Jump to content

Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaxPont (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 22 October 2009 (→Political controversy and allegations about conflict of interests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Very Biased Page

This page, and the page about the Polio Vaccine are extremely biased. These articles are supposed to show information from all sources. You would think that a page titled "Thiomersal Controversy" would show the "controversy" side, but quite the opposite is in this article. This article is an attack on anyone that is critical about Thiomersal (which contains Mercury).

The New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the sources cited in this article, claims that the Mercury containing compound Thiomersal (aka thimerosal) does not react in the Human Body like environmentally derived Mercury Compounds, because it (Thiomersal) passes though the body more quickly than Mercury Compounds from the environment, and is not a threat.[1] The problem with their understanding of what a "safe" level of Mercury is that even low levels of Mercury are harmful to the brain.[2]Nly8nchz (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above comment criticizes Offit 2007 (PMID 17898096), a NEJM article whose main subject is thiomersal and childhood vaccines. The comment's criticism is based on a press release about a study (Yokoo et al. 2003, PMID 12844364) that has nothing to do with thiomersal, or with children, or with autism. This article needs sources that are directly relevant to the topic; Yokoo et al. is not.
  • For the polio vaccine, please discuss on the polio vaccine's talk page.
  • This article attempts to use the WP:WEIGHT guideline when talking about the thiomersal controversy: that is, it gives the mainstream viewpoint while giving appropriate weight to minority opinions.
Eubulides (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New study showing toxicity by low dose Thiomersal

From: Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, June 2009. Title: "Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds" [1] This ref should be integrated in the article. MaxPont (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an additional ref[2] 06:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding these references...Mark Geier and his son, David, have a terrible reputation regarding autism-thiomersal research. It would be a poor idea to give further attention to their claims without clearer caveats along the lines of

Time and again, reputable scientists have dismissed autism research by Geier and his son, David, as seriously flawed. Judges who have heard Mark Geier testify about vaccines' harmful effects have repeatedly called him unqualified, with one describing his statements as "intellectually dishonest."[3]

Certainly the claims of Geier et al. over the years have played an important role in this whole controversy, but I'm not sure if the present state of the article accurately indicates just how shady the Geiers' research is perceived to be... — Scientizzle 17:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article already contains lots of citations to Geier. One could argue that adding one more couldn't hurt. On the other hand, it verges on original research for this article to serve as a dumping ground for every paper the Geiers write. It would be better to remove the existing citations to the Geier primary studies, and replacing them with a summary of the Geiers' work based on a reliable third-party source. Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP articles should reflect reliable sources. WP also rejects self-publisihed sources because a core WP principle is that a reliable third party publisher is a quality assurance for fact checking and notability. If Geier has managed to be published in peer reviewed journals several times, these publications can't be dismissed. Who are you (the WP editors) to overrule academic peer review in credible journals? MaxPont (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Geiers' publications on this topic can be dismissed not because of what I've said here, but because of what reliable sources have said in reviewing the work. Rightly or wrongly, mainstream sources do not take the Geiers seriously. This article should not give more weight to fringe theories than reliable sources do; that's a core principle of Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above was to state that the Geiers' claims are rather relevant to this controversy (i.e., "Mark Geier and his son, David Geier...experts whose work is most frequently cited by parents [in legal cases]"[4]). However, I don't think the present article qualifies the work of Geier et al sufficiently. For example:

[Dr. Geier] has also testified in more than 90 vaccine cases, he said, although a judge in a vaccine case in 2003 ruled that Dr. Geier was "a professional witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise and experience." In other cases, judges have called Dr. Geier's testimony "intellectually dishonest," "not reliable" and "wholly unqualified."[5]

and

But the Geiers have been widely criticized for both their methods and their treatment. In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that a Geier study finding a link between vaccines and autism was marred by "numerous conceptual and scientific flaws, omissions of fact, inaccuracies, and misstatements." The following year, the Institute of Medicine concluded in a report that the purported connection between mercury in vaccines and autism did not exist. The government-sanctioned committee of scientists reserved harsh words for the Geiers' work, saying their research was "uninterpretable" and marred by "serious methodological problems."[6]

