Talk:MMR vaccine and autism

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sledgehamming (talk | contribs) at 09:19, 14 May 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

POV tag 29-01-2020

This isn't going anywhere (by initiator's own admission, whom I have also blocked for repeated WP:PA here). DMacks (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2020 (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.

Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!

It is very difficult sometimes for us to take off our ideological blinders and see the other point of view. Sometimes this is age-related, as in Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development. The kind of person who is likely to be editing Wikipedia may be at a more black-and-white stage of their thinking. That is why we have policies about this.

I would like to see the article reformatted more along the lines of a standard debate, with a point-counterpoint approach. The method I propose for accomplishing it is this: Simply do not revert edits by the other side. Treat them with respect, as you would like to be treated, instead of using your power to silence their voice. The points I would like to see included from the anti-vax side are things like:

1. Methodological errors in the studies that purport to disprove a link. 2. A notable lack of safety studies on any vaccine or ingredient but the MMR itself. 3. Wakefield's defense to his critics, e.g. that all he did was call for investigation of a link, and that there were no significant conflicts of interest. This, to me is the most significant lapse in the article. Does not the accused have a right to defend himself?

I have no problem seeing the weak points in the anti-vax argument exposed. What I do have a problem with is seeing it made into another witch hunt. That ain't what we're about. If you are concerned about the truth getting out, then have a fair trial. The result will be much more satisfying.

