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 Byates5637 (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 13 January 2017 (→‎propaganda film). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is not neutal. It is very one sided. Period.

Subject line says it all in that it is as if a "science only" radical has witten it with their beliefs only in mind...and I don't mean to imply that studies that show vaccines are not all that safe is "non-science", but the radicals paint it that way, and apparently wrote this article. Neutral studies are hard to come by when money rules the entire world. (hopefully you do know what I mean by that) Please get this fixed and write this in a neutral manner. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.192.226 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source that has not been reflected, please provide it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also read WP:NPOV, neutral here does not mean neutral as you seem to think it does Cannolis (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that it is not neutral? The article is stating the facts: it has been proven that his research was fraudulent and that he was found guilty. Since there is no doubt about this, we cannot state that "perhaps he was right" when the evidence is pointing otherwise. BeŻet (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fraud allegations have been utterly abandoned http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6220 Realskeptic (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That source actually says the exact opposite of what you claim. Fraud allegations are maintained by the BMJ! jps (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It concluded that “the net result [from an investigation] would likely be an incomplete set of evidence and an inconclusive process costing a substantial sum of money.” Ergo there is no fraud; there is not even an investigation of fraud - only unsubstantiated claims by journal editors. Realskeptic (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BMJ has not retracted their claim that Wakefield committed fraud. jps (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same words? Your source says that University College London decided not to have an independent investigation of Wakefield's case despite the BMJ calling for it to be done. Cannolis (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Realskeptic is blocked, but it doesn't seem like they have even read the article and its sources. They are just cherrypicking something and adding their own interpretation, and totally ignoring all the evidence of fraud. If this can happen, then the article may need to be tightened up to make it clearer. He "showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer"[1] -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for 24 hours - I have read it, the university chose not to investigate because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to conclusive evidence regarding BMJ's accusation. It is therefore wrong to call the paper fraudulent based on that re WP:NPOV. Realskeptic (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly you have not noticed that the British Medical Council carried out an investigation and found fraud in Wakefield's research paper and in his financial transactions. The college made clear that they would not re-investigate a matter that was already closed. The Lancet journal also stated that they were "deceived". Marmadale (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We document what RS say, and they all say it was fraudulent for very good reasons. That's good enough reason for us to use their words.
The list of offenses which justify the label "fraudulent" is long. He really screwed it all up in every way possible, from exposing children to painful and unnecessary tests, to falsifying the numbers, to having a serious and undisclosed financial conflict of interest.
You need to WP:Drop the stick before you get banned for not being here to build an encyclopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)'[reply]
The court decision quoted at the end of the introduction also overturned the GMC's findings concerning the ethics and the patient selection described in the paper. What the college refused to investigate were the wholly separate allegations of data fabrication, which have never been found proved in any legally binding decision. Also, my response is only for comments from editors who adhere toWP:AGF. Realskeptic (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked for some time and have not been able to find any court opinions overturning the medical board's findings against Andrew Wakefield, or any sources referring to one. The opinion you seem to be referring to is about a different author who performed a different role in the research. The findings against Wakefield stand (the medical council made a statement saying so), as do any number of reliable sources, including the Lancet journal itself. You may not like this, but this is an encyclopedia. Marmadale (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have to come in here because I started to edit WP since I am interested in Medical history and this article is out of date. Which I think is why some editors think it is bias. A bit of background. The GMC is not a court of law. The Wakefield case went on for two years because they allowed so much 'hearsay evidence'. Think Realskeptic is referring to the court of law case of Professor John Walker-Smith. The law courts use forensics ( i.e. establishing who did did what, when and where – but not on hearsay). Walker-Smith was able to establish from written evidence that he alone orded the tests on these children based on sound clinical need. i.e., The children would have undergone them anyway. Some background : Abnormalities in these findings, hitherto unrecorded, lead Wakefield to formulate his hypothesize (right or wrong) of Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. It is therefore, putting the cart before the horse to revers this order of things and time-lines as the GMC clumsily did. So whilst I have no objections to the article mentioning the GMC findings, we as as encyclopedia, should include and put into context (via our verifiable sources) to point what has since come to light and discovered in the passage of time. Wakefield did not, subject these children “to unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as...” He did not have that power. The article lead reads back to front.--Aspro (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that decision is what I am talking about, and you're absolutely right. The matter is further discussed in the book Science for Sale, in which Wakefield tried unsuccessfully to have his paper reinstated. Not only that, but there is also the issue of the fabrication allegations which are strictly editorial in nature and are heavily disputed by Wakefield's critics and former colleagues, not just Wakefield. Yet this is also nowhere to be found in the article. Also, tying his name to a "discredited hypothesis" and even infectious disease deaths raises serious WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues. Clearly, the subject has a lot of hostile critics including some Wikipedia editors here, but this article should not be written from their perspective. I have made changes to the intro accordingly, but the entire article looks like it needs to be heavily rewritten IMHO. Realskeptic (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you think the LA Times and Washington Post are controlled by the CDC [1] I can certainly understand why you'd feel that way. --NeilN talk to me 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have to go through this yet again? The hospital's clinicians and pathology service found nothing to implicate MMR in Wakefield's patients, but Wakefield repeatedly changed, misreported and misrepresented diagnoses, histories and descriptions of the children, which made it appear that there was a link. So yes, Wakefield did indeed subject the children to unnecessary invasive procedures, because he fabricated the indications for them. The argument that Wakefield bears no responsibility because Walker-Smith wrote the actual orders is ridiculous; he wouldn't have ordered the tests if Wakefield had not manipulated the data to make them appear to be clinically or experimentally indicated.DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you are confabulating. In the UK medical treatment is free but has to come out of a tight NHS budget. The consultant has to decide if a patient shows signs of colitis and warrants investigation (lots of doc's refer patients but he has to pick and choose based on his clinical experience). Therefore, this particular accusation against Wakefield is now moot (Moot: In legal terms - no longer practically applicable). Give an example: Got referred to King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, about a decade ago for suspected xxxxx. Even I thought the preliminary diagnose was possibly right, but the consultant reassured me at the examination itself, that in his professional opinion the suspected diagnosis did not apply in my case. That was a relief but if it had happened in say America, I would have still been subjected to many expensive tests, - just to make sure. You may be able to subject patients to unnecessary, invasive (and profitable) tests but not in the `UK you wont! So, as this happened in the UK and the Law Court found that these children’s did indeed fall within the ethical guidelines, the accusations Wakefield on this point are now moot. Therefore, please stop concatenating Wakefield's own work on Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia to the children's examination for colitis - OK? The article should reflect this to meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. We are suppose to be an encyclopedia (?) not a mouthpiece for any journalist that has not bothered to digest the whole thing.