Geier & Geier have also been criticized for their monetary gains in relation to this controvery and performing ethically dubious treatments[7][8][9]; it turns my stomach a bit to see anything from Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2nd from the bottom of the current list of "Geier studies" in the article) cited as a legitimate peer-reviewed publication.
So...while I agree with Eubulides over this article evolving into a "dumping ground for every paper the Geiers write", I think adding a couple more items to the "Geier studies" reference list would be fine; however, I think we can and should be even clearer about how the Geiers are viewed regarding quality of research and ethical concerns. — Scientizzle 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little statistical analysis

I went to PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez) and did a search for "thiomersal autism". This returned 119 papers. I downloaded the HTML results, pulled out the author data (by finding HTML paragraphs with class="authors"), and sliced and diced them a bit with standard unix command line tools. I found 246 distinct authors. I counted how many publications each one had. Of the authors with more than two papers on the subject, I found:

  • 3 Singh VK
  • 4 Fombonne E
  • 4 Redwood L
  • 5 Bernard S
  • 5 DeStefano F
  • 11 Geier DA
  • 12 Geier MR

This says to me that, at least by this naive statistical method, the Geier's are the major authors in this field. It is thus not unreasonable that this article should give considerable weight to their publications. I am fully aware that if you send in enough manuscripts to enough places, eventually some will be accepted. Thus, publication count alone is a weak indicator of importance.

I'm not familiar with the epidemiological journals, so I don't know which are considered the better ones. The only one I know is New England Journal of Medicine; of five publications there, none are by the Geiers. This is a little bit of a warning flag for me, but that may be exposing my ignorance of the field more than anything else. What is more significant to me is that of 12 publications, the Geirs are the sole authors on 10 of them. It is certainly common for there to be clusters of authors within a field. You would, however, expect to see some variation in co-authorship as various people come through their labs or they collaborate with different groups on clinical studies.

I don't have an axe to grind here. Personally, I think the thiomersal-autism theory is a crock. But, any journal that's indexed by PubMed should be considered a reliable source, and the PubMed numbers show they are the most frequently published authors on the subject. Thus, it would be disingenuous to ignore their work in this article. Certainly, for an article titled Thiomersal controversy, it seems reasonable to include the work of people who are at the center of the controversy.

If you want to claim their their work is poorly regarded, you need to do better than just the vague dismissive statements above. Perhaps use Science Citation Index. If you can show that their publications are rarely cited by other authors, that would be a much stronger statement about how the scientific community views their work.

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the journals cited in the current "Geier studies" list, with ISI 2008 journal citation reports:
That's just one measure for our edification--not really useful in the article. However, there have been plenty of sources linked above and in the article that discuss how the Geiers' work is generally dismissed. — Scientizzle 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself, If Geier has managed to be published in peer reviewed journals several times, these publications can't be dismissed or omitted from the article. In particular the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. However, their reception should of course be covered. (PS. Journals about narrow topics will always be low in the citation hierarchy.) MaxPont (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Journals about narrow topics will always be low in the citation hierarchy ... which is why you look at their rankings within their fields, as I linked to for each. The JCR is only one imperfect rating system, but it is informative to evaluate where a given journal rates within its field.
And to repeat myself (and to boldly speak for everyone else in this thread), nobody appears to be advocating removing what's already in the article or is strongly opposed to adding the two additional references you brought forward. Really! However, it's absurd to assert that any particular publication cannot be omitted; exclusion of any piece of information is the default state and thus the case must be made for inclusion balanced against editorial concerns and Wikipedia policies and norms. — Scientizzle 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To take the number crunching a little further, the two presently-cited the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health studies in the article have 9 (2006) and 11 (2007) citations pointing to them in SCOPUS; however, if you discount the extensive self-citation (2/9 and 6/11 are self-cites by Geier, respectively), these two publications are cited a total of 12 times by external groups, and not generally in high-impact journals. That's perfectly fine--it won't blow anyone away, but it's not awful, either. [As a point of reference, I looked up my own two publications from 2006, in arguably better journals than Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, and they've received 14 cites between them.] There's nothing about these two publications that scream cannot be omitted, IMO... — Scientizzle 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for us to do this sort of statistical number crunching. There are reliable sources that have already done that for us, and we should be relying on them rather than reindependently debating over whether the Geiers publish junk science. For more on this subject, please see the sources cited in Mark Geier #Controversial studies and Mark Geier #Criticism.
  • This article should not be citing primary studies by the Geiers. None of them are notable in themselves, and they are not reliable sources. Even if they were reliable, this article should cite reliable reviews rather than primary studies, as per WP:MEDRS.

