Talk:MMR vaccine and autism

Neutrality tag

If you're going to do a drive-by neutrality tag on this article, you better stay and discuss it, and point out where there's an issue with WP:NPOV. Cause if you don't, one or many editors will simply delete it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Autism Class

The article does not address autism outside of mistaken and conspiracy belief. If others feel that the article justifiably should be tagged as an article on autism -- as opposed to vaccination conspiracy beliefs -- let's discuss it and put the class back. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This topic is about to re-emerge (Aug 23 2014)

An associate professor of chemistry at a Christian university is making news with more assertions that MMR vaccines lead to autism.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-focus-autism-foundation-finds-133000584.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/08/senior-government-scientist-breaks-13-years-silence-on-cdcs-vaccine-autism-fraud.html

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154522223040296&set=a.10150730585595296.713739.507175295&type=1&theater

http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16/abstract MBVECO (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Meh. The first three are essentially press releases about the last one: a badly-done 're-analysis' of decade-old material, by an axe-grinder who managed to get a low-quality paper into a no-impact journal.

• http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/andrew-jeremy-wakefield-plays-video-director-while-african-american-babies-die-or-something/
• http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/

No need to waste any time on this character unless he gets any real coverage. And I don't imagine any credible researchers are likely to be citing his paper. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A whistleblower has come forward:

[Article from the examiner is blacklisted?] http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/891667-autism-and-vaccines-cdc-whistleblower-exposes-vaccine-dangers-lies-and-cover-ups-video/ http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164046 --72.5.190.133 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A CNN iReport is hardly commentary on anything. I is as useful as some guy's forum post. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the Meh assessment. Zad68 20:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• If you look at the "theepochtimes.com" web site it is basically a pay-for-advertising propaganda source which attempts to appear as if it's legitimate news. There are weight loss scams and outright frauds being sold on the web site as if it's "news" so yeah, "meh."

Also the Examiner.Com web site is also a pay-for-we-post-anything-you-send-us web site though they have some scruples about getting sued for blanket fraudulent advertisings. Such web sites are obviously "poor sources" for references and citations.

Thanks for keeping the article cleaned up of nonsense. Damotclese (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This will shed some light on this 'whistleblower' bullsh... err, stuff.... [1] Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is so "meh" it sets a new standard for "meh." Yesterday, the 0 impact factor journal, Translational Neurodegeneration, was so offended by the low quality of the article, they've removed it from their website, first step to full retraction. Of course, this is a serious condemnation of the quality of the peer review. As Gorski mentions in that post you cited, Hooker's work was below even the lowest standards of statistical and clinical significance. This is a manufactroversy, laughable at best, but could be scary, if more children die because the promotion of Wakefield's fraud continues, and kids don't get vaccinated. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

CNN.com published a story on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

(A fairly awful piece of journalism, I might add, which opens with this gem: "The debate over a link between autism and vaccines continues.")

May be worth mentioning this latest incident in the article, if only to make sure readers understand just how uncompelling this "evidence" is. JoelWhy?(talk)

