Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Wakefield

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.127.43.154 (talk) at 15:17, 9 April 2014 (→‎New developments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


New developments

New developments that may provide more content:

Brangifer (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the actual BMJ commentary:
Brangifer (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This link that give Wakefields view is important that the article link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l67fWVrw8xU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.199.155 (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378). (This pertains to *1) 188.220.186.57 (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention in this article of the previously undisclosed potential conflict of interest of the BMJ, which receives money from Merck and Glaxo-Smith-Kline? Even the BMJ has issued a correction to its editorial disclosing this revenue from the manufacturers of MMR vaccines. Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in this article, since alleged conflict of interest on Dr. Wakefield's part is noteworthy enough to mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.179.140 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


How do vaccine proponents explain this: Tripedia = autism

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea."

I trust all guilty parties know the consequences. Your names are recorded.

82.127.43.154 (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)vaccine=MURDER[reply]

It's explained by next sentence in the paragraph, that you're for some reason omitting:

"Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."

Kolbasz (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It is too bad that you neglected to read, copy, or understand the rest of the paragraph.
"Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."
The events described occurred at some time after vaccination, but that does not mean that they were caused by vaccination. It's rather like saying that "Car accidents often occur after people eat breakfast, therefore eating breakfast causes car accidents." In reality, eating breakfast just happens to fall at the time of day immediately before many people get into their cars and drive to work or school. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd like you to spell out the consequences. Also, which names are being recorded, by whom, or for what purpose? I want to understand if this is a threat of legal action or a threat of violence. --Yaush (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Yaush I second that. Who are the guilty parties? What are the consequences if found guilty? Is it a threat of legal action or a threat of violence or SOMETHING ELSE? My guess? The legal system is a broken mess - no one is going to try that useless path. We already live under the threat of violence (try not paying taxes or stopping when ordered by police) and we need not mention the ongoing wars - so threats of violence are useless too. Therefore I'm guessing SOMETHING ELSE is in store for the guilty.

But who are the guilty? What is their crime? Who is recording their names?

We all know autism is now 1 in 60 for USA and 1 in 100 for Western Europe but WHAT is causing the increase? And what about the cancer rate increase? Ebola is on the move too!

Is it a deliberate anti-life conspiracy or SNAFU?

We know vaccination has failed - all the diseases that were meant to be stopped by vaccination are roaring back with vengeance.

So what do we do now?

From the peer-reviewed journals I support cannabis oil. What disease can't it cure? http://safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

And Yaush, how can you post when your page states: "This page has been deleted. 15:46, 8 September 2011" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yaush

82.127.43.154 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)w[reply]

Erase this article

This article are so incorrect,that it should be erased.--213.112.199.155 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We take the accuracy of biographical articles very seriously, particularly when they deal with still-living subjects. (Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons is quite strict in its requirements for robust, reliable sourcing.) Could you identify specific examples of errors in this article? It would be helpful if you could identify specific statements that are not supported by sources, which are supported only by unreliable sources, or which are contradicted by other reliable sources to which we have failed to give appropriate weight. I'm afraid that just saying "this article is so incorrect" is too vague a complaint for us to work with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Deer sets the record straight in Boise, Idaho

Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sub judice

Since Wakefield is testing some of Deer's and the BMJ's accusations in court, would it now be appropriate for us to modify our language, particularly the use of "fraud" or "fraudulent"? I think that might be the prudent and moral course, but invite other opinions. [1] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, lawsuits and their allegations are just that - allegations. Suing in Texas is ridiculously easy. If he wins then changes may be in order. I say may because the overall balance of the evidence should guide our actions not just 1 source. Daffydavid (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly defended "fraudulent" on the grounds that Wakefield hadn't legally challenged the claim. Wakefield has challenged some claims. If one of the claims he's challenging is the fraud claim, I think I'd be more comfortable removing it from our article until it's settled. But, for now, it's not clear that "fraud" is among the claims he's disputing, so I might have opened this thread a little prematurely. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations of "fraud" are a major focus of Wakefield's complaint - see PDF here, so the thread seems relevant IMHO.
In different circumstances I might agree with modifying language for contested allegations. But IMHO, this lawsuit looks very much like a SLAPP. As discussed here, Wakefield has already lost another libel suit against Deer in plaintiff-friendly UK courts, and his chances of winning this one are slim. The point of SLAPPs is not to win a case, but to silence and intimidate critics with the cost and inconvenience of fighting a lawsuit. If that's the game here - and IMHO it is - then I would be very uncomfortable with reward possible abuse of process by modifying the article content in Wakefield's favour. --GenericBob (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree that it is our job, or that we have the competence, to decide whether it's SLAPP or not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, I can understand the need for caution, but fear of a lawsuit isn't one of them. There are only a couple places where those words are used in the Wikipedia voice, so to speak. All other places are direct quotes. Would you please copy the spots that aren't direct quotes and propose alternate wordings right below in this section? That will make it easier for us to make a decision and work on possible alternate wordings. Maybe we'll end up keeping what we have, and maybe we'll tweak things a bit. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much like anything that involves Wikipedians making subjective judgements, but I think there are times when it's the less bad option. Otherwise we put ourselves at the mercy of those who are willing to game the system. --GenericBob (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Ford sued someone for calling him ignorant, and lost. He got a public, official judgment that he was ignorant. If it was fraud, then there's a good chance Wakefield will get the fraud certified. He must know that. I think we shouldn't accuse him of it in Wikipedia's voice. I'm OK with quotes. I'll propose something soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Henry Ford actually won his libel suit against the Chicago Tribune, though the jury only awarded nominal damages: [2]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"known ... for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of that claim.[1]" This cites the BMJ. What about replacing "fraudulent" with "misleading?"
"Physicians, medical journals, and editors [94][95][96][97][98] have made statements tying Wakefield's fraudulent actions to various epidemics and deaths." The sources are BMJ, Deer, and three news sites. Of the 3 news sites only one, (#47 IB Times) uses "fraud" in its own voice. I propose removing "fraudulent".
But I'm definitely not in a hurry, and would appreciate hearing more views. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this. It appears Wakefield has to show that the BMJ and Deer knew what they were saying was wrong or were reckless in checking their facts. This is in addition to proving they were wrong and that the paper was pukka and above board. That sounds a tall order. Considering how litigation friendly the UK is, I would have thought those folk would have thought long and hard before publishing, and got expert advice. Colin°Talk 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, as that Skeptical Lawyer article notes, even before that he has to convince the Texas courts that a British journal with UK authors falls under Tx jurisdiction. AFAICT, if he loses there, there'd still be nothing to stop him from filing similar suits in the remaining states of the USA one by one, as long as he can pay his legal bills - it would be unlikely to win but it could still suppress coverage for years. I would be OK with something like changing the "fraudulent" out of Wikipedia-voice to attributed quote/s, but I wouldn't be comfortable with removing the word from the article or reducing its prominence in response to this suit. (If Wakefield should win the suit, that would be another matter.) --GenericBob (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great link, Colin. Since the court hasn't accepted the case, I think any change to this article for the moment would be premature. I'm highly suspicious about it being any more than a PR gesture now, for the reasons highlighted in the blog, and several points in the petition are clearly specious, such as 4.12, where they conflate having autism with having an autism diagnosis. Sorry for wasting everybody's time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, Anthony. You had legitimate concerns, and we may indeed need to deal with these issues in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it´s time to rewrite http://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/--213.112.194.35 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that site probably could use a rewrite - I can see a couple of glaring bloopers in their most recent article, for starters - but you'd have to talk to somebody over there. --GenericBob (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this particular instance was in the article when this discussion took place, but I have removed the word "fraudulent" from "Physicians, medical journals, and editors have made statements tying Wakefield's fraudulent actions to various epidemics and deaths" - I think this is implying a judgement in (to use the phrase above) Wikipedia-voice, and isn't necessary as it's clear which actions are meant. Khendon (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wakefield, FRCS?

The title of the PDF of the BMJ suit is "DR. ANDREW J. WAKEFIELD, MB., B., FRCS V. THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, a d/b/a of BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP LTD, also d/b/a BMJ GROUP, and BMJ, BRIAN DEER, individually, and DR. FIONA GODLEE, individually." A struck-off doctor has still earned his doctor's degree (even if the BMJ's press release pointedly calls him "Mr. Wakefield") - but FRCS is a professional qualification. Does he actually remain a FRCS if he's been struck off by the GMC? - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I don't have anything citable (third-party verifiable), but I emailed the RCS to ask, and you won't find him on the public searchable members list because he stopped paying dues in 1996, at which point he should no longer call himself "FRCS". So this would be him claiming something he shouldn't be - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See this for why the BMJ may have used "Mr". Colin°Talk 12:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - they were just showing professional respect! :-D - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?

Is there really no free-content photo of Andrew Wakefield in existence? - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of continued fall-out from the 1998 paper

This reliable source mentions the fall-out:

USA today is not a reliable source. Neither the author nor the CDC spokesmodel Rebecca Martin provide any causal explanation to link Wakefield's paper to unvaccinated people. Wakefield's name is thrown into the article as a guilt-by-association scapegoat. Foamy Latte (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or the rather large outbreak of measles in the UK. Oh wait….SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the latest contribution to this section (added three colons) because I couldn't at first figure out what was going on, and it hurt my eyes. Thank you. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today is not considered a reliable source? Since when?74.134.145.218 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of autism

In the intro to this article, there is a mention that the findings in the study have not been replicated. This link suggests they have: http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/peer-reviewed-papers-support-findings.html I am not able to see the original material to verify this, however, it is worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.142.56 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ageofautism.com is not a reliable source, and from what I recall of their previous record I'd be extremely wary of accepting their interpretation of anybody else's research. --GenericBob (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Autism is a vaccine denialist website who denies the firm evidence that MMR vaccines do absolutely nothing to cause autism. I think that the Age of Autism is also trying to find sasquatch, alien abductions, and quantum water.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Medical Council hearings: references for Walker-Smith court case