Eubulides (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Eubulides. WP:MEDRS also states "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.". In the main Thiomersal article Geier would probably not be a RS. However, this is an article about a controversy and the constroversy should be described. To repeat, Geier has at least on one occasion managed to be published in a reasonbaly credible peer reviewed publication. MaxPont (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly appropriate to mention the Geiers, their theories, and their role in the controversy, and to cite reliable sources about their role. However, we are under no obligation to cite all the Geiers' papers directly. On the contrary: since the reliable sources cover the Geiers' work adequately, we shouldn't cite any of their primary studies: as is usual in Wikipedia, citing the secondary sources is preferable to citing the primary ones, and primary studies shouldn't be cited directly unless they are particularly notable, which they aren't. None of the Geiers' papers comes even close to the level of the famous Bernard et al. 2001 (PMID 11339848) paper (and why is that paper not cited here, while we have acres of the Geier papers that reliable sources don't take seriously?). Eubulides (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's compromise and add the two most high ranking publications (per above) to the Geier footnote together with his other publications. I added the articles from Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health and Journal of the Neurological Sciences. MaxPont (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is a compromise to add two more primary studies (studies that are not PubMed-indexed!). These show no more evidence of being reliable sources than the debunked Geier studies already cited. My position remains that we should be citing reliable secondary sources (this is Wikipedia policy) instead of these extremely low-quality primary sources, and that we should be removing all the primary studies in question. Eubulides (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eubulides. Adding more to the list of studies by Geier would seem to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. I would also prefer elimination of his primary studies (and indeed, most of the primary studies cited in the article, as most of low quality and not useful in the context of the scientific consensus), with replacement of citations by secondary sources as suggested as these are the best sources to use per WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eubulides. I don't see how this edit fits the definition of a "compromise"...Dramatic re-enactment:

MaxPont Let's add these two studies.
Scientizzle Maybe. But if we do, it should be made clearer how their research is generally dismissed.
Eubulides We shouldn't just make this a dumping ground for Geier papers. More secondary sources would be appropriate.
MaxPont OK, so as a compromise, let's add these two studies.

I'm no dramatacist, but there's a touch of Monty Python-esque farce to that... — Scientizzle 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for being funny. My original idea was to add the studies in the body text of the article. However, as other studies by Geier already are summarized in a footnote I can't see why the two most credible studies (from the analysis by RoySmith above) should not fit in that list? I used the word compromise for adding them in a footnote that is invisible for readers of the body text of the article, not in the article itself. I hope that clarifies. MaxPont (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking my post with the humor intended (far too rare in wikiworld). Your explanation does add some clarity, too. I think there's a reasonable middle-ground here...
The Geiers' impact has been prominent in thiomersal-autism court cases and in some of the notable publications on the whole controversy. What Geier studies have been most commonly used in the major cases (Hannah Poling?), or discussed in the secondary literature from each side (i.e., Evidence of Harm & Autism's False Prophets)? Surely there's a discernible rank-order of Geier studies that has had an impact on these? The most relevant of these would be the obvious choice of at least a "Geier studies" footnote but possibly even more detailed discussion & criticism.
The thing about the newer research is it hasn't really had time to make an impact in the controversy or be covered secondarily. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.) By all means, these studies should be included in the Mark Geier article; until they have some impact in secondary coverage of the controversy, it may be best to leave the newest articles out as they can't be properly contextually discussed. Thoughts? — Scientizzle 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestions both. Eubulides (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret this as that it is OK to add back the studies to the footnote.(?) MaxPont (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, no. Adding the two citations is not a compromise. Didn't the Monty Python skit make this clear? Eubulides (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it is unfair to refer back to the Monty Python joke above again as I have explained what I meant with a compromise (a footnote is much less prominent than refering the study in the body text of the article). I also think that it is too strong wording to label it a "dumping ground" if a list of studies in a footnote is added with two more peer reviewed studies in a footnote if the body text says "a series of epidemiologic studies coauthored by Mark Geier claimed a population-level correlation between thiomersal and autism". MaxPont (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, really, it's not a compromise, as it doesn't at all address the fundamental issues being raised by the other side. There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of peer-reviewed articles about the thiomersal controversy. Why does this article cite every paper of a discredited source like the Geiers, and not cite other papers, which are much higher quality? Why does this article not summarize this extremely low-quality work using the higher-quality secondary sources that are available? It is not a compromise to compound the problem by citing even more junk-science sources. We should remove these sources, not add more of them. Eubulides (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides, I can think of many answers to your questions, but all of them are unacceptably cynical. In any case, I think your points are sound. This probably falls under the part of WP:MEDRS that cautions against stringing together cherry-picked primary sources to weight the article in a way that doesn't represent reality or the current state of knowledge on the subject. MastCell Talk 04:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

