The payments he received for testifying against MMR vaccine. How his article got retracted, and his co-authors bailed on him. I'd love to talk to him about his bromance with Donald Trump. I'd love to know why he doesn't want dogs vaccinated. I'd love to know his point of view about the hundreds of kids that have been hospitalized or died because they contracted the measles. I'm sure it would be a fascinating conversation. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake news

This article is so obviously biased that it falls into the fake news category. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world know Wakefield's work and consider him a hero who is standing up to a corrupt medical system that considers vaccine induced neurological damage in 2 percent of population a cost of doing business. And it's not just this article. It is clear when the editors of Wikipedia collectively label the worldwide vaccine safety movement, that includes scientists, medical practitioners and literally millions of people, a "Conspiracy Theory," that the publication is taking sides. "Conspiracy Theory" is simply an ad hominem attack and has no place a serious reference encyclopedia. The phase conjures up images of a small circle of maladjusted individuals trading speculative hypotheses. 1.6 million people took to the streets to protest government vaccine policy in Italy in the Spring of 2017, and hundreds of thousands more are protesting in France and Germany as I write this. How long can you hope to keep up this charade Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMcLeod (talk • contribs)

You misunderstand. The anti-vaxxers, those you call "scientists, medical practitioners and literally millions of people", are the people who adhere to the conspiracy theory. They believe that "a small circle of maladjusted individuals" conspire to hide "the truth".

And of course ideas do not become true by "millions" believing in them. See argumentum ad populum. We rely on reliable sources, not on what an uninformed mob thinks. If you find a reliable source that confirms your opinion, please name it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

ThomasMcLeod, I see that you're new here so let me assist you in how Wikipedia works. If you can find anything in the article here which is inaccurate or mistaken, do let other editors know specifics about what is wrong here in the Talk: page so that the article may be corrected. Also new comments in Talk: are typically appended to the page or to sections, they're not added at the top of the page. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Haha Hob Gadling, that's a joke, right? NO, it is not. The titling is propagandistic hate speech designed to denigrate a whole sub-culture of people around the world so as to implement forced vaccination without informed consent, which is against internationally recognized human rights. Reliable sources, hahaha. Tell me please, was Joseph Goebbels a reliable source on the question of how to characterize Jewish culture? If the answer is no, than why to you choose to use as a "reliable" sources whose mission is to destroy the people and the culture that is the subject of the article?

What do you mean with "a joke"? What do you mean when you say "The titling"? You do not seem to be a very clear thinker. We cannot read your thoughts, unless you write them down.

Your claim that "what we choose as" reliable sources have the mission to "destroy the people and the culture that is the subject of the article" is just the crazy conspiracy theory we are talking about. I do not think you and Wikipedia (or you and reality) have a common ground to base a discussion on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the article uses scientifically reliable sources. It's got a neutral point of view. It's pretty well written. And the scientific consensus, based on scientific evidence, shows us that the MMR vaccine is relatively safe and relatively effective. But if you want conspiracy theories, I'm sure this isn't the place for you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor Just glancing at the reference list, all of the sources for this article are part of the global vaccine industry or have a financial ties to it. In general, the article describes the narrative publicized by Wakefield's enemies in great detail while failing to mention or minimizing the opposing narrative. Taken together the article presents a one-sided, false picture of the topic. Granted it is a picture that has been popularized by a well-funded media campaign of the pharmaceutical industry and their collaborators in the media. Wakefield has certainly been the main antagonist in that narrative, which pharma uses to attack the vaccine safety movement. You are welcome to write whatever to want on your own blog, as I'm sure you do. But Wikipedia is the commons. The time is coming and has now come when people who have been hurt by the lies and distortions on this page will take action to correct the record. Hob Gadling I'm very disappointed that you decided to go ad hominem and attack me, but since you did here are some prominent examples of what I'm talking about: Peter J. Hotez, MD, PhD, director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development in Houston, and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine, has become a prominent spokesman on the so-called scientific position on vaccines. On March 3, 2017, he published an opinion piece in Scientific American where he urged readers to "snuff out" the community of vaccine injured families that support Wakefield. Two months later, on May 8, the Boston Herald published an editorial calling the questioning of the dominant position on vaccines a "hanging offense." Others in positions of power in the current medical regime have recently called for the breakup of families who refuse to comply with the vaccination schedule, and still others have called for loss of license and occupation. And of course, the position of every rich pharma exec and medical high holy is that the children of vaccine resistant families should be denied access to education. So, here it is in black and white: vigilante justice and lynchings, denial of right to earn a living, denial of access to education for community members, the break up of families through misuse of the foster care system; these are the clearly stated intentions of the sources you call reliable. This is what I call the destruction of a community. This is nothing more than a hate campaign, and a call for some kind of Kristallnacht against a vulnerable minority who have suffered vaccine injury and paying the price for this one sided propaganda. By its biased, one sided presentation of the issue, this article is clearly part of that campaign. ThomasMcLeod (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)