There are two references given for the successful appeal by John Walker-Smith. One is to a news report from the BBC and the other is from a press release issued by an anti-vaccine group named the Canary Party. This press release, rather than being a straight news report, is mostly made up of quoted opinions of members of this group and includes a number of unsubstantiated claims (including baseless and potentially defamatory allegations of "corruption" in the GMC and a "smear attack" against Wakefield). Rather than linking to a biased and unreliable source, would it not be better to replace this reference with a link to the actual judgement? The judgement is available online here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

Prak Mann (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's written in the article is awfully neutral. I'd argue for removal since it's not directly relevant to Wakefield, who still remains stricken. Not sure your source is as easy to read. If you want to rewrite the section and add a new citation, go ahead.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP Complaints about article

I would prefer to let someone in Wikipedia attempt to resolve this issue, not a protagonist who is clearly biased. The pejorative use of words like 'whitewash' is of little help. This is a serious issue, as much a matter of omissions as it is of errors. 174.117.110.164 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC) vpcj[reply]

I've moved this complaint that the IP editor embedded in a several month old section. The editor is at 4RR trying to whitewash Wakefield's role in the article that the Lancet had to withdraw because of fraud. So, comment on their complaints. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Accusations of fraud in Wikipedia are governed by the laws of libel - they should not be made without some high standard of proof. Merely repeating a libel is no defence, especially in British law, which places the burden of proof on the libeller. Wakefield's case is complex. It is relevant that the co-author of Wakefield's (in)fmous paper, Professor John Walker-Smith, had his medical license restored and allegations of professional misconduct quashed by a British appellate judge in 2012. That fact should be in the Wikipedia page; it is currently being blocked by breaches of the reversal rule by Skeptical Raptor. ~ vpcj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.110.164 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. You're just saying stuff without any verification. And what has Walker-Smith got to do with Mr. Wakefield? Because their cases were completely different, but you're trying to create a strawman argument that doesn't exist. When Mr. Wakefield, the defrocked doctor, goes before the GMC, to get his medical license back, then you no longer have a strawman argument, but up until that point, your complaints have no validity, and you have no actual reliable sources upon which to stand. And finally, Time Magazine states clearly that MR. Andrew Wakefield perpetrated one of the great scientific frauds of all time. Now, I have a reliable source backing up the claims published on Wikipedia. That's a good thing. Go complain to Time Magazine. If they retract that, I guess, we'll just have to rely upon the retraction from the Lancet, the PNAS tabulation calling Andy Wakefield's article a fraud and dozen's of other articles and news reports that support this Wikipedia article. Your edit warring, and your using this talk page as your personal forum isn't very productive. If you have a valid, sourced suggestion to improve this article, please tell us. But your complaints have no validity whatsoever. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SkepticalRaptor. Numerous reliable sources support the characterization of Wakefield presented in this article. --Yaush (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Fraud

Briefly, sequence was as follows

  • 1. Wakefield publishes Lancet paper based on erroneous or fabricated data while pocketing legal fees and patenting a vaccine that exploits uncetainty
  • 2. Deer interviews parents of study participants and reports major discrepancies with Wakefield's paper, also finds financial irregularities
  • 3. Wakefield's view unsupported by subsequent research, GMC stike off Wakefield citing study protocol issues.
  • 4. BMJ publishes editorial "declaring" deliberate fraud based on inconsistencies identified by Deer and strong financial conflict of interest. BMJ cite failure of GMC to convict Wakefield of fraud as the prime reason for their allegations.