If no one has objections, as time permits, I will be removing the Timeline section and adding any useful references/information to the main body. I will also see what can be done to decrease the number of primary sources in this article, per the discussion above. Yobol (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary/secondary sources

Primary sources dominate some parts of the article (most notably the Rationale for Concern section), where we can have secondary sources describe the the findings and thoughts that are currently there. I will be looking to replace the primary sources (most notably the long list of Geier sources) with secondary sources, being sure to leave the "important" primary sources in place (i.e. large studies published in prominent journals). Yobol (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I disapprove in general of linking to Medical Hypotheses, I caution that the metric for importance to this topic should not be the same as that for importance to medicine. Irrespective of being rejected by medical researchers, some of these papers are important to this article for their political impact. That said, I applaud your efforts to edit this article to follow the coverage of the topic in reliable sources. The Rationale section definitely needs cleanup with secondary sources so we know how to present and weight each point, but the Timeline and possibly Background sections need the primary sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand catching up on discussions I note that #Timeline is no longer an issue, per previous section. Tell you what - go ahead with the restructuring, and if I have any objections more concrete than vague handwaving, we can discuss them then. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest mentioning Bernard et al. 2001 (PMID 11339848), published in Medical Hypotheses and perhaps the most important paper underlying the controversy. It should not be hard to find reliable secondary sources that review that paper and its role in the controversy. Eubulides (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. [10]Yobol (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political controversy and allegations about conflict of interests

There exists a political controversy with claims in mainstream media that the medical establishment is trying to suppress facts about the risks with Thiomersal. This conflict does not fall under WP:MEDRS but should be covered in the same way as other political controveries. On important source is the article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Deadly Immunity [11] which should be included as a reference.MaxPont (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that conflict of interest is the main issue here. The main issue is that a substantial number of people distrust the mainstream medical and scientific consensus, for whatever reason (not necessarily conflict of interest), and that their views are not adequately covered in this article. I agree, and suggest that we add a new section about the course of the controversy itself. An excellent review source for this would be:
  • Gross L (2009). "A broken trust: lessons from the vaccine–autism wars". PLoS Biol. 7 (5): e1000114. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000114. PMC 2682483. PMID 19478850.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Eubulides (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this [12] a reliable source? It would address the reasoning behind the distrust as well as background. Yobol (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it lacks the long list of corrections that Kennedy's article eventually required, but it would probably do... :) MastCell Talk 02:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was unclear. People distrust the medical establishment because they believe it to be corrupt and swayed by economic conflicts of interests. This belief/opinion and the supporting WP:RS for this falls outside the scope of WP:MEDRS. It should be covered in the article in the same way as parts of the article Aspartame controversy is not covered by WP:MEDRS. MaxPont (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ url=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1278
  2. ^ url=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/ns-esm061103.php
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiomersal_and_vaccines&oldid=321422989"