--Aspro (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we document what RS say, and the GMC had this to say about Wakefield: He "showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer"[1]
You are not going to be allowed to violate NPOV by deleting that. It is properly sourced and accurate. There is no BLP violation, but your continual defense of fringe POV and their pushers here is a bit tiring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. And with all respect, it is you (or whatever blogger you are following) who is "confabulating". The GMC found that Wakefield committed “serious professional misconduct,” which included acting outside ethical guidelines and in ways otherwise not in the clinical interests of disabled children, and no Law Court has ever said anything different because the decision was not appealed, on the advice of Wakefield's own counsel. Walker-Smith's ruling says nothing about that either, if that's what you were going to say next. The Judge ruled that the GMC didn’t adequately explain the rationale behind its findings that Walker-Smith committed professional misconduct, and did not absolve him of that misconduct. I've been meaning to expand this page's FAQ section, since this has been hashed over so many times; I hope I can find time to do it in the near future. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aspro is making a more elementary error. In good faith, though. What he, or she, is saying is at best original research. All the surmises about the medical board accepting 'hearsay' (where's the source for that?), and pronouncements about the court (sources?), are all him/her just saying. I think the error is worse than that: attempting to impose him/herself into the judicial process to move an opinion for one doctor over into an opinion for another. Not wanting to confound the problem, that isn't permissible. The court did not re-hear the case. It reviewed the opinions of the medical board, and found them defective for lack of explanatory information, plus a number of errors on particular issues, regarding the pediatrician. Wakefield's verdicts - and they are not all ethical, but are also about dishonesty - all stand for WP unless someone can come up with proper sources - which would not be a blog or an anti-vax campaigner - saying enough to override all the RSs, and plenty more, cited already. There seems to me to be countless sources on the fraud and everything else. Marmadale (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is essentially what we have said repeatedly in response to several waves of similar criticism, as documented in the archives. Fringe advocates need to calm down, read WP:OR, and try to conceptualize the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- one that only collects and collates what other reliable sources have already published. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly because WP is an an encyclopedia that this issue needs to be addressed. The journalist (BR) was never asked to testify in person and be open to cross examination- so that is hearsay by definition. Did time suddenly stop still at the the GMC pontification? John Snow was actually dead by the time his germ theory was accepted. Blood letting continued after the first controlled showed that the risk/benefit was negative. Medical history is built on slow acceptance that things have to improve. Another examples, Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister, Barry Marshall. History is lettered with examples of gifted medical men challenging orthodoxy. Ie I am not anti-vaccination any more than am against someone getting bled to-day because they can't excrete enough iron. We either trust doctors RS (reliable souses) or we believe ( belief: accepting without proof) their jobs-worth administrators (in this case the GMC) that believes gospel, that a medical untrained journalist (with little track record) knows best (a one off verifiable source ) !!! You can have it both ways because that’s a Non sequitur. Like me, you may only be left with two brains cells still working but do let them talk to each other. If you want to stick to RS then why not from a Medical PhD's with a better track record than the original medically untrained journalist?
Therefore, this article is out of date for the reasons of BLP. Lets have some VS and RS from trained and experienced research doctors such as : David L. Lewis PhD
"Similarly, I spent almost two years obtaining and analysing the U.K General Medical Council's (GMC's) confidential documents behind allegations of research misconduct that Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. I the process, I discovered a document showing that the analysis of patient records that Deer published in 2010 perfectly matches an analysis requested by GMC proceeding four years earlier. The analysis, which Deer published in the BMJ, was the result of a deliberate plan by individuals working for the GMC's to conflate a blinded expert analysis of biopsy slides with routine pathology reports to make it appear that Wakefield had misinterpreted the records to link to MMR vaccine to autism. What the GMC lawyers could probably never get away with in the court room – which was to condemn Andrew Wakefield for research fraud – Deer accomplished by publishing the GMC's convoluted analysis in the BMJ." Prologue XIX, Science for sale by David L. Lewis PhD
If any one of you go up against a disciplinary hearing wouldn’t you what the facts to be considered rather than hearsay? This is what has put the shivers up the spines of many medical researchers. Time has shown that the GMC committee deliberations where not reliable (RS) of (forensically) ascertaining who did what and when. Yet this article suggests that 'his 'guilt' is cut and a closed thing (as in law).
Finally, Please don't call me fringe. I spent six years in R&D on cutting edge (exploring fringes of the known). If you mean lunatic-fringe then please choose your words more carefully in future.--Aspro (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David L. Lewis seems to have misunderstood or misinterpreted the records and analysis; Deer and others argue credibly (e.g. here or here) that – far from rehabilitating Wakefield – the documents Lewis 'discovered' make Wakefield look even worse, and that Lewis doesn't seem to be competent to make the assertions he has. I have not seen anyone suggest that Lewis is a reliable expert source for claims made in Wikipedia, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aspro, you wrote: "If any one of you go up against a disciplinary hearing wouldn’t you what the facts to be considered rather than hearsay?" Most definitely!!! And that makes Wakefield's behavior during the "trial" proceedings odd, if one doesn't realize he is always driven by a profit motive. Why didn't Wakefield defend himself during the "trial"? Wakefield did not defend himself at the time he should have done so.
Instead of correcting erroneous statements and charges made against him, he remained (relatively) silent and used his time to write a book, using as the title (Callous Disregard) one of the most serious charges (of child abuse) made against him. That's grotesque and unconscionable. Only someone without a conscience could do that. It's like a country taking the anniversary of its worst defeat in battle and making it a national holiday to celebrate, as if the occurrence had been a victory! Talk about revisionism.