Alfarero (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're addressing several subjects above, so I'll just address the last part. We give WP:Due weight to content from RS, and no weight (IOW no mention at all) to content from unreliable sources. If the views of anti-vaxers is mentioned in RS, then we can cite those sources to document those fringe views, and we present those views as clearly fringe. They must not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a bullypulpit to violate our policies against the WP:Advocacy of fringe views.
We do not place mainstream views across from fringe views in a false balanced manner. Mainstream views get much more weight and dominate an article, whereas fringe views get scant and negative mention. That's how it's supposed to be here. We are a mainstream encyclopedia, not Conservapedia or Fringeopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alfarero, your proposal isn't going to gain any traction. The only side anyone should be on is that of the Encyclopedia and its editing policies - if you're here to push a side, you're here for the wrong reasons. Edits that rely on dubious sources, or which present a fringe theory as a counterpoint to the balance of mainstream scientific consensus, will be reverted. GirthSummit (blether) 20:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid reason for giving Wakefield any deference. He was found not to have made a mistake, but to have been outright fraudulent for personal gain and his license was stripped. He should not be given any weight whatsoever. MartinezMD (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does not the accused have a right to defend himself? Other than the important WP:GEVAL mentioned above, the article must reflect what independent reliable sources say about them rather than their own fringe view and advocacy (WP:RS, WP:FRIND). For science there is no real debate about this, it's long been disproved. —PaleoNeonate – 23:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "disproved." If you mean that if you repeat a Big Lie often enough, it causes people to stop thinking, then sure. QED. But in point of fact, Wakefield's thesis was not disproved. It was merely shouted down.
I want to make it crystal clear that I am not anti-vax. I am pro-impartiality. But unlike most people, I have actually read Wakefield's paper. And it was quite modest and transparent. All that he did was to examine tissue samples from a dozen of his patients, take histories, summarize the literature, and say, "Hey. We need to study this." His concluding statement was, "Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."
That's what everybody's upset about. He didn't try to prove a link. He suggested it. Using hard evidence. I guess that makes some people uncomfortable. But I don't think the paper deserved retraction. It's just a bit of a fixer-upper.
It struck me, as I reflected on this, that the link between vaccines and autism does not qualify as pseudoscience. To be pseudoscience, it would have to make theoretical claims. It does not. It only makes evidential claims. "This leads to that by this biochemical pathway." And so it is a legitimate hypothesis and needs to be examined as such.
It is regrettable that so many conflicts of interest are involved and this has become such a contentious debate. My hope is that we could discuss it rationally. I, for one, would like a straight answer. And the reason I have taken the time, and put my heart and soul into writing these comments, is that I think you guys are muddying the waters.Alfarero (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alfarero:. You don't seem to have read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Please do so. The purpose of this page is to discuss changes to the article. If you have a change in mind, please propose it and put it in the form of "Please change X by Y" or "Please add X between Y and Z" followed by the sources supporting that change. Make sure you make that proposal in your next edit here. If no specific proposal is made, we can close this section. --McSly (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a specific proposal. Please present the issue journalistically, not polemically. Structure the page according to Wikipedia guidelines, giving each side space (not to say equal space, I don't care about that), and describing each point of view in the third person, as if it doesn't matter to you which is right. Stop using "violence in the service of truth. (John Paul II)" Allow the dissenting faction a voice.Alfarero (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's now clear that Alfarero has no intention of proposing anything useful and is just using that page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Any uninvolved editor should feel free to close that discussion per WP:TALK so we can all stop wasting our time. --McSly (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I stand by what I have said, but I see that you are correct that it was a waste of time. Your minds are closed. Please feel free to close this discussion. I would be happy to delete the whole thing, but I do not want to delete anyone else's responses without their permission.Alfarero (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I just feel like bringing a little levity to this situation. Because, have you noticed? All of us here are not only vaccinated, but autistic! Alfarero (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the true agenda ^ emerges... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering WP:NOTFORUM and that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, unless you can provide WP:MEDRS supporting those conspiracy theories, nothing can be done. —PaleoNeonate – 11:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you the real cause of increases in autism diagnoses: the diagnostic criteria have changed. As simply as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get out much.Alfarero (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alfarero, you are skating pretty close to a personal attack in that comment. Read WP:NPA, and tread carefully. GirthSummit (blether) 17:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm serious. He obviously hasn't lived through the tragedy of seeing a family member regress into autism. He hasn't had to fight with the school for a positive, productive IEP. He didn't grow up in the Sixties, like I did, and so he has no basis for comparison. His comment is rude, dismissive, and wrong on the facts.Alfarero (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I’ve seen some novel interpretations of what Wakers did, but this one is really imaginative. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not an "interpretation." I just reported what the paper said. I guess that is the problem here. You guys simply cannot be objective. That is why I made the concrete proposal that you stop reverting the edits of those who dissent from the official position of the medical industry. And, please don't misunderstand me. I don't want to "skate close to a personal attack." You guys are engaging in egregiously partisan behavior. I have suggested a solution. I will wait and see what you decide.Alfarero (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia rubber-stamps the medical orthodoxy. It always did it and will always do it. Satisfied? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alfarero, 'you don't get out much' is a personal comment, and a negative one - that is prohibited. If you don't understand that, and persist with that sort of behaviour, you can expect to be blocked from editing. GirthSummit (blether) 18:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Wakefield wasn't de-licensed for that mere claim, but for not disclosing a conflict of interest and for breaching medical research ethics. Every scientist in entitled to have occasional theoretical mistakes, see Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2020 (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.

Please note that this article is now covered by the discretionary sanctions relating to pseudoscience and fringe science

I've done this as a response to the discussion above. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MMR criticism

When I first came across this issue, it was in a pamphlet I read in a UK doctor's surgery. The main drift of the article was that the administering of three vaccines at once was potentially more risky than giving three jabs at different times. The main focus of the pamphlet was on possible links to bowel conditions.

The pamphlet noted that by administering the three at once, rather than separately, the vaccination campaign was more likely to achieve the desired coverage. It also pointed out that Sweden was allowing administration of separate jabs, but that separate jabs couldn't even be bought privately from UK pharmacies.

That 'controversy' - the apparent conflict between the goal of achieving coverage versus the goal of minimising risk - has been swamped by the antivax thing and the Wakefield/Lancet scandal, so that I can't now find any information (here or elsewhere) about the potential risks of administering three vaccines at once. If I could find a WP:RS discussing such potential risks, and added mention of it to this article, I suspect it would be instantly reverted, because 'fringe'. There is no MMR 'controversy', it's all about autism now, and MMR is unassailable (at least on WP).