Q&A

  • Is the source reliable ? Yes, the BMJ is respected peer reviewed journal. It has a longstanding rivalry with the Lancet but the issue is serious enough for the editors to know better than to play politics.
  • Is the article suitable? Probably not, it's written by 3 senior editors but is an editorial and still qualifies as opinion. The primary source (Deer's article) is far more general in it's allegations of fraud.
  • Is the allegation potentially libelous ? Yes. The editorial is clear in it's assertion that Wakefield deliberately falsified data. A subsequent Deer article examining the pathology reports in the paper showed confusion over the terminology rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead (BMJ 2011;343:d6823.)
  • Could Wakefield sue ? No, he already has 2 failed libel actions and his strongest defense would be incompetence rather than deliberate falsification. The BMJ were banking on this when they published.
  • So why does it matter ? At its heart MMR was about a willingness to distort facts to fit a pattern. This is no different. We can say there is evidence of fraud, fraud is highly likely or many senior scientist say he is fraudulent but we can't say " he IS fraudulent " without a judge / regulator verdict. The BMJ don't play to the same standard as a judge / regulator and neither do we so are not entitled to make the same sorts of calls. This is not an article where we can afford to screw up on integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nernst (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before here. Consensus is that the use of the word "fraudulent" is appropriate. Yobol (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for comments and reference. Accusation and rebuttal with appropriate referencing are included in the introduction, so seems strange to use the term is used uncited and in isolation in the opening sentence. I am not sure that this is consistent with WP:BLPSOURCES. What would be the best way or re-examining the issue ? Nernst (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read again. It is cite to three different sources. Yobol (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Unfortunately unable to find section detailing need to 'cite to three different sources', can you please specify where this occurs. Did however note [WP:BLPCRIME] appears clear that those accused of a crime need a legal verdict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nernst (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three sources citing the first sentence of this article. As far as I can tell, he hasn't been legally charged with fraud so BLPCRIME does not apply here. He did, however, commit scientific fraud. Yobol (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This looks familiar, probably because it's been brought up by, and discussed with, the very same editor at Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Role of BMJ in para 1 (and the subsequent section, Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Allegations of Fraud). We're reinventing the wheel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, on MMR Controversy the term 'declared fraud' was changed to ' signed editorial described the original paper as "fraudulent" ' but the discussion went badly and am grateful for guidence on how we can better achieve a consensus here. I misunderstood your refernce to 3 sources ( i thought you meant it was policy to obtain 3 sources to ensure accuracy ). Regarding the references: the PNAS article does not explicity discuss wakefield except to say it continued to be cited despite retraction, the Time article refers (presumably) to the BMJ article and the BMJ article is an op ed.
If we're defining the issue as 'scientific fraud' then the accusation should come from one of the agencies responsible for investigating the fraud, in this case it would be the GMC, the Lancet and the Royal Free. All 3 cited 'violation of study protocols' as their reason for censure. Again, what would be the best way of considering this issue, in a wider context ?Nernst (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scientists can and should self-police for scientific misconduct. In this case, one of the most prestigious medical journals (BMJ) found that Wakefield committed fraud, and multiple other sources concur. Nothing else need be said. Yobol (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree. I do not believe the BMJ is infalliable or that the opinion of its editor should be seen as fact. The scientist responsible self policing this case (GMC / Lancet / Royal Free) did not declare Wakefield a fraud. On re-reading the PNAS article however I would note that the Lancet paper is classified as fraud in table 3 but the basis for the characterization is unclear and the point remains in dispute. Again, what would be a good way to bring more expertise / experience to this issue ? Nernst (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be cautious about interpreting 'fraud' as 'scientific fraud'. The term 'scientific fraud' is not used in the first sentence and the articles quotes Deer as saying that criminal charges should be brought.Nernst (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fraud is fraud. What you personally believe is largely irrelevant here. BMJ has an exceptionally high reputation as a reliable source for medical/scientific matters. We can wait for others to see if you can convince others, but I'm at the point of repeating myself, which is a good sign any further attempts at discussion is a waste of my time. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry we haven't been able to achieve consensus. The BMJs reputation is irrelevant, the article is an editorial which does not meet source requirements, the TIME article seems to be citing the editorial and the PNAS classification is based on a broad reading of the retraction statement and a google search ! The allegations and their history are beautifully explained in the first 4 paragraphs, so the purpose of inserting an unclear, inflammatory and controversial term in the first sentence seems odd. Since we are at an impass, how would you suggest we involve other editors to resolve this issue ?Nernst (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have consensus. Wakefield committed fraud. We have several reliable articles that say so. Any further conversation is kind of ridiculous. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Fraud according to highest quality reliable sources, we've had this discussion before, and nothing has changed since the last time we discussed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. BMJ is a British journal, subject to the very strict British libel laws, yet its editors chose to publish a potentially defamatory statement based on their conclusion it was a true statement. I trust their judgement. --Yaush (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But then why bother with the GMC, the Judiciary, or any of the other regulatory infrastructure if we can trust the BMJ to sort out the good from the bad. Isn't that the mistake people made with the Lancet ? Remember, the BMJ article failed to disclose it's own conflict of interest.Nernst (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a misapprehension here: that the British General Medical Council did not find fraud. It did find fraud. Not only did it find scientific fraud in the sense that it found Wakefield's paper to be dishonest, it also found fraud in Wakefield's use of money paid to him to carry out the research. His own counsel submitted that the charges were allegations of 'fraud', and those charges were found proven. In any case, there are quite enough references in this article. Marmadale (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks for all the above contributions, as far as I can see the issues can be summarised as follows:

  • 1. What type of fraud was committed and should this be made clear in the first sentence ?
  • 2. Do we need a judge, regulator, accredited investigator before we 'call fraud' or can we use a journalist / medical / press article ?
  • 3. Did the GMC find Wakefied guilty of fraud  ? Allegations of fraud do not appear to be included in SPM ruling. The BMJ article specifically states that it's purpose is to address the misapprehension that wakefield was not guilty of fraud
  • 4. Are the sources reliable ? Yes but like the Lancet we need to examine the information presented as well as the context: the BMJ article is op ed, the TIME article seems to be quoting the BMJ and the PNAS article does not seem to distinguish between fraud and suspected fraud as detailed in it's methods section.
  • 5. Is there current consensus ? Probably not, since this issue keeps recurring
  • 6. Is this an NPOV issue ie. does the first sentence state a seriously contested assertions as fact ?
  • 7. Is this a libel issue ? Wakefield keeps attempting legal action but so far there haven't been any verdicts

Please feel free to add anything I've left out. I realise this article relates to a contentious issue. For the fourth time, is anyone willing to advise on how this point can be discussed more widely amongst Wikipedia's editors ? Cheers Nernst (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A British GMC fitness to practise panel, which is a public inquiry, found a whole bunch of dishonesty in Wakefield's paper which constitutes fraud. I have cut and pasted a couple of examples from the very long Findings of Fact. This should help.
In reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project

reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest. The Panel is satisfied that your conduct at paragraph 32.a would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest.