JoelWyh is so right!!! Unpopular and resent scientific evidence - needs to be labelled uncompelling. Even if it 's only to maintain belief.--Aspro (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a really pseudoscientific conspiracy theory. Our own User:SkepticalRaptor has covered this matter on his great blog, with several very well-written posts. Here's one of them: The fictional CDC coverup of vaccines and autism–movie time. You will find more coverage there about this nonsense. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Does that blog count as a scientific refutation? --Aspro (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need 'scientific refutation' of a non MEDRS compliant paper that is in the process of being pulled from a 0 impact factor journal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh! “Impact factor”. Scientific gobbledy gook. Much like Galileo Galilei was not allowed a “Impact factor” under the Roman Catholic church. I spent six year in R&D. So, Let me ask you – dose the sun still revolve around YOUR earth?--Aspro (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have a PhD in experimental psychology, but in all honesty, the fact that you 'spent six year (sic) in R&D' or the fact that I have a PhD matter precious little. What matters? Sources. Oh and impact factors are decent estimates of a journal's quality. The science is settled. Move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you that sources is what matters on WP. Yet if you practice anything of (say) Eric Berne MD, he might say “move on” means you lack a valid and worth while argument. Try Industrial Psychology. One can not bury one's mistakes there – one has to swear before a coroner the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if say employee looses it. I could add more but I think you get my drift. Coming back to AW. Is the science really settled?--Aspro (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I usually think that someone "lacks a valid and worthwhile argument" when they dismiss rational arguments as "scientific gobbledygook" and compare themselves to Galileo. I can't speak for Eric Berne, though. MastCell ^Talk 04:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have requested page protection. This is getting tiring and is a big time sink. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Good move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A little googling seems to established without doubt that an editor here has a strong COI. Doesn’t the tenants of WP mean anything to you. Or where you born into this world knowing that you're right I everything? WHERE did I compare myself to Galileo ? There is something called scientific integrity (Which is different from saying what ever is necessary to put dollars in your pocket). --Aspro (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Undisclosed conflicts of interest? Lack of scientific integrity? Willing to say anything necessary to make a buck? I think you have me confused with Andrew Wakefield. You might want to refine your Google search terms. MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

....and Aspro, keep in mind that WP:Outing will get you blocked extremely quickly. Even if you can easily discover the real life identity of an editor on the internet, one who has not revealed it clearly here, never disclose that information here or use it to harass or intimidate. Who people are in real life is usually irrelevant. Here we are Wikipedia editors. We must keep a safe and trusting atmosphere here. What happens at Wikipedia stays on Wikipedia, and what happens "out there" stays out there (or something like that ). -- Brangifer (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Aspro thinks he's Galileo, so we're all mere peons. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to smile. :) Every anti-science conspiracy believer thinks they are Galileo or think they are Einstein, or think they're the Wright Brothers, they think they're the lone truthful voice calmly, rationally speaking the truth against a gale-force storm of Satan/Monsanto/Illuminati/OPEC/Whatever-funded conspiracy. :)

The fact is that the science in the extant article is settled and no amount of denial, wishful thinking, and conspiracy belief will make vaccinations cause autism.

Speaking of human psychology and human behavior, the reason why people want to pretend there are these massive conspiracies of which they fight against is because people want to feel as if they are more informed, more awake, less sheeple than others. They want to pretend they're aware of vast forces arrayed against them and which they are the equal to Defend The Truth against. When they contrive Satanic conspiracies which they bravely fight against, they feel special, important, strong and courageous fighting against their own delusions.

For the extant article, the science is settled. Time to move on. Time to get over it. Find another page that needs editing work and get to it. Damotclese (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How to include this in this article

In keeping with a parallel discussion ( Talk:Andrew_Wakefield#CDC_.2F_Thompson ) and suggestions there, let's start working on developing a short section for mention of this debunked antivax debacle. They really screwed up and they have been exposed. It has gotten mainstream traction in RS, so it's worth mentioning. Let's start collecting sources here and working on wording:

Sources (please add more)

• Withdrawn article at Translational Neurodegeneration:

"This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation."

• Journal questions validity of autism and vaccine study. Debra Goldschmidt, CNN, August 28, 2014.

• Snopes exposes the claims and provides sources

• Whistleblower Claims CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link. "The claim, however, may just be more unsubstantiated fuel from the anti-vaccination movement." Time, Alice Park, Aug. 28, 2014

• Did a high ranking whistleblower really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African-American boys? - Dr. David Gorski, Science-Based Medicine. SBM is a RS here for such matters per expert and WP:PARITY.

• The fictional CDC coverup of vaccines and autism–movie time. SkepticalRaptor.com. You will find more coverage there about this nonsense. While this is not a RS, it provides rationale, ideas, and sources.