IIRC, he released the book on the same day the judgment against him was announced. The guy has a knack for marketing himself! If that book contained any legitimate defense, he should have presented it during the proceedings, but he didn't. Why? Because his "defense" would not stand up to real scrutiny. He knew that he wouldn't be able to fool the professionals trying him, but in a book for the public he could fool all those anti-vaxxers who were idolizing him, and who still fund his travels, speaking engagements, writings, and lifestyle. He still milks them for all he can squeeze out of their gullible souls.
All through his fraudulent "study" of ONLY 12 children, he had a profit motive driving him in several ways. Then when he was first going to publish his results, he immediately, before publication, used science by press conference to unethically announce the results and start a scare with horrible consequences for many children who needlessly got sick and/or died, but with enormous profits and fame to himself. Much later, when he reached the point where his fraud would be exposed and he lost his medical license, he maintained focus on that goal of making a profit. He is rightly considered one of the greatest medical frauds of the 20th century. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wakefield did not defend himself during the hearing because his position was indefensible, and he would have been cut to pieces on cross-exam. His own counsel recommended this. But TenOfAllTrades is correct that this is not a chat forum; let's stick to discussions on improving the article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To included your second source from the journalist himself as justification is Circular reasoning. Is Orac ( your first RS ). Can he be-considered RS this particular case (prolific perhaps but does that equal reliability since he appearer to irritated BR word for word)? That is attempting to doubly reinforcing the fallacy. Do you see what I 'am getting at? Argumentum ad populum like this does not have a place on WP. --Aspro (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what "circular reasoning" is, despite your link to it—a detailed response and point-by-point rebuttal to Lewis' unsupported and unsupportable assertions isn't inherently circular, even if written by Brian Deer. I'm not arguing that we should include these sources in the Wikipedia article, so WP:RS doesn't enter into it. (There's no need for them, as there's no way that Lewis' tremendously defective and unreliable book will be used as a source.) I thought you – or other editors here – might find them informative, and useful to dispel the canard that there is some sort of conspiracy driven by Deer, the BMJ, or some shadowy Big Pharma string-pullers.
Having said that, I'm not planning on getting sucked into (further) misuse of this talk page as a chat forum. If you would like to propose changes/updates to the Wikipedia article based on genuinely reliable sources I would be glad to engage with that discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have said it better myself. RE: "fringe", no one is "calling" you anything. Please review WP:FRINGE to see WP's policy on treatment of fringe views. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it is circular reasoning to say criminal accusations deemed unworthy of investigation for inconclusive evidence are somehow vindicated by self-published content on the accuser's personal website. It is further circular reasoning to suggest that even if those unreliable, self-published sources you cited to dispute Lewis' book didn't exist, that his book would somehow be wrong anyway. Lewis' book is a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS; it belongs in the article. The blog and accuser's personal website you cited to dispute it are not, even though the latter is heavily relied on for material throughout the page. It doesn't matter if they appear to make a convincing case, Wikipedia is not the place for content based on novel conclusions that favor unreliable sources over reliable ones. This is especially true when it involves a living person accused of a crime for which they have never convicted, let alone formally charged. Realskeptic (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely interested: in what way do you believe that "Science for Sale" meets WP:MEDRS? Kolbasz (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:MEDRS#Books: "popular science and medicine books are useful sources, which may be primary, secondary, or tertiary" Realskeptic (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should have read on to the next sentence: "Most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and, consequently, are not reliable sources." Upon publication, no media outlet (apart from a couple of crank conspiracy theory blogs) reviewed the book. That's because its author cited no credible sources to support any of his accusations, and didn't even bother to seek comment from the people he was accusing. It's worth noting that Lewis spent a year attempting to get a journal to publish some of his unsupported accusations before self-publishing this diatribe. It's hard to imagine a book (other than Wakefield's) that fails WP:RS more blatantly than this one. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but it is not relevant to Lewis' book as it is not self-published. You can go through the references yourself and see that he was corresponding with BMJ and cited UCL's decision not to investigate Wakefield for lack of evidence. I wouldn't call Independent Science News a crank conspiracy blog, but you're clearly misinterpreting WP:MEDRS#Books now. Realskeptic (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through Lewis's "references", but apparently you have not. (Your link goes to Amazon's page for the book, not the references.) It has already been pointed out to you that BMC did investigate Wakefield and found fraud, gross conflict of interest, and four proven counts of deliberate dishonesty, among other things. UCL decided not to go to the trouble and expense of re-investigating a matter that was already closed; but it did "...update its mechanisms for safeguarding research participants and ensuring the quality and ethical standards of its research" to make it harder to commit that sort of fraud again. And did you read the Independent Science News story that you linked? It's an excerpt, not a review, and has nothing to do with Wakefield; it's about sewage sludge. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are having reference difficulty. Not only are you conflating two separate sets of allegations, but you are also conflating their sources. There is no "BMC," there is a BMJ and a GMC. BMJ alleged fraudulent data (abandoned following UCL's investigation), GMC found conflict of interest (partially overturned on appeal) and dishonesty (entirely overturned on appeal). BMJ republished and endorsed two-year old claims first published in The Sunday Times, even though Wakefield had responded to them at the time. After BMJ's endorsement, UCL decided to investigate only to terminate that investigation the following year on "inconclusive evidence."
Re Lewis, I tried to link to the references in his book but the closest I could come up with is the Amazon page URL. Regardless of that or of the way Independent Science News covered Science for Sale, all that matters as far as your previous point is concerned is that reputable media did not ignore the book as you claimed it did. Realskeptic (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "BMC" was a typo -- I meant GMC, which does not change anything I wrote. The stuff you are saying simply isn't true: BMJ has never backed down on its fraud allegations; none of the GMC findings were overturned on appeal because there was no appeal of Wakefield's hearing, on the advice of his own counsel. And reputable media did ignore Lewis's book, particularly the part that relates to Wakefield. The fact that one obscure science blog referenced the part about sewage sludge -- something that Lewis might actually know something about, since he's an environmental biologist of some sort -- says nothing about the unsupported nonsense he wrote concerning Wakefield's case. I wish you would drop the stick, as none of this nonsense is ever going to get into the article unless it gets into reputable sources first (bloody unlikely), and consensus is quite obviously firmly against you anyway. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only cited your use of "BMC" of an example of how you conflated the abandoned BMJ allegations with the overturned GMC findings. However, you have not been addressing my points. I've never said BMJ abandoned its own allegations, but that its allegations were abandoned by the only formal investigation of the accusations. You should also read my response to you below concerning the GMC and WP:BLPCRIME. It doesn't matter that Wakefield didn't appeal, GMC findings against him were still overturned on appeal by his colleague, and that should be stated within the article.
