Talk:Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants

Articles used

This article seems to be placing undue weight on this theory despite it not having much evidence. I feel that this may better suit as a section on a different article, unless it can be expanded. Does anyone have ideas for an article that could include this, or areas to expand this with? Xurizuri (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I've skimmed the articles currently referenced, and here's a brief summary:

1. [1] Having a chat with the guy that came up with the idea. No referencing, so not a RS in a medical context. I didn't read after I figured that out and checked that he does broadly still champion this condition.
2. [2] first word I see: "EDITORIAL". It then goes on to describe case studies (again, not great evidence in a medical context). It is favourable towards the theory.
3. [3] journal article! very in favour of it, agree with all the main claims of the originator. they do note that it is poorly defined.
4. [4] journal article! its not a fan of the theory. talks specifically about aluminium. found that people w/ autoimmune being treated with something containing aluminium got BETTER or STAYED THE SAME, not worse as predicted by the theory. Epidemiological studies (good evidence). They reviewed a bunch of other studies too, finding little to no support for the theory
5. [5] journal article! they definitely think the theory is good. this one has become out of my depth, it goes into specifics of immunity and that's not for me. It might be raising legitimate issues, but I am concerned by the emphasis the article places on how "we dont actually know if vaccines are safe". big red flag for me.
6. [6] it's a book. I can't read the relevant page.
7. [7] journal article! issue: spelling errors, which indicates that it didn't get that much oversight before being published, notably a feature of appropriate peer-review is the oversight. The article is pro-ASIA generically, and is linking that theory to Sjogren's syndrome. Sjogren's is definitely a real thing so its reasonable support for ASIA.
8. [8] book. could only view part of the content. very neutral, describes it as of interest to research bc it is poorly defined yet has some theoretical validity.
9. [9] journal article! not fans of the theory. its very poorly defined and has no epidemiological evidence.
10. [10]a factsheet published by a hospital. short and sweet: there's no evidence for ASIA. it lacks citations.

Something else I noticed is that the articles keep making references to how it could be an issue for vaccines (and that the theory's originator has been to court for something to do with vaccines?? this was in #2). I feel that we should check if this is a theory related explicitly to anti-vax. Also, this needs newer citations. Xurizuri (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur, I would include some parts of Shoenfeld's hypothesis in the main article (Yehuda_Shoenfeld#Biography)...--Julius Senegal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I should've checked if he had an article, seems he is anti-vax. Just to clarify, are you suggesting to basically merge this article into Shoenfeld's? I'm not against that, however I don't know how high the notability bar for (pseudo-ish)science theories is for having it's own article (or really experience with assessing notability at all outside of my absolute favourite topics). This may pass that bar, particularly given the interest in vaccine-related theories due to COVID. Xurizuri (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)