Suggested headings

• Conspiracy theories

• CDC cover up

Suggested wordings

• In August 2014, Translational Neurodegeneration published an article (by whom?) about a whistleblower who claimed that the CDC had manipulated data and covered up evidence of damage caused by the MMR vaccine.[refs] Anti-vaccination sources (which?) quickly spread the claims,[refs] and press reports soon appeared repeating these claims.[refs] The claims were quickly debunked (by whom?)[refs] and Translational Neurodegeneration retracted the article, stating that it was "removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions." ref

I think you get the idea. Let's brainstorm. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think your outline is fine. It just needs the blanks filled in with the most reliable possible sources. That means articles, preferably peer-reviewed, and not links to any self-published sources. The retraction notice, Time, and CNN are okay. Snopes only if there isn't anything better; notwithstanding its reputation, it is self-published. --Yaush (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since this particular issue isn't a MEDRS or BLP subject, we only need RS and/or expert opinion to document what happened and the reaction, so Snopes and other news and skeptical sources should be okay. Of course the sources you mention would be the front line sources because they are most notable.

I'd appreciate others adding more sources we can use and suggesting better wordings and format. I threw that together pretty quickly, just to help organize things and get an idea of what it might look like. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this exercise. I think folk are a tad too keen to argue a case. Once this page becomes a knock-about over what's on blogs, a nightmare begins. I would recommend waiting until there is some kind of clear RS consensus and the obscure journal's inquiries are complete. Actually, I've seen material from less obscure journals kicked back on Wiki for lack of credibility. Bluehotel (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I will note that the article hasn't, technically, been "retracted". The journal website states the article is "removed...pending further investigation"—the matter is still under editorial consideration. (Presumably there are editors and editorial board members bouncing emails back and forth, with contents that boil down to Shit damn damn. What's the least embarrassing way we can make this attention go away?)

I suspect, further, that there is a strong chance that it actually won't be retracted. Journals tend to be very reluctant to retract already-published (or already-accepted and -posted, at least) articles against the wishes of the original authors. Often the threshold required for an involuntary retraction is proof of out-and-out egregious misconduct: data falsification and forgery, gross plagiarism, etc.. Things that can (even winkingly) be attributed to errors in judgement (making poor choices of statistical tests that happen to give remarkable conclusions, for example) tend not to clear this threshold. While I can hope for more fortitude from these editors, the usual approach is to add an accompanying editorial "statement of concern" that acknowledges (and soft-pedals) the criticism and declares that debate is scientifically healthy, maybe run a couple of the critical letters they received along with the authors' rebuttal, and then call it a day.

See, for instance, the way Science handled – or bungled – the Wolfe-Simon paper in 2010: [2]. The authors claimed they had found an extremophile bacterium that could use arsenic in place of phosphorus; in reality they had simply failed to eliminate trace amounts of phosphorus contamination from their buffers. The likely mistake was identified by several scientists as soon as the advance paper went online, but Science has persistently failed to withdraw it. The likelihood that a backwater, no-impact journal like Translational Neurodegenration will get it right is...not good.

As an aside, as far as I recall (I don't have the PDF handy) Trans Neurodegen didn't publish an article about a whistleblower or a CDC coverup. All Trans Neurodegen did was publish a (badly-flawed) re-analysis of some old data. The 'backstory' about conspiracies and whistleblowers is all from other (generally unreliable) sources.