So to which article would one add material based on a WP:MEDRS that was critical of MMR? Is there any point in even looking for a reliable source? MrDemeanour (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source first, then ask your question. Your Q is moot at the moment. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three vaccines in one dose is meaningless. It would be safer as there are less total components than 3 individual vaccine jabs. The DPT vaccine, which is typically given 4 times before the MMR, has no controversy and is a triple vaccine for comparison. Even a single vaccine has multiple antigenic foci. WP bases it's inclusions on reliable sources, and that pamphlet is unlikely to be one. If the source meets WP:MEDRS criteria, however, it can be included. I would suggest searching the US National Library of Medicine. It's a fairly exhaustive source for scholarly medical publications. The source should be a secondary article, not a primary study. MartinezMD (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why does the title of this article assert a nonexistent connection? The postulation that this connection exists is nonsense, and well-debunked nonsense at that. We should not be leaving a bare title like "MMR vaccine and autism" sitting here suggesting that there's anything but nonsense behind said connection. I'm proposing adding "conspiracy theory" to the title, because (although this doesn't strictly look like a conspiracy theory at its core), it's widely referred to as one by reliable sources, and the extensive and irrefutable debunking of this link would necessitate any continued belief in such a link to also include belief in a conspiracy on the issue.

Sources supporting this (based on a 15 second google search, so I have no doubt there are more and better ones out there:

Happy (Slap me) 12:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look in Archive 3 and 4, you'll find some prior discussion of what the name ought to be. Perhaps it is time to look at this again though. Girth Summit (blether) 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through them now, I see the arguments "This page is inaccurately named, here's sources that say it's a fraud/conspiracy theory" and responses that basically consist of "But NPOV!!"
Considering that NPOV says we should be treating fringe claims as fringe claims, I don't think the counterarguments hold much water. There's an RfC in archive 3 that has a lot of support for a move to a name including "hoax" or "fraud" and I'd get behind those names, as well.
However, given the issues there (mostly procedural issues resulting from the broad choice of names) I'd like to pick one and discuss that. To that end, I'm suggesting we move this to "MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory". If that fails, we can discuss another renaming. There's clearly a lot of support for renaming this article. Happy (Slap me) 13:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose "conspiracy theory" because it wasn't a conspiracy theory as we understand it. How about "MMR vaccine and autism - The Andrew Wakefield Fraud" ? After the current naming I always feel uncomfortable because we are almost endorsing the conflation between the vaccine and autism per Wakers, and this association never existed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just MMR vaccine fraud ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.. because it might suggest the vaccine was fraudulent? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ... wasn't it at one point named MMR vaccine controversy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or MMR vaccine and autism fraud ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.. um, perhaps. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MMR vaccine and the Wakefield fraud? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the arguing about the actual named seemed to have been what derailed past discussions. And asking that we simply opine on my suggestion doesn't seem to have been enough to address that, so let's make it a question of which of the following names is most popular. Let's call this ranked choice !voting, so as to better get a clear answer, with a clear hierarchy of favorites. Happy (Slap me) 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of moving to surveys too soon. And we are nowhere until a broader audience is brought in. Discussing options is always better than moving to surveys, RFCs or !voting too soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I'm not yet convinced any of those listed in the survey are the best option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems counterproductive. Girth Summit posted links to where this has already been discussed extensively. I doubt there's anything left to say, other than to settle on the title we want to move it to. Happy (Slap me) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit posted links to discussions that are at least three years old; that is a lifetime on Wikipedia. Premature RFCs and surveys rarely yield consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Lancet MMR autism fraud, which covers the fraud part. Renaming this article would make it a duplicate of that one. This article is about the broader claim that there is a connection, a false rumor which was started by the fraud but gained more momentum using other instances of bad science. Maybe it is simply not necessary and can be merged into the Lancet fraud article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what order does everyone prefer the following names for this article:

