Jump to content

Talk:MMR vaccine and autism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Fraudulent removed again, restored again

Booperkit and other editors have removed the word "fraudulent" in the summary lead-in, the latest suggesting that it is mere opinion, however the details of the fraud which was committed are well-described in the extant article, and as such it is a disservice to people researching the quack medical frauds involved here to remove the word.

I mention it again in the hopes that other editors who wish to remove the accurate information will actually read the extant page since I doubt that the editors who keep removing the word bother to do so. The article clearly with numerous testable and falsifiable citations and references cover the undeniable fact that the published-then-retracted falsified "research" paper was flat-out fraud, deliberate with an economic motive which were detaile din the criminal and civil court cases also described.

The word "fraudulent" is not an emotive rhetorical device. Real actual medical fraud and research fraud does take place in the world, and the extant article's case is (along with "cold fusion") a Hallmark incident of deliberate fraud according to every scrap of evidence which is detailed in the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to port parts of the FAQ from Talk:Andrew Wakefield to here perhaps? Kolbasz (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that every couple of months we're still going to have enthusiastic but poorly-informed new editors trying to 'save' Wikipedia from us Big Pharma shills, no matter what we put in an FAQ. Let's be honest; new editors aren't going to know to look at the talkpage, and drive-by anons won't care. Short of protecting this article forever – which would be a serious overreaction – we're just going to have to accept an ongoing low level of background noise. Don't put more effort into undoing or responding to these edits than the pro-Wakefield editors do into making them in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I had not seen the Talk:Andrew Wakefield page until now, I'm going to have to read that whole thing. I see an unsigned editor talks about "'science only' radical" who has "their beliefs only in mind" which rather speaks volumes. We find some editors who wish to edit pages to include opinions as opposed to "radicals" who employ science, facts, testable references, apparently because reality is a conspiracy. Yet more to the point, I see that the fraudulent nature of the paper is mentioned as being consistently upheld by the science-employing investigators, yes.
And yeah, anyone wishing to alter the text to "save Wikipedia" will either have not read Talk: or will have ideologically refused to check it. Damotclese (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Reveal the Acronym

Can we define the acronym at the start? You see when one doesn't know it yet they need it at the START.Rtdrury (talk)

Isn't it? The very first sentence of the article is:
The MMR vaccine controversy started with the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet that lent support to the later discredited claim that colitis and autism spectrum disorders are linked to the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
(ref omitted). So "MMR" is parenthetical of "measles, mumps and rubella", and that whole phrase is a link to the article all about that topic itself if simply seeing what the letters stand for isn't sufficient to understand. DMacks (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

DOI field is dynamic, no need to hardcode static URL. DMacks (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that would fix it, if the DOI were correct, which it wasn't. DOI removed, confirmed archive link is correct content. DMacks (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

^ The two auto links do not work, they are page not found ^^ Damotclese (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rename article