A site published by the Bioscience Resource Project is hardly an "obscure blog." The part of Lewis' book that was referenced is still about being falsely accused of research misconduct which is relevant to what Wakefield is accused of. Like it or not, Lewis' book meets WP:MEDRS while you have chosen to resort to WP:IDHT antics and fail to adhere to WP:AGF. Consensus is not achieved that way. Realskeptic (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more time: Walker-Smith was not absolved of anything, and his case had nothing to do with Wakefield's, as the judge himself made quite clear. You say you've read the transcript, so you should know all of this. You need to stop. The fraud and dishonesty allegations against Wakefield stand, and the article reflects that fact. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I read the court transcript, but the court's decision completely contradicts what you claim it said. The GMC findings were struck down, and the BMJ fraud allegations never stood in the first place. You need to stop denying, and just face the facts. Realskeptic (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's rather obvious that you haven't read it. It did not exonerate Walker-Smith; that's not what his appeal hearing was about. The hearing was about the GMC panel's procedure only. Justice Mitting did not address the question of whether Walker-Smith's actions were medically necessary or ethical; he was only ruling on the decision-making of the panel, and he found aspects of it to be flawed. He wrote that the panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith and Wakefield had conducted unauthorized research on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason. The problem, and the reason for overturning the panel’s decision, was incomplete explanation. The GMC elected not to send the case back to the panel – or convene a new panel – to better explain its determinations because Walker-Smith had by then retired, so his license revocation had become a moot point. Wakefield’s case was entirely different. He filed an appeal but did not pursue it, on the advice of his own attorneys, because his case involved more serious charges, including four proven counts of dishonesty, as explained in the article. Justice Mitting made it very clear that quashing Walker-Smith’s disciplinary action did not alter the basic truth: "Today’s ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism … there is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Wakefield's] hypothesis that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.” Read the decision, and give it a rest. Please. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorJoeE. Will you please stop spouting nonsense off-the-top-of-you- head about things that are out of you experience (Sutor, ne ultra crepidam) . Your words above: “Walker-Smith had by then retired, so his license revocation had become a moot point.” That comes across as more pontificating nonsense to muddy the waters that this Encyclopedia can do without. This talk page is exposing that this article is smacking of article ownership by a few editors who only allow circular arguments in their favour. Your your faux reasoning and arguments are getting tiresome.--Aspro (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simple statement of fact, @Aspro, which you would know, if you had bothered to look it up. There are plenty of sites where you can perpetuate Wakefield mythology without fear of being challenged. Here, such mythology will be called out, every time. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding your little "ne ultra crepidam" snipe - this is precisely my field of expertise. For the record. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's bad, @Aspro, look at this:"He wrote that the panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith and Wakefield had conducted unauthorized research on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason." When an editor tries to make the case for the subject's guilt but ends up only reinforcing the fact that he is innocent of the findings discussed, that editor has proven once and for all to be the straggler who will not get it. Of course, he has continuously demonstrated that by repeating failed arguments, not examining the sources he claims to have read and demonstrating an overall poor grasp of the issues. Now that he has sunk to self-contradiction and even further to just pure name-calling, it is quite clear that @DoctorJoeE's opinion should be given no weight when considering how this article should be re-edited. Realskeptic (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the ad hominem - spoken like an editor who has run out of arguments. "Poor grasp of the issues"? "Not examining the sources"? Look who's talking! What part of "He wrote that the panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith and Wakefield had conducted unauthorized research on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason" do you find confusing? The judge did not challenge the panel's finding that they conducted unauthorized research for no good clinical reason; he only ruled that the panel did not adequately explain how it came to the conclusion that they did. What is unclear about that? But this has all gone on long enough; we have wasted too much time and bandwidth refuting the same old Wakefield mythology. If you have suggestions for improving the article, and you can cite WP:RS in support, let's see them. If not, please give it a rest. Please. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
he only ruled that the panel did not adequately explain how it came to the conclusion that they did. -Which pretty much undermines the conclusion. And did you even bother to read the part where the judge said that the GMC came to a "wrong conclusion" "a number of times"? I guess not. I have cited reliable sources, but you just want to ignore them. Realskeptic (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Mostly, you have just referred to WP:RS a whole lot without apparently understanding it (if you had, Science for Sale would never even have been mentioned). When you have actually cited reliable sources (e.g. the BMJ), you have completely misinterpreted what they said. So like DoctorJoeE said: please give it a rest. Kolbasz (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How strange for someone claiming to be "genuinely interested" in how Science for Sale meets WP:MEDRS Realskeptic (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also don't think that book is popular science or medicine, nor does it seem to be particularly popular as a WP:FRINGEy conspiracy theory rant. Cannolis (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are adding your own definition to popular science, which is the interpretation of science intended for a general audience. Lewis' book fits that category perfectly. If Wakefield's innocence really were fringe, he'd have been convicted by now; he was never even charged. Realskeptic (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting tiresome, repeating the same things over and over. Of course Wakefield was never “charged” with research fraud -- it’s not a chargeable offense in Britain, although it probably should be. (And he fled the country anyway, just in case.) His peers and independent investigators found that his research was fraudulent and dishonest, which is different than "charging" him, but doesn't by any stretch render him "innocent" of anything. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fraud is a chargeable offense; either someone is found guilty for it, or they're not and they're innocent or presumed to be until such time. Wakefield wasn't even charged. If he fled the country to avoid indictment, he would have gone to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the UK.WP:BLPCRIME says a non-convicted person is innocent until proven guilty, but that is not what this page does. It also calls for inclusion of all seemingly contradictory legal rulings along with restraint from pithy descriptions (i.e. GMC ruling that Wakefield is dishonest, Walker-Smith appeal that overturned findings behind dishonesty ruling). That is nowhere to be found in this BLP of Wakefield either. Realskeptic (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on British law, but a blatant financial COI and research fraud are not criminal offenses. They are ethical issues, not criminal issues, although this case is egregious enough that they should be. They are enough to get one barred from ever working in research or medicine again. That is what happened to Wakefield. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Serious Fraud Office (UK) defines fraud as follows: Fraud is a type of criminal activity, defined as 'intentional deception to obtain an advantage, avoid an obligation or cause loss to another person or company.' SFO also provides a taxonomy of fraud, which includes dishonest abuse of position or trust within the individual category. That applies to both the overturned GMC findings-of-fact against the subject as well as the UCL-abandoned fraud allegations published in the BMJ. Yet neither the reversal of findings nor the abandonment of allegations are mentioned in the article. Per WP:BLPCRIME, they should be included along with any other criticisms that are supported by reliable sources. Realskeptic (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Research fraud is not a chargeable criminal offense in Britain, despite calls from some – such as present and past BMJ editors – that it should be. Britain has no body that investigates research fraud, analogous to the Office of Research Integrity in the US. It only has the GMC, which has no in-house investigative resources, and can only sanction medical practitioners. The educational institutions, meanwhile, don't want to devote the management time and legal costs to inquiries. With Wakefield, for instance, UCL did consider holding an inquiry, but quickly realized that it would divert millions from its academic budgets and backed off, deferring to the GMC. All of this is in sources cited within the article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no deference to the GMC, the GMC hearing had concluded nearly three years before UCL closed its investigation into the separate fraud allegations based on "inconclusive evidence." As I've said, there is an office within the UK government that investigates fraud of the kind the subject was accused of, but he's never been charged with it. I wonder why... You are seriously engaged in "I can't hear you" type antics. You really need to just back off as it's clear you are letting your opinion of the subject cloud your judgement. Realskeptic (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you, of course, are totally impartial. Which UK government office investigates research fraud, pray tell? Please give us its name, and your source. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I told you. You need to start following WP:IDHT. Realskeptic (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you need to read the site that you linked. By law, SFO is restricted to investigating investment fraud, bribery/corruption, corporate fraud, and public sector fraud—and only the most egregious cases within those categories. No British gov't agency has authority to investigate medical research fraud. While you're at it, please re-read WP:IDHT, which is about "perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the rest of my comment that I linked to. Realskeptic (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic example of the law of holes. The reality is that SFO, according to its own website, is restricted by law to investigating several categories of egregious financial fraud; scientific research transgressions are neither included nor implied. Show us a reliable source stating that SFO has ever taken on such a case – or even that any member of that agency is under the impression that it has the authority to do so. Your assertion that a portion of the law’s wording can be construed to encompass scientific research malfeasance is pure WP:OR; and your conclusion that SFO’s supposed failure to exercise this hypothetical authority somehow absolves Wakefield of any of his transgressions (only one of which was fraud) is pure WP:SYNTH. That sort of unsourced speculation flies in the face of everything WP stands for, and there is no way that it can be included in any WP article. Now, can we please move on? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter that SFO is restricted to investigate certain kinds of fraud; it still defines fraud as encompassing what the subject was accused of. I am not citing SFO's lack of investigation as proof the subject is innocent; I don't need to. UCL won't investigate over inconclusive evidence and the GMC findings that caused him to be labeled dishonest were overturned on appeal. So the article is in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Simple as that. 01:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Can't stop digging, can you? You brought up SFO, and now you say it "doesn't matter". There was no appeal of Wakefield's case; you know that. Please stop. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said it does not matter that they only investigate certain kinds of fraud, they still broadly define fraud as criminal activity. There was an appeal in that many of the findings that his license revocation was based on were overturned; it just was not Wakefield doing the appealing. Realskeptic (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that's pure WP:OR, as there is nothing in any reliable source connecting SFO and Wakefield. As for the Walker Smith, case, you really ought to read the transcript, as I have suggested several times. It is especially ironic that you and others claim the Walker Smith decision exonerates Wakefield, when the opposite is true. In reading the transcript, I was struck by how poorly Wakefield came out of it. The crux of Walker Smith's defense was that Wakefield never told his co-authors what he was really up to; that he never explained his massive conflict of interest, that most of the patients were plaintiffs in the class action suit, that data had been tampered with, or that he was doing a research project, as opposed to simply delivering medical care. The last, especially, is hard to believe, given that it was obviously research, and Walker Smith had previously stated that it was research; but in essence, Walker Smith threw Wakefield under the bus. His lawyer even conceded that the MMR-autism hypothesis was a dead issue – "settled science." So please stop saying that the article "makes accusations that were overturned". It's simply not true. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Science News is a bit controversial and fringe: Bioscience Resource Project#Controversies -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it is possible to be both "a bit controversial" and "fringe." Realskeptic (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Fringe stuff is often controversial, and controversial stuff can also be fringe, but I'm being cautious ("a bit") about the degree. The link describes some controversial issues. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it could be argued that Independent Science News took a fringe position in either mentioned controversy. Realskeptic (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at that Amazon link and noticed what "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought". Wow! Every single one a totally unreliable source of information. I don't know if that says more about the content of the book, more about Lewis, or more about the mindset of those who read Lewis. Certainly cause for concern ..... -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What other people also buy on Amazon is not relevant to the reliability of this book. Nonetheless, the only book that deals directly with the subject is the one authored by the subject. So it meets WP:RS criteria per WP:BLP. Realskeptic (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to read and understand the Wikipedia guidelines you keep referring to. It's beginning to seem as though you're just scanning them for keywords rather than taking the time to read what they actually say. Kolbasz (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to clarify that when I said that the subject's book is the only book that deals with the subject directly, I was only referring to Amazon's "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" list for Science for Sale. I did not mean to imply that Science for Sale does not deal directly with the subject, because it does. Realskeptic (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Realskeptic, you're a big fan of linking to various policies, guidelines, etc. As TenOfAllTrades suggested here, you need to read this one, especially that first sentence: "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." I lost faith in your ability to positively contribute to this topic after seeing this edit where you completely changed the meaning of the text by removing "now discredited". We all know your M.O. is to promote a link between vaccines and autism. It's obvious to anyone who's followed your edits. Well, your agenda is not going to work here, so I suggest abandoning your mission or finding new unrelated topics to edit or your time here will come to an end shortly. APK whisper in my ear 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because I am a big fan of following them. If you have trouble with edits made elsewhere, then those should be addressed on other talk pages. Improving neutrality of an article is not proof of an M.O. or agenda, but is in keeping with WP:NPOV. Harassment and factions are different; they violate Wikipedia policy. Realskeptic (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest an edit or move on

Actually, the heading above pretty much covers what I have to say. It's been rather a long time since I've seen anyone suggest an edit to be made to the Wikipedia article associated with this talk page (remember, it's just over there, at Andrew Wakefield). The first, last, and only purpose of talk pages on Wikipedia is to discuss how best to go about improving Wikipedia articles. It's not to shoot the breeze; it's not to be a chat forum; it's not to bicker back and forth with proponents of fringe views. Sure, we tolerate a certain flexibility in that rule – we're a volunteer project, not an army of bureaucrats (except for the bureaucrats) – but we shouldn't let the back-and-forth chitchat distract from the business of article writing.