The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in the

Lancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28 February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors. The Panel has found that your statement as set out in paragraph 35.a. does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet.

The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be

considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96 for research purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmadale (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent contribution, many thanks. Could you provide a link to the full judgement. Couldn't find it on Google. 'dishonest' would be a reasonable alternative to 'fraudulent' (as would: retracted, discredited, false etc...) but they not same since fraud normally suggests deliberate dishonesty with a view to gaining personal advantage. The distinction is small but important. Can anyone suggest a way to open this up to a wider group of editors (fifth request) ? Nernst (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nernst. This appears to be the full corrected findings. If we don't already, perhaps we should either link to this via a footnote in the #General Medical Council hearings section, or under the #External links section. For the record, I'm comfortable with the present wording of the article, at least as far as our use of "fraud" and "fraudulent" goes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I've added a link to #External links. 11:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful, thank you.Nernst (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nernst. This issue has been discussed numerous times, all you have to do is scroll through numerous threads here. Mr. Andy Wakefield's activities were fraudulent and supported by numerous articles. You are using this page as your personal forum for your beliefs that have no support in reliable sources. I will not hesitate to hat these comments, if you continue to use it as complaint forum. Either provide us with a proposed change, with supporting citations and gain consensus here. Or stop babbling. Your choice. This is NOT A FORUM. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advice would be preferred to threats. Not sure what 'hat' means but it sounds ominous. 4 alternative suggestions were provided in the previous post (dishonest, retracted, discredited, false), could also leave a gap or use 'erroneous'. Citation should obviously be the GMC finding of fact or the Lancet retraction statement. Fraud is a serious allegation and nothing else is good enough. 6 requests for advice on the mechanisms for resolving these sorts of problems were ignored in favour of parroting 'consensus achieved' so naturally the discussion will not always be clear and flowing. Lot of effort for one word but like ' please and sorry' it's an important one.


Summary as follows, help requested on NPOV and BLP noticeboards. NPOV tag added but hopefully will be removed shortly

  • Problem: First sentence of article states a seriously contested assertion (fraud) as fact
  • Issues: Libel and NPOV
  • Definition of Fraud: would a lay reader interpret the first sentence as relating to scientific or criminal fraud ?

If criminal, then Wakefield has an over-riding presumption of innocence until there is a verdict regardless of his approach to litigation. If scientific, then we can use the ORI definition (http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct) which would fit with the Lancet / GMC statements. Would therefore recommend existing 3 citations removed and replaced with GMC FOF / Lancet statement with explanatory note linking to ORI. Would also recommend 'fresh' editors take a look and decide whether inference is scientific or criminal Nernst (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fraud label is clearly appropriate for the lede as this is a well-documented case of scientific fraud. a13ean (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly fraud is appropriate. Multiple sources cited, including editors of internationally renown medical journal. Public inquiry verdicts cited. Wakefield did not appeal the inquiry verdict. Wakefield submitted to inquiry that the allegation against him was of "fraud", and that was found proven. This is in keeping with all cases of fraud and misconduct in science. Editor claims assertion is "seriously contested". It is not seriously contested by any Wiki-reliable source. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nernst says "we can't say " he IS fraudulent " without a judge / regulator verdict." Sorry, Nernst, but the consensus is that Wikipedia can say this. The whole legal vs scientific fraud distinction is a red herring. Nernst has been banging this drum (on MMR vaccine controversy) since October. Enough. Colin°Talk 19:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, all sorted (see NPOV noticeboard). All it took was a 3 line explanation. Cheers Nernst (talk)

Allegations of Serious Misconduct

I don't want to cause trouble or open a can of worms but if we're using secondary sources, i think the term 'fraudulant' is better. There is more room for interpretation in the primary sources but the secondary sources are clear and deliberate in their use of the word 'fraud'. The blue linking can be sorted out later or even omitted. Alternatively, if everyone is happy with scientific misconduct i don't want to rock the boat. Nernst (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. The sources use the word "fraud". "Scientific misconduct" is an understatement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did we remove fraud? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was an EGGy link redirecting serious misconduct (see NPOV noticeboard)Nernst (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored "fraudulent" to the lead. It is clear enough from the noun it is modifying - "research paper" - that we're talking about scientific fraud. I don't see consensus here, or on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andrew_Wakefield, for any significant change in the way we present this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that discussion is not at the NPOV noticeboard (forum shopping to multiple fora); it is at the BLP noticeboard. The issue was an WP:EGG (scientific misconduct was linked, but "fraud" was the word used). I believe that was resolved and WLU acknowledged that an EGG wasn't the best solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For the record, I support Anthonyhcole's removal of inappropriate material from this page. Colin°Talk 08:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, but I suggest leaving a link to the removed content,[3] along with a reminder to editors to stay on topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the use of the word "fraud" to describe Wakefield's research in the lead, it's a good summary word of a situation that doesn't need a lot of nuance in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest?