We should not call this a "controversy". The topic discussed is the MMR vaccine conspiracy theory. This is a fringe theory that is utterly unsupported by any science. We do the reader a disservice to suggest that there is a bona fide controversy. If the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not accepted, then we could alternatively use "fringe theory", "hoax" or "fraud". Jehochman Talk 13:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that title was used because that's what most sources were calling it at the time the article was written. Now that all the facts are in, I agree that "controversy" is inaccurate. That said, the article isn't really about the "conspiracy theory" -- that vaccine manufacturers are hiding nonexistent data about a link between MMR and autism -- it's about the fraud, initiated by publication of Wakefield's deceitful, improperly vetted Lancet article. So my suggestion would be to call a fraud a fraud, unless we want to be polite and give it a less offensive descriptor. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Controversy Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. Remind you. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. John Snow was dead and buried before the medical community unanimously accepted his theory. When the first medically recorded control trail against a control cohort on blood letting was announced the practice still when on etc. This case may be clear/cut/and dried to you and many others but many scientist still pick holes in the current orthodaoxia (just as in John Snows day, he pick holes in the current orthidaoxia of germ theory). It is not our duty as editors to take one side or other however repugnant. The internet gives you more than enough other outlet for those feeling. So keep the name.--Aspro (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
(ec) It's complicated. Really, what we have is
  • A fraud, which spawned
  • a controversy, whose eventual resolution has led to the proliferation of ongoing
  • conspiracy theories.
The title question really gets a shrug from me. It's more important that the article (including and especially the lede) continue to make clear that the controversy was the result of a fraud, and that no real controversy exists any more save in the minds of a few dedicated conspiracy-mongers, fraudsters and misguided True Believers. The fact that the controversy has been laid to rest doesn't mean that it didn't exist (however mistaken it was, even at the time), and doesn't preclude our referring to it in the article's title.
To take a slightly silly example, we don't rename the article on World War Two just because the war is over; we just use the past tense when describing events. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I think this renaming is quite wrong, and amounts to POV pushing that could tend to bring wiki into disrepute. There really was, and continues to be, a controversy over the MMR vaccine, that is not a conspiracy theory, but a historical and social fact. There are associated conspiracy theories, but those theories do not eradicate or supersede the reality of the controversy. This is not like 9/11 eg truthism, or that the moon landing was a hoax. The controversy was reported by high quality sources, was subject to a massive global research exercise, and to dismiss all of that as a conspiracy theory suggests to me that editors are going too far in imposing their personal views. Are there any reliable sources dismissing a decades long public controversy as merely a 'conspiracy theory', or is this a judgment of editors? Dallas66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Reverted back to original title due absence of talk page debate. As I said above "It is not our duty as editors to take one side or other however repugnant."--Aspro (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Might I suggest something like MMR vaccine and autism for the title of this page? Everymorning (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, and this is not necessarily mutually exclusive relative to the above suggestion I made, we could move the conspiracy stuff from this article and dump it into Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, which is currently a redirect but could easily be converted into its own page. Everymorning (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Summarize the relevant one(s) in a section of this article and link to the full details. If "conspiracy theory" is imprecise, perhaps we could use the word "canard", "lie" or "fraud"? Controversy mistakenly conveys the item that there's still a debate. There isn't. Jehochman Talk 21:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The controversy exists because there are 'many' (quantify that as you will) doctors and PhD's that are knowledgeable about the workings of the immune system that express concerns and reservations about the poor testing protocols and lack of other research that is not being done. So it is not about autism per se therefore we can not suggest that. Nor can we say that it is about anti-vaccination, because that is a media sound-bit. There is, as you know, a benefit/risk to any medical intervention and parents are willing allowing some vaccinations – so by def they are not anti-vac. The controversy (unless you're living under a rock) is about ensuring adequate safety by quantifying the risk to benefit before marketing, rather than hope for the best. It is using a circular reasoning to say there is not a debate when it is being debated world-wide and will continue to be debated until the same quality control is introduced, as is expected with other medial interventions. Only time will tell how this pans out. --Aspro (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You sound like an anti-vaxxer, but maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. Forgive me. This drama has already panned out. There's no doubt that the vaccines are much safer than risking the diseases, and there's no link whatsoever to autism or intestinal disruptions. Because the controversy ended, we should be reporting the result, not the wishful thinking of anybody who wants it to have ended otherwise. Jehochman Talk 22:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If your institution give you free online access to the studies that the media quotes, then read them and ask yourself if the media is accurately reporting them. Then search youtube for interviews with PhD's who give reasons that the pre-marketing protocols are woefully inadequate. The long term studies are also non existent. I have had loads of inoculations in my time including small-pox in the late 1950's or 60;s (which was scratched in with a bifurcated needle) and never had a reaction to any of them (OK, for the pedantic, I got a reaction from BCG over the site but so does everyone). Does it make me anti-vaccs now, because I point out that as editors we should not takes sides whilst the debate is still very much ongoing?--Aspro (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, this is starting to take on an ominously familiar tone -- so with a quick reminder to everyone that article talk pages are not a forum for debating the vaccine safety issue, allow me to add my two centavos: I agree with Aspro and Dallas66 that the title change was a bit premature and arbitrary, but that's what WP:BRD is all about; Jehochman was bold, he was reverted, and now we're discussing it. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that it is sometimes appropriate to continue to call a controversy a controversy when it is no longer controversial (although the World War II analogy is a bewildering non sequitur); but I disagree that it's appropriate in this particular case, since there is no further debate except on anti-vaccine blogs. By implying that there is, we give undue weight to those fringe opinions. Aspro invites us to listen to "PhDs" remind us that "pre-marketing protocols are woefully inadequate". That's true in the case of vaccines, but not controversial -- because even the largest pre-market studies cannot assess a vaccine's potential to induce rare reactions. You can't pick up adverse events occurring in the one-in-10,000 range, for example. Everybody knows that -- which is why we have long-term, post-approval safety studies. Aspro says such studies are "nonexistent" -- an extraordinary claim, given the wealth of VAERS data, and the volumes of papers disproving any link between autism, IBD, and the MMR vaccine. (If he was referring to studies comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated, those also exist. One of many is here -- concluding, like all the rest, that the only health difference was that unvaccinated children had more vaccine-preventable diseases. That’s it.) So at the end of the day, I'd vote for a title that does not include the word "controversy", for all the reasons I've given -- and if consensus goes toward keeping the current title, we need to make it clear, as TenOfAllTrades said, that this no longer controversial to anyone who has actually looked at the cited (and other) reliable sources. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah. now we are coming to the crux of the matter. "You can't pick up adverse events occurring in the one-in-10,000 range”. Some drugs have been proven to be teratogens. Millions of women where once proscribed thalidomide but not every mother that took it gave birth to a deformed child. It was a 1:10,000 chance. Pretty much the same odds as naturally occurring birth defects of this nature. So, for many year this was the excuse (solid unexamined scientific reasoning) that the drug companies gave. Yet, because it was so widely proscribed by the millions, 10,000 babies ended up deformed. From what your suggesting, medical oversight is now going backwards in its ability to recognise a 1:10000 reaction? Yet, this scandal ended up depriving many people access to a drug that may have mitigated and help their condition. To day we would put this down to a timely lack fo transparency on behalf of the manufactures. A French diagnostician some decades ago, realised one of his patents had a unique set of signs symptoms, and thus HIV/AIDS entered the ICD (International Classification of Diseases). Diagnosticians are smart. A cut above the rest. One speaks of VAERS. My forms ( I live in the UK and yours may be different) are Yellow ones. At the top left they have the MHRA logo, then a box with the word 'in confidence'. Below, the words in capital letters: SUPECTED ADVERS DRUG REACTIONS . Can one take this data as gospel if many doctors don't bother to use them. Give personal example. It is unwise to diagnose oneself because it is difficult to be truly objective. So I told my physician, that I had a bad reaction to an antibiotic (which contained a enhancer called clavulanic acid). Did he care? Did he submit a yellow form? So now you know know why I now consult a different doctor who listens. What comprehensive value can one get from VAERS data if doctors don't use these form for the reasons that they are provided? How many have you sent in? (Oh silly me, if you observe one, two or three it must be just one of the rare a 1:10000 occurrence and not worthy of reporting, even though other colleges are observing the same in their patients) . Next time you go on vacation, pop into a doctors surgery as a simple John Doe. Don't show any med knowledge at all, I will grantee you will walk out with a script that costs a lot of dough for stuff you know is not really necessary. I know you mean well and put 'your' patients first, but do some open-eyed, objective, research first, because heath-care is just like any other industry, profits comes first and that is (lets face it) where ultimately your salary comes from, so I can understand your subconscious wish for that to continue. I know its hard to walk the knife-edge and keep ones balance at the same time but to jump off to one side or another - its like believing the grass is greener on the other side. How can one possibly and morally take the view that “ Oh, all though I spent years studying, I'm just a simple medical technician and I leave judgments of primum non nocere to my superiors..” I hope I have said enough to leave this article as MMR vaccine controversy--Aspro (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I've seen that thalidomide analogy more than once on anti-vaccine blogs. The European thalidomide trials were a textbook example, and the first example we still teach to medical students, of how NOT to conduct trials. (It was never approved in the US until very recently, as an orphan drug for very narrow indications.) And it's irrelevant to this discussion, because teratogenicity would have been readily identified if the trials had been conducted properly. Unfortunately, they didn't test drugs properly for effects on developing embryos in those days. Now they do. As for VAERS, I don't know the situation in the UK, but in the US, reporting is not optional. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) requires all physicians to report any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination, whether we think the AE was caused by a vaccine or not. And yes, it has actually occurred to all of us stupid scientists who work in the field that medical interventions have risks and benefits, and that we need to be sure about where the balance lies before rolling out a new drug or vaccine or treatment protocol. Sometimes - some chemotherapy regimens, for example - it is very difficult to decide exactly where the balance lies and the debate continues. In the case of MMR, however, it is perfectly clear where the balance lies. The benefits far exceed any possible risk, and reams and reams of data support that conclusion. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
How about MMR vaccine safety? That's a nice neutral noun that describes the topic. Jehochman Talk 18:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
MMR just stands for any triple vaccine that contains measles, mumps, and rubella. If we where to go down that route we would have to differentiate between the safety of all the different trivalents of this type that are on and were once on the market. Would lead to a very messy article. To use the term 'safety” in the article would focus the article on compering the adverse reactions that few may suffer, to each and every manufactures offerings. --Aspro (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually "MMR" is a trademarked brand name for Merck's measles/mumps/rubella vaccine. I don't know of any other manufacturers making that particular vaccine combination; and if there are any, they can't call their product "MMR". DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
How do I get it over to you that WP is not a war zone? It is recommended by some med edu authorities, that every clinician after qualification, continues to spend at least 2 hours per week of study to keep abreast in the areas of his or her speciality. MMR is the vernacular for any trivalent inoculation consisting of measles, mumps, and rubella. You should be more aware than the average John/Jane Doe, that just because Merrick has a reg trademark to the brand name MMR does not mean other manufactures are not producing other trivalent inoculations consisting of measles, mumps, and rubella products of their own. Which they have done. Please, please, do some in-depth research first. Otherwise, readers of WP will lose confidence in WP's pontifications which incorporate signs and symptoms of superficiality.--Aspro (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the CDC, MMR refers specificaly to MMR II, which is the Merck product: "There is one MMR vaccine approved for use in the United States." -- DaveSeidel (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Why should the CDC comment on any product not on sale in the US? Don't see your point.--Aspro (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The Centers for Disease Control's charter includes the coordination of research in to unsafe products as they relate to citizen health, to the point where firearms and the 40,000+ deaths annually in the United States (in a population of 390 million) falls under the entity's venue. Vaccines available in the global market absolutely fall under the CDC's scientists' venue. Damotclese (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Think you're getting CDC's remit confused with WHO.--Aspro (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I work for the USAMRIID which contributes to both CDC and WHO enterprises albeit what my entity does is mostly field work, not research. WHO and CDC have charter which overlaps, including Firearms as a health issue which the CDC rather fled from due to political pressure from weapons manufacturers. User:BiologistBabe works with the USAMRIID as well and knows more about the CDC's history and charter. Maybe she will chime in, if she cares. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:BiologistBabe is welcome to. As I understand it the CDC only concerns itself with commenting on FDA Approved Drugs (although I'm willing to be enlighten). So, as asked above: “Why should the CDC comment on any product not on sale in the US?” This would included FDA Approved Drugs issued to US clinicians working in (say) the Ebola outbreak areas or to US troops in say the Gulf War. That is the only non-home interest they take regarding what is prescribed and covers only FDA Approved Drugs. So, that is I think, by my understanding, the limit to their remit. --Aspro (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
This is amusing, given that the MMR-autism hoax started in the UK not America....Guy (Help!) 23:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Support current title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Support name change For me, this should be called something like MMR-Autism fringe theory. Saying it is a controversy is giving too much weight to the anti-vaccine group, when the vast majority of scientists disagree. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