It's obvious that Realskeptic doesn't like this article, because it doesn't whitewash the fraudulent nature of Andrew Wakefield's work, or his egregious ethical lapses, or all the other slimy things he did and does. Worse still, this article doesn't pretend that there remains any significant scientific controversy over the once-hypothetical, now-discredited link between vaccination and autism. Realskeptic, as a strong advocate for an assortment of fringe views related to vaccination, clearly doesn't like that Wikpedia respects, reports on, and emphasizes the consensus of scientists and physicians.

Fortunately, Wikipedia is able to handle this sort of stubborn fringe advocate. It's already clear that Realskeptic's attempts to edit the article to introduce his preferred anti-vaccination point of view will be reverted by the substantial number of Wikipedia editors who respect Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, proper weight, reliable sourcing, and so forth. He's already been blocked a couple of times for edit warring, and I imagine by now he realizes that further edit warring is just going to result in a topic ban or very long block. If he really thought he had a credible case, he could take it to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, but he knows he doesn't, so he won't. (And Realskeptic, be very aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Don't go posting time-wasting rants at those noticeboards just because I've mentioned them here. To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not recommending you take your arguments to a wider forum and thereby waste the time of even more Wikipedia editors.)

What he has left is venting on this talk page. (And others—see the extensive but non-substantive bluster at Talk:2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference.) As responsible Wikipedia editors, we have the option, ability, and possibly obligation to not engage with him further. Let him bluster. I don't know if he's sophisticated enough to try to goad the responsible editors into poor behavior, but don't risk it. He wants attention; we don't have to give it to him.

Or, we could just ask for a topic ban at WP:AE. That works too.

Either way, there's no need to keep feeding attention to a fringe advocate who is just interested in picking fights on talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time watcher of this page, I wholeheartedly support TOAT's comments above, while commending DrJoe for his patience. It is a shame that 'trolls' of this type would rather believe in a discredited individuals handwaving denial of his behaviour than the evidence. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest someone close this discussion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me three. After resolving not to get sucked in ... I got sucked in. Again. But letting the mythology go unchallenged isn't the answer either, obviously. When time permits I'm going to summarize the more common myths, and why they are myths, in the FAQ section above; that might help, as it seems to have on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion talk page, another magnet for fringe soap-boxers. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Note to Realskeptic: this is not "factionalism," this is consensus (which is not the same as unanimity). -- DaveSeidel (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, consensus is achieved by discussion. What you've done is chosen to attack an editor for disagreeing with you while making irrefutable points. The Wakefield bio is a WP:BLPCRIME violation, IOM report's politically determined conclusion is not "consensus", anything that disagrees with it is not fringe and writing a bio on Kennedy from perspective of editors who said his article was retracted because of fraud is libelous. Editors who respond by blocking, threatening with topic bans, making personal attacks and closing discussions constitute a faction that is trying to disrupt the normal processes of Wikipedia so that content will only align with their views. I'll leave it there Realskeptic (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is reflected in policies and guidelines that have wide input, not in attempts by individual editors to rewrite it on individual pages. We reflect the facts as they are, not as people might wish them to be - come back when Wakefield's studies have been republished by the journals that retracted them and when his license to practice medicine has been restored. You are trying to use Wikipedia to fix a "problem" that exists in the real world, and that ain't how it works. I put "problem" in quotes because as far as I am concerned it's not a problem: Wakefield's actions were fraudulent and unethical, according to reliable sources, and I have no problem at all with Wikipedia reflecting that. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. This is POV pushing disguised as "disagreeing". Said "irrefutable" points are anything but, given the total absence of reliable support, and therefore fall into the category of WP:OR. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter that his paper is retracted and that he does not have his license; this article makes accusations that have either been overturned or were never charged. It is therefore libelous and a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Realskeptic (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific edit to suggest? If not, move on. As per @TenOfAllTrades:'s excellent suggestion. Kolbasz (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Realskeptic (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So after all this disruption by you, you have learned nothing and propose we accept a previous edit of yours which was roundly rejected? That's a very blatant example of I didn't hear that behavior, and since it comes after all of the above, it's very disruptive. It's time for a topic ban or long block. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to advocate a fringe agenda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Realskeptic has been indefinitely topic banned. [2] --NeilN talk to me 20:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness. Had I known about that discussion I would have contributed, but apparently it was unnecessary. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. He/she will be back, they always do. The "RealSkeptic" name speaks volumes, however it is a WP:SPA which also appears to operate at least one sock. It's obviously WP:NOTHERE as well as WP:IDHT so eventually I hope the individual does not waste more editor's time, but these types never shut up until they're forced to. Damotclese (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "General Medical Council, Fitness to Practise Panel Hearing, 24 May 2010, Andrew Wakefield, Determination of Serious Professional Misconduct" (PDF). General Medical Council. Retrieved 18 September 2011.