"Golden Duck" award, for a lifetime of "quackery". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I cannot dispute that the award was richly deserved, I am not sure that it (at this point) is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant mention in Wakefield's Wikipedia article at this time. (There just isn't space in this biography to cover all of the organizations who have condemned Wakefield's misconduct.) Though Simon Singh is (deservedly) mentioned by Wikipedia, his newly-minted Good Thinking Society (and its Golden Duck) are not—either in their own article or within Singh's biography. I do wish them all the best, and mayhaps they will become Britain's answer to the JREF. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this particular "award" should probably develop its own reputation before we use it, especially in a WP:BLP. Yobol (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it in as the Guardian is notable for a secondary source, and Simon Singh is surely notable enough for a mention on Wakefield's page. Besides it takes up very little space to mention this. I don't see a problem with more organizations being mentioned if they "award" something to Wakefield, I doubt that there are that many giving out awards as there is so many Wakefield like people out there to award to.Sgerbic (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind Sgerbic's brief mention alongside Wakefield's Pigasus Award. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything mentioned in the newspaper (even in a national newspaper) is fodder for article content, though. My feeling is that we should only be mentioning these sorts of awards – 'negative' awards, particularly in a BLP – when the award is at least of roughly comparable notability/notoriety to the recipient. (In this situation, it feels like we're promoting and advertising the award, rather than conveying important information about a notable happening. Both the JREF and the Pigasus award – with its 30-plus-year history – have extensive third-party coverage and their own Wikipedia articles. Singh's foundation and its award just aren't there yet.) Even though each individual 'award' mention only takes up a little bit of space, it would look sloppy and unprofessional for us to invite a 'laundry list' of criticisms and attacks rather than being more selective in our editorial judgement. I think it also distracts from the core point – that Wakefield's actions were widely recognized as abhorrent, by the most-reliable sources – if we don't confine ourselves to a smaller number of highest-importance, highest-relevance organizations.
A failure on our own part here to be selective in the 'awards' that we include may also be taken – with some justification – by the anti-vaccination crowd to mean that it would be appropriate to include a tit-for-tat mention of trivial anti-vaccination 'awards' of this sort in the articles of doctors, scientists, and organizations who are doing good, honest, competent work. Suppose Andrew Wakefield were to found an anti-vaccine group next year that handed out Golden Assholes, and managed to get the story mentioned in the back pages of the Washington Post—would that need to go into Brian Deer's article? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. You're right about it's present noteworthiness. I've reverted for now. Please discuss further before restoring it, Sgerbic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No bearing on Wakefield

Considering Walker-Smith was one of three people included in the charge and subsequently absolved, it has a great deal of bearing on the case. Besides which, is there a graduated Wikipedia criteria for 'bearing` that a subject has to pass before being deemed suitable for a mention in an article.

See revision history: Undid revision 550406431 by Dgharmon .. This has no bearing on Wakefield

Dgharmon (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the biography of Wakefield, not a discussion about the MMR vaccine case or a broad discussion about the GMC investigation. Walker-Smith's appeal is already discussed in MMR vaccine controversy, where this information belongs. Agree with Anthonyhcole that this particular piece of information is inappropriate here. Yobol (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, it appears that Dgharmon added the following paragraph to the article's lead section with this edit.
The findings by a Fitness to Practice panel comprising of a consultant psychiatrist, a retired consultant physician, a GP, and two lay persons was appealed by a college of Wakefield, Professor John Walker-Smith. Following the appeal Walker-Smith was reinstated and the charge of serious misconduct was struck out. This voids the majority of the 'found proven' clauses of the original verdict. Walker-Smith is also quoted as stating “we are prepared to take full responsibility for the outcome of this treatment.” [1] The Judge stating that the GMCs decision contained "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". The GMC choose not to challenge the decision. [2]
The paragraph was subsequently removed in this edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Why is it not mentioned after "The Sunday Times reported that some of the parents of the 12 children in the study in The Lancet were recruited via a UK lawyer preparing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers" that he cant have be trying to get compensation money from the vaccine companys as he knew long in advance that the manafacturer had complete indemnity overe adverse reactions??

Gripes without suggestions for improvement

Gripes without suggestions for improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This page is a sick joke and is full of utter rubbish and lies 2.221.30.239 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article should be re-written. This is a scary example of modern scapegoating and I expect better of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.238.44 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both IPs fail to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and why our content must be based on reliable sources, not the babblings of true believers. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edits- does this article need to be locked?