Finally, per Bluehotel's remarks, I share the concern that we're really just feeding a teapot tempest that only seems noteworthy because so many of the echo chamber's insiders show up here. Editors who deal with other fringe science topics (like cold fusion and reactionless thrusters) are used to this sort of thing; we get it every time a gullible "science journalist" warms over a press release from a cold-fusion charlatan who just published a crappy paper in a no-impact journal (or posted a crappy manuscript on ArXiv). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight and explanation, TOAT. The only thing I would kinda, sorta, mildly dispute in what you said is that this isn't a single, gullible "science journalist"; rather, there were a number of articles on this. But, yes, the echo-chamber effect definitely plays a large part in this and related stories. Better to cover it here, including the explanations about how this isn't worth the e-paper it was formerly printed on, than to not address it, leaving readers who have heard about the study elsewhere in the dark. JoelWhy?(talk) 17:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The concern that I have is that we would convert an ephemeral mention – something that once scrolled across people's news feeds for a couple of days before going away again – into a perpetual monument. We draw more attention to this by immortalizing it in a Wikipedia article, and we would implicitly endorse the (false) idea that this really was a big thing that prompted significant debate, rather than a short-lived blogosphere storm that managed to leak into a few news outlets. We need to fight the WP:RECENTist temptation to turn articles like this one into up-to-the-minute blow-by-blow timelines. Generally, we're far better off waiting a month or six (or more) to see if there's any long-term impact, or if this just fades back into the background noise of general conspiracy theory mumbling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the BS Hooker article has been withdrawn. If you go to the original link on the Trans Neurodegen website, it gives a 404 error (well, it's more of an "oops, that link doesn't exist.") A search of the table of contents for the recent online published articles for the journal lacks the BS Hooker article (although they have another one where he co-authors to the Kings of chelation therapy for autistic children, the Geiers. Oddly, PubMed is behind the times, and still has the abstract, and PubMed Central still has the full article. Yesterday they both had a big red tag that the article was removed. I think it's more than removed now. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The PDF has been pulled from the journal website (the link is up, but it gives you a 404 error) but the abstract page (this link) still has the aforementioned "pending further investigation" message. It still says "Published: 27 August 2014". The first two entries in the journal's own online table of contents are an editorial "expression of concern" notice, and the paper itself (albeit, oddly, without a title).

Incidentally, the journal's entire TOC is a bit eyebrow-raising. The journal is less than three years old and has 68 total published items (including editorial notes, review papers, case studies and research articles), but it's managed to publish both the current (bad) Hooker paper, as well as two papers from the Geier family. Those three articles appear to be the entirety of their content related to autism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

For this extant Wikipedia article, I have serious hopes that no editor considers the translationalneurodegeneration.com source to be reliable since I have been skipping through that web site and I'm disgusted by the flagrant anti-science / pseudo-science nonsense that they are dishing up. I fully expect that I could sugbmit a "peer reivewed scientific research paper" to these people and they would publish it with zero review of my claimed doctorates, degrees, peer review credentials, or legitimacy of the claims. All that appears to be needed to have translationalneurodegeneration.com carry something is that it feed conspiracy beliefs held by Newage (rhymes with Sewage) believers.

It would be amusing to submit such a paper to them to see if they publish it, but that's going beyond the effort to edit Wikipedia pages and to keep them free from obvious nonsense. Damotclese (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a "journal" which "subscribers" pay to maintain, it lacks any serious scientific acumen, from all appearances just to judge by the web site. Yes, not a valid source for references or citations. It's snake oil with a thin coating of science. BiologistBabe (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hooker has no academic or research credibility. He was an engineer, which by itself means little, but in the context of discussing immunology and neurodevelopmental disorders...no, he's got nothing. He's on the faculty of Simpson University, a school that pushes creationism. So, his scientific integrity is laughable at best. He took data from a published article, and using either n=5 or 9 (his "statistics" are so odd, I can't tell), which is a population number that's so low that the p value must be 1.0, meaning it's about as close to random noise as one can get. This manufactroversy is driving me crazy. I want to ignore it, but people keep bringing it up. I'm actually ecstatic that Wikipedia (at least some editors) have drawn a line in the sand and said "this is bogus, and we're not allowing it into articles." Makes me regret my years of criticism of this website. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting a while before we mention this in the article. If this whole thing just goes away, as it probably will, then we can leave it alone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You all make some very good points. As many of you know, I'm an ultra skeptic and only support inclusion of fringe material because it sometimes fulfills our goal of documenting the sum total of human knowledge. If RS pick up a story, or it gains traction in the alt med quackosphere to the point where good skeptical sources discuss it, then we can document it and include the mainstream debunking of the nonsense. That's one of the valuable functions of Wikipedia. It also includes criticisms and debunking. Just exactly when/how long we should wait to see when/if to do anything is another matter. I too think we should wait a bit longer and see what happens. Keep your eyes open and add sources you find. If this reaches a critical mass, then we can return here. If the quackosphere keeps pushing it, then we return here, because we are doing a disservice by not providing the RS which puncture this balloon. If nothing more happens, then we do nothing. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)