A. MMR vaccine fraud
B. MMR vaccine and autism fraud
C. MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory
D. MMR vaccine hoax
E. MMR vaccine and autism hoax

survey

  • As for me, I actually like "fraud" best, and I don't care for "hoax" too much because it implies that the true believers are in on the hoax, when that's patently untrue. So my choices in order are; A, B, C, D, E. Happy (Slap me) 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B I think A and D make it sound like the vaccine itself is a problem. I'm okay with the others. MartinezMD (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the above, per Hob Gadling. There is already a separate article about the fraud itself, this article is about the broader idea that there is a connection between the two. If we don't think it's necessary to have two separate articles, this one should be merged into the other and deleted; if it's worth having two articles, their titles shouldn't give the impression that are about the same subject. (I also agree with Sandy that this survey is premature - the last discussion was a few years ago, participants have moved on. We should be spitballing ideas and discussing them rather than !voting at this stage.) Girth Summit (blether) 08:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To merge them would create an article too long and confusing. The fraud is something of real interest on its own, not only in connexion with MMR and autism, but also to the wider scientific community such as myself. If anything, the fraud article might be shaved a little of general 'MMR debate' stuff, and an abridgment included in the mmr/autism article. Thus there needs to be two because neither article is subsidiary to the other. Sledgehamming (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To go back to the question raised, it's wrong to want to opinionate in the title. There has been a very widespread debate over whether MMR causes autism. This debate isn't a fraud or a hoax, but something that has happened. Setting out the terms of that debate and how it is resolving is about setting out facts, not dismissing them. What was found to be fraudulent was an element of this, but that doesn't make everything fraudulent or a hoax. This isn't meant to be advertising for the drug industry or the CDC. The title is fine. If any energy is available, someone might add more recent research findings, which continue to evidence the safety of this vaccine.Sledgehamming (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion at Doreen Granpeesheh

Advising editors here that there is a related discussion at Doreen Granpeesheh which would benefit from wider input. It is over the inclusion of the following content to the page:

In 2016, Granpeesheh participated in Andrew Wakefield's Vaxxed, a documentary which pushes his widely-debunked theory that the MMR vaccine causes autism.[1] Granpeesheh features prominently in the film,[2] claiming autism is caused by children "not detoxifying from the vaccinations" and can be treated by detoxification.[3][4][5][6] Granpeesheh had previously worked for Wakefield at his clinic Thoughtful House.[4][7][3]

Thanks! GordonGlottal (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC) GordonGlottal (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Claimed link' is not a hypothesis

Here is the claimed link. A link in time between MMR and autism. That is not a hypothesis.

'Findings Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular hyperplasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed patchy chronic inflammation in the colon in 11 children and reactive ileal lymphoid hyperplasia in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two). There were no focal neurological abnormalities and MRI and EEG tests were normal. Abnormal laboratory results were significantly raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with age-matched controls (p=0·003), low haemoglobin in four children, and a low serum IgA in four children.

'Interpretation We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.'

References

  1. ^ Leydon, Joe; Leydon, Joe (2016-04-03). "Film Review: 'Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe'". Variety. Retrieved 2022-06-29.
  2. ^ Tayag, Yasmin. "I Went to a Morning Showing of Andrew Wakefield's 'Vaxxed' and Made Weird New Friends". Inverse. Retrieved 2022-06-29.
  3. ^ a b Berman, Jonathan M. (2020-09-08). Anti-vaxxers: How to Challenge a Misinformed Movement. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-35955-9.
  4. ^ a b "Reviewing Andrew Wakefield's VAXXED: Antivaccine propaganda at its most pernicious | Science-Based Medicine". sciencebasedmedicine.org. 2016-07-11. Retrieved 2022-06-29.
  5. ^ qtd. Metwally, Ebsam (November 2, 2020). Vaccine Hesitancy Online : A Rhetorical Analysis Through Postmodern Narratives. (University of Ottawa, Canada) pg. 75
  6. ^ Gøtzsche, Peter C. (2020-02-06). Vaccines: truth, lies and controversy. Art People. ISBN 978-87-7036-893-3.
  7. ^ "Dr Doreen Granpeesheh". web.archive.org. 2009-12-20. Retrieved 2022-06-29.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism&oldid=1154731400"