I noticed edits by cwaldman that removed reference to the fraudulent Lancet paper and made madethe claim that the repudiated study had been reproduced. I undid these edits. Perhaps it would be better to post potential edits to talk page. Should this article be locked? 50.16.171.104 (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Things need to get more hectic than this, though, before page protection is used. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit in Texas

Andrew J. Wakefield is suing Brian Deer, the British Medical Journal, and its editor Fiona Godlee for slander and defamation in the Texas courts. A jurisdictional appeal hearing was held on May 22, 2013 in the Texas Third Court of Appeal. The lawsuit concerns articles published in the British Medical Journal by Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee on or about January 6, 2011, alleging that Dr. Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper was fraudulent.[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaldman (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CWaldman, we are aware of these developments. When RS report on the findings, we may include that information in the article, but not until then. When we do, article content will reflect what the sources say, regardless of our own opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Literature about Vaccines and Autism Disorders

  • Med Hypotheses. 2011 Dec;77(6):940-7. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.08.019. Epub 2011 Oct 10.

Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders. Conjugate vaccines fundamentally change the manner in which the immune systems of infants and young children function by deviating their immune responses to the targeted carbohydrate antigens from a state of hypo-responsiveness to a robust B2 B cell mediated response. This period of hypo-responsiveness to carbohydrate antigens coincides with the intense myelination process in infants and young children, and conjugate vaccines may have disrupted evolutionary forces that favored early brain development over the need to protect infants and young children from capsular bacteria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250

  • J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011;74(14):903-16. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2011.573736.

A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535

  • J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 07:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you must know, it is possible to find scientific papers supporting nearly any claim. These three papers are not terribly compelling and clearly represent a fringe view. Medical Hypotheses is by design a fringe journal. The Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health is probably legitimate though it has a low impact rating. However, one study (a poster abstract actually) and the other study are by partisan authors, are highly suspect and represent horrible research. Still, on WP, we are simply summarizing what RS say. If the J Tox Env H is a RS, then it is theoretically valid, but those two papers represent a very small samples, and some sketchy claims, as compared with some of the large studies on autism and vaccination. To trumpet these fringe claims would be undue weight. We are not obligated to mention every dissent to the consensus, especially if it is as execrable and trivial as these papers are. Michaplot (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot follow your rhetoric in regards to scientific literature. Also without evidence to the contrary i cannot follow your claim that PubMD which is known as RS, to feature fringe theories is certainly a new claim. Another interesting article on fundamentals = Study raises red flag for universal flu vaccine; may explain 2009 'Canadian problem' http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/study-raises-red-flag-for-universal-flu-vaccine-may-explain-2009-canadian-problem-1.604465 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum for a general debate about vaccines and autism (there is not much credible debate anywhere on that red herring). So, unless you are proposing these nugatory sources for inclusion in this article, I will refrain from explaining my "rhetoric". Michaplot (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Epidemic Linked to Epidemic of Vaccine Induced Diabetes

July 12, 2013, The new data shows autism is strongly linked to type 1 diabetes another epidemic inflammatory disease where the epidemic has been proven to be caused by vaccines. The new paper is authored by immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD."We have been publishing for many years that vaccine induced inflammation is causing an epidemic of type 1 diabetes and other diseases. Our new data, as well as the extensive data from others regarding the role of inflammation in the development autism, leaves little doubt vaccines play a significant role in the autism epidemic," says Dr. J. Bart Classen, MD. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130712-904463.html Prokaryotes (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From your source this is a press release ONLY. From the article - at the bottom "The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content." The Dr. is the president of an Anti-Vac site. Not exactly a glowing endorsment of his studies. VVikingTalkEdits 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And even if the paper has or will yet come out in a reliable source, it is still not worth our attention. The following isn't a reliable source for WP, but check out http://webspace.webring.com/people/il/lmorgan/fearmongers/classen_credibilty.htm to get a sense of what sort of quack Classen is. As I said above a few papers contesting a strong scientific consensus are not worthy of inclusion on WP.Michaplot (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MMR doctor wins High Court appeal

A doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct over the MMR controversy has won his High Court appeal against being struck off. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17283751 Prokaryotes (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From your own link:
Chief executive Niall Dickson added: "Today's ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism.
"As Mr Justice Mitting observed in his judgement, 'There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked'."