(please refer to me as JOE)I believe(note the "believe") that the "RealSkeptic" person had some relevant points, and that the article fails to mention the possibility that the sources against "Andrew Wakefield" are in some way financially dependent on the vaccine industry. If my memory serves, the sources included A) magazines/newspapers (that rely on ads, including vaccine-industry ads for their revenue.) B) various forms of other media networks, similarly dependent on ads/commercials of the vaccine industry. C)various doctors who, I believe, were educated in schools/universities sponsored by the vaccine industry. This makes the majority of the sources have a bias. P.S. all my sources are from memory. I do not have links at this time. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Children's vaccines have to be advertised? If what you posted had any merit, the "media" would stop advertising vaccines, wait for vaccination rates to fall, and then make a killing getting advertising for the drugs and therapies needed to treat all the diseases that will reappear. --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(the guy who called himself JOE)I did not state that. my statement was meant to indicate that the same company’s likely pay in some way for advertising as make some vaccines, In general, and the magazines would as such be biased. that plan would take them ~5 years, according to the supposed time for a booster shot to be "necessary"necessary. this plan would seem more evil/bad to those who work there and currently do things with vaccines. as well, I believe that the industry have some sort of near guaranty that people going to school will soon have to take vaccines, if some laws are successfully passed.( I know this may be off topic, but I am unsure.) if I recall correctly, the owner of the magazine whose reporter was called "deer"(?) was also the owner of a company (or group) that sells vaccines. if anything I have sayed seemed aggressive this is unintentional. I only mention this because many people have believed I was aggressive when that was not my intent. unrelated, that was a fast response. less than 12 minutes to notice my talk thing. must be quite dedicated, since the last comment(?) was last year. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, JOE, you do not recall correctly. Brian Deer is a freelance journalist who originally uncovered the fraud in 2004, and then was commissioned by BMJ to write about it. (That’s what journalists do.) BMJ is not owned by any vaccine manufacturer. And the idea that BMJ's acceptance of vaccine ads constitutes some sort of "bias" lacks not only relevance but logic and plausibility as well. The implication is that discrediting Wakefield would somehow be in the vaccine manufacturers’ financial interests. In fact, MMR is a relatively cheap vaccine; to replace it with monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines – at a bare minimum of triple the cost of the trivalent MMR – would have been a financial bonanza for the industry; they would have been delighted. The supposed involvement of other alleged conspirators is even less logical or plausible, and never convincingly explained. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(JOE) I shall assume your statement is true, as I do not wish to look for sources. With regards to the portion were the acceptance of vaccine adds constitutes a bias, no, that alone does not imply bias. however, if a sizeable portion of the revenue comes from the vaccine (and pharmaceutical?) industry, there would be some monetary reasoning to favour them. with regards to the logic in discrediting Wakefield, I think it would make sense if 'MMR' costs more than any of the vaccines individually, and I believe that if it were not bundled together and they were unsure of its safety most people would not get a mumps vaccine, though I am unsure about rubella. I am sorry if the Deer related statement I made earlier is not true. separately, if someone did not pay attention or only heard parts of what Wakefield wrote, it would be easy to assume or believe or extrapolate that many vaccines were unsafe, which is another reason for the vaccine(and pharma?) industry to discredit Wakefield. With regards to an earlier post(NeilN) a vaccine that I do not recall the name of has recently been advertised on several forms of media( all/most electronic ofc). well, I'm curious on how you will respond to this one. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in responding to your vague, fairly ludicrous assertions of media bias. You're wasting everybody's time here. --NeilN talk to me 00:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is all pretty weird -- my statements must true because you can't be bothered to verify them? Stuff taken out of context might be misinterpreted? (Duh?) Some vaccine you don't know the name of has been advertised recently? (Gardasil perhaps? Or Zostavax?) So what? What the hell's your point? Unless you have some constructive suggestions for improving the article, please run along. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(JOE) I said I will assume your statement is true, as in take your word for it. the advertised recently was in response to NeilN say "Children's vaccines have to be advertised?". I was showing that, indeed, they are advertised.the part were I said stuff take out of context could be misinterpreted was to point out that this would be a logical reason to discredit him; the stuff will not receive attention, and not be interpreted to begin with. as far as suggestions, I suggest directly acknowledging the Possibility(!) of a bias in the sources, or of some payment to them by any person with something to gain. I could not see any mention that this was possible that did not contain a statement of its (supposed?)falsehood within the sentence. P much, say it is possible that the main sources have a bias, without saying that he thinks there’s a conspiracy against him as the source; the statement that he said it, when you have been discrediting him the whole time, is unlikely to be taken seriously.(and maybe ignored)172.97.228.137 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(JOE) I don’t know why there’s a box :\ 172.97.228.137 (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "box" was due to an accidental indentation -- I fixed it. To your points: I'm not aware of any children's vaccines that are advertised, or ever were; if you know of any, please enlighten us. I'm still not sure what to make of your second point -- if you can cite an example of something in the article that is taken out of context, please enlighten us. As for "directly acknowledging the possibility of bias in the sources", please read WP:RS, which explains why we cannot and do not cite biased sources in the first place; ergo, no need for such an acknowledgement. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that for an editor to inject such commentary and/or speculation would be to engage in, or at least come very close to engaging in, original research. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(JOE)With respect to commercials/advertisements of children's vaccines - see for example, Merck's campaign since June 2016 to advertise their HPV vaccine as something that is aimed at 11 and 12 year olds. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(JOE) do you have nothing to say? 172.97.228.137 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I do. We all have a finite amount of time to spend at this, so if you don't get an immediate answer, please be patient. Gardisil is not a children's vaccine, it is for sexually active adults -- but the latest recommendation is to get the vaccine before you become sexually active -- i.e. before you're exposed to the virus in the first place, so Merck is publicizing that recommendation. Once again, what is your point, and how does this translate into improving the article? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because obviously Gardisil is part of the c0nsp1raz7 to suppress the truth about this world-wide, global big pharma / George Soros campaign to... um... It looks like to kill people and cause autism for profit, if I understand the motive of the anti-Wakefield / pro-autism scientists who are pretending that Wakefield's claims are fraudulent.