Nor are we going to reopen the debate here. This is not a discussion forum. There are plenty of places elsewhere on the Internet to rail against the clear scientific consensus.--Yaush (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article mentions co-workers it should include related developments. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Old news. --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me the story is newsworthy, but the issue of what happened to this doctor is not discussed in article, so it does not seem to have a place here.Michaplot (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious illness and fatalities

I would like to ask something regarding this article, as well as MMR vaccine controversy. Are we blaming Wakefield for these serious illnesses and fatalities because he questioned the safety of vaccines in the scientific literature, because he was later disproven, because he was a fraud, or some combination of the three? Jinkinson (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what you are asking or if you are proposing any changes. The article says that because of Wakefield's study there was a link "to a steep decline in vaccination rates in the United Kingdom and a corresponding rise in measles cases, resulting in serious illness and fatalities." If you are proposing a change or disagree with the way the article is written, can you please provide specifics? If you are just asking the question of are we blaming Wakefield this is not really the place for that philosophical discussion.VVikingTalkEdits 12:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Viking. The sources cited in support of the article content seem satisfactory. To ask in what manner "we" are the ones doing the blaming seems misguided. Zad68 12:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I mean, I agree that his paper is indirectly responsible for a number of vaccine-preventable deaths, I just thought it was unclear exactly why. However, it seems as though the thing Wakefield did that caused these deaths was when he said we should stop using the MMR vaccine and start using single vaccines. However, what if he was right? What if his paper wasn't a fraud? Would we still be blaming him for vaccine preventable diseases, given that even if vaccines did cause autism, the benefits of the vaccine would still outweigh the risks? I think the article should make this more clear. However, if you don't want to respond in this section, you don't have to. Jinkinson (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield wasn't right and his paper is a fraud, but that's irrelevant anyway. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of balance

The article seems extremely biased. Official documented concerns such as this one from the US national library of Medicine, the National institute of Health , that more than suggestes that there could be severe adverse side effects to be had from too many vaccines, and makes it clear that it is _difficult_ to find out _which_ factor/vaccine (if any) is to blame, but it most _certainly_ does _not_ rule out that vaccines could have serious side effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.239.201 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, vaccinations can have serious side effects. This is besides the point, which is that there is clear and convincing evidence Wakefield committed scientific fraud. --Yaush (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original post is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The NIH and National Library of Medicine did not "officially document" their concerns over vaccines. The paper in question was the work of two individuals (Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman), neither of whom is affiliated with NIH/NLM. In fact, they apparently operate out of a P.O. box in Santa Fe, according to the corresponding author information. The National Library of Medicine indexes much of the biomedical literature and provides a search engine (and, in many cases, free full text) for that literature. But attributing the paper's claims to the NIH/NLM would be like doing a Google search for 'bigfoot exists' and then claiming that Google Inc. supports the existence of bigfoot. MastCell Talk 23:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Bigfoot doesn't exist? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Autism criticizes this article.

The virulently anti-science and anti-vaccination website, Age of Autism, just published an article in support of Wakefield, and mentions this Wikipedia entry. You can expect that a number of editors will try to sanitize the statements about Wakefield's fraud soon. Just a warning. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If AOA is on the case, I suggest that the article must be pretty well written. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wakefield ballyhoo is a convenient smokescreen for an epidemic of gigantic proportions caused by experts on vaccination who were asleep on the job. I am sorry to see Wiki not up to the mark here.Laplumedematanteestdanslejardin (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which epidemic is that then? We should report a gigantic epidemic - have you got reliable sources? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a Tweet about this. This is posted as well connecting the paid editing question with this. Also, it appears by this posting, that there IS some information about some sort of confirmation from reliable sources that Wakefield was cleared and that WP is not allowing it? I don't have a dog in this fight but wanted to mention this other AoA posting http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/03/internet-bullies-wikipedia-admits-it-has-a-problem.html24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wakefield has not been cleared. Your sources appear not to be reliable. Given that they're from AoA, that's understandable. --Yaush (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable source, and AOA is like the mirror image of a reliable source, that Wakefield has been cleared of anything, please provide it. Oh, and usually when someone says "I have no dog in this fight", they actually do. It's the old passive aggressive "I don't mean to verbally kick you in the nuts, so sorry that your nuts hurt so bad." SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that my statement was misunderstood. What I am trying to say there is that the article "makes it appear that there are reliable references",--not that i have any references at all about the topic. The only dog that I have in the fight is that I received a (very misleading in my opinion), Tweet which said something like "Wikipedia admits it was wrong--and then connected that statement which turned-out to be a few paragraphs about the paid-posting amendments question with this article topic, where I could not see where they actually made ANY connection between the 2 (separate I think) topics24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love that ClueBot did the revert. It occasionally misses some of the more clever vandalism and penis jokes but it picks up this in under a minute. I also like that AoA's "Aussie Dad" apparently chose to go by ZackieGirl25. Cannolis (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree Roxy. This epidemic about which they speak? Did I miss the news? Oh wait, Big Pharma, the CDC, Illuminati and we Wikipedia editors are in a vast conspiracy to control the news about Wakefield, and hide the truths he uncovered. Now I'm off to polish the gold bars shipped to me by Big Pharma. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no fair! All I got was a tee-shirt! --Yaush (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
T-shirt is just the first payment. The armored car is probably just delivering to other shills. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got my shipment this morning, but it turned out to be iron pyrite. And the Tshirt was the wrong size. It's amazing how many people have opinions that are simply immune to facts. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf
  2. ^ "MMR row: high court rules doctor should not have been struck off". BBC News. 7 Mar 2012. Archived from the original on 4 March 2012. Retrieved 2012-04-07. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 21 January 2013 suggested (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Wakefield&oldid=603461204"