The possible reason why Gardisil was mentioned is that the individual covered in the extant article has advanced his anti-science c0nsp1raz7 claims that Gardisil "...has damaged many young girls..." and that "...big pharma has denied it" which tellingly was spewed on a television show hosted by the not-so-unusual-these-days c0nsp1raz7 extremist Christian Republican "Well-Regulated Militia Patriot" Alex Jones.
A. Wakefield appears (by all available evidence) to have started out his anti-science campaign predicated in financial fraud, for purely financial gain, if the documents covered in the MMR hoax are reviewed, and yet after having allegedly been found to be "mistaken" in his claims about the MMR vaccine, he has appeared to have launched a "defense" against the medical world's science-based findings about his MMR claims by "doubling down" and yarking off in to the increasingly insane world of the extreme right wing, and that includes making unfounded, outrageous claims about Gardisil which, just like MMR, targets children.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!
Any way, it looks like for purposes of the extant article, maybe covering some of Wakefield's c0nsp1raz7 claims about Gardisil might actually be informative and relevant. Whether Wakefield actually believes his own claims or not is probably even irrelevant. Damotclese (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly relevant that Wakefield continues to insist that he's "not anti-vaccine", yet continues to make anti-vaccine statements and disseminate harmful information with -- as always -- no credible supporting evidence. The Gardisil nonsense is typical -- 20,000 adverse events, he tells Alex Jones, neglecting to mention that those "events" were a few hours' worth of dizziness, nausea, headache, fever, redness, or swelling at the injection site -- out of 60 million vaccinations, well under the typical AE incidence for vaccines. Oh, and 4 case reports of premature ovarian failure -- less than 1 in 10 million for a problem that has a 1:1000 incidence in the general population! So yes, it's relevant to the article, since his "followers" are now leaving their children vulnerable not just to childhood diseases, but cervical cancer as well. But we'll need WP:RS, since the above is OR on my part. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(JOE)my last 3 posts have been removed from the talk page. i do not know why. two of the were about the 1st being removed. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity doctor

Conversation was over, yet went all the way to invocation of godwin's law. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

guy, about this revert, please have a look at the subject article, and let me know if you still disagree. Best ref is the 2011 NYT mag ref already used in the article, if you demand explicit support for the word "celebrity" as well as notion. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't call him a celebrity doctor, and he isn't one, he's a non-celebrity quack. Guy (Help!) 01:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
three bad arguments in a row. that you are willing to write such bad arguments shows this is a waste of my time. am done with this. Jytdog (talk)
I have to say: maybe a senior editor or somebody should look at this 'celebrity doctor' thing. It seems that Jytdog has created an article s/he calls 'celebrity doctor' and has then sort of bestowed this title on a random list of individuals. To me, that is original research - the whole caboodle. It's like a magazine feature, complete with made-up definitions of what constitutes a 'celebrity doctor'. How come a bunch of guys have their biographies polished up with the honor of 'celebrity doctor', given out by random wikipedia editors: nameless folk using criteria of their own devising. This isn't like 'Japanese dentists', or 'Olympic gold medalists' - capable of sourcing and resolution. It's a subjective essay, initially by an individual, who, for some reason, reckons that the world needs a list of 'celebrity doctors'. Makes no sense to me. Dallas66 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, along with the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that entire article does seem problematic. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unworthy comment. Celebrity doctors are people like Oz or Christian Jessen. They are celebrities as doctors. Wakefield is a "celebrity" only in the minds of anti-vax cranks, to most people he is a disgraced quack. He's not even a doctor: he has been struck off and has no license to practise medicine anywhere in the world. I don't object tot he existence of the article, but I do not think it applies here. I can't find any reference other than your writing, for Wakefield being a celebrity doctor. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wakefield was a licensed doctor up until 2010. per the source provided above, "Wakefield was a high-profile but controversial figure in gastroenterology research at the Royal Free Hospital in London when, in 1998,..." So already high profile when he published The Paper and after that he had 12 years of actual "celebrity doctor"hood.
His (former) medical credentials are one of the key reasons anti-vaxxers still follow him - again from the source provided (bolding added): "Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation....In his presentation, Wakefield sounded impatient but righteous. He used enough scientific terms — “ataxic,” “histopathological review” and “vaccine excipients” — that those parents who did not feel cowed might have been flattered by his assumption of their scientific fluency......Some part of Wakefield’s cult status is surely because of his personal charisma, and he spoke with great rhetorical flair. ....To parents who have run up against unsatisfying answers from the scientific community, Wakefield offers a combination of celebrity and empathy that leaves strong impressions. "
This is the definition of "celebrity doctor". The statements he is making are far more reprehensible than Oz' (and Oz' are really bad) but they are in the same bucket - trading on their medical credentials, relying on their charisma, to "ply their trade in the media". Same bucket. And there is enough in this NYT piece to provide direct support for the label "celebrity doctor." But I am not going to push this, in this article. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have simply made up the category of 'celebrity doctor' and, by a process of original research, and scratching your head, feel you want to bestow it on who you choose. I find that a real problem, and may need to broaden this debate among editors. In general, there's an issue. In this case, it's an absurdity. Notoriety is not the same as celebrity. Should the late Fred Phelps be accorded the accolade of 'celebrity pastor' on account of his high profile work with Westborough Baptist Church?Dallas66 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have to agree. By your criteria, why is Josef Mengele not included on your list of "celebrity doctors"? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin's law validated again; this conversation is officially ridiculous. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

propaganda film

Vaxxed should not be objectively qualified as a propaganda film. If some reliable sources have called it that, then it may be notable to include that in the context of quotes from that source. In any contentious topic you will find a variety of descriptive labels applied from both sides. Byates5637 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So here too! Please see WP:GEVAL. As you have already been told, WP does not do "fair and balanced". Please do read WP:NPOV. The DS apply to this article as well, btw. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not even use the word's "fair and balanced" Did you even read what I wrote? Byates5637 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Wakefield&oldid=759767402"