* Support changing the title. My suggestion is something like Wakefield et al Lancet retraction or MMR vaccine Lancet retraction. After reading the conversation below about the scope of this article, I think part of what feels "off" about the title, at least for me, is that the title is broad and there's a lack of cohesion in the content, like no one is on the same page about what the scope of the article is. A better title would probably help that. Personally, I agree with what Zad said below that the scope of this article should be " the social phenomenon: fraudulent paper, retraction, National Enquirer, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, etc. up to and including the flap with that recent film festival and DeNiro... scientific evidence covering how there's no relationship between vaccines and autism is a medical topic that should be covered at MMR vaccine, which is a medical article. Wakefields misdeeds should be covered at Andrew Wakefield--right now this article is too much a duplicate of content there." I want to add that there also is another article just for Vaccine controversy, so in my mind, it makes the most sense for this to be an article about the retracted paper and noteworthy reactions to the retraction. PermStrump(talk) 16:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article?

The name of the article should indicate the scope. I'm not sure about a name change because I'm not sure what the scope is supposed to be. The article could focus on quite different things:

  • The scientific evidence concerning the (lack of) relationship between vaccinations and autism
  • Wakefield in particular
  • The social phenomenon concerning Wakefield's fraudulent paper and the subsequent effects on public perceptions of vaccinations, with some mention on the deleterious effects on public health

Of these three, I think it should be the third--the social phenomenon: fraudulent paper, retraction, National Enquirer, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, etc. up to and including the flap with that recent film festival and DeNiro--this is all People magazine territory instead of Pediatrics. The scientific evidence covering how there's no relationship between vaccines and autism is a medical topic that should be covered at MMR vaccine, which is a medical article. Wakefields misdeeds should be covered at Andrew Wakefield--right now this article is too much a duplicate of content there. With that I think this article title should maintain some element in its name indicating it's about a social phenomenon, and 'controversy' is about as apt a term as I can think of. MMR vaccine and autism sounds too much like it should be limited to covering medical evidence, and that should be focused on elsewhere. Zad68 02:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree re scope, but the title still implies a legitimate controversy where in fact none exists. MMR-autism hypothesis is more neutral, as we can describe a hypothesis without implying any ongoing scientific controversy (cf. OPV AIDS hypothesis). Guy (Help!) 10:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It does not imply that the controversy is legitimate. It only recognizes that there is a controversy. Which is manifestly true in countless RS. Editors should not see their role as editorializing about the justification for that controversy, or arbitrating over matters of science. 'MMR-autism hypothesis' does not work because it is not possible to state a hypothesis without editorializing. I do not think the MMR vaccine page is appropriate for any of this material, as that page merely states what it is, how it works etc, and a proportionate acknowledgment of ongoing controversy. Dallas66 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I would add that there is not a controversy among medical scientists and researchers who are qualified to perform such research. Certainly there is controversy among politicians and other non-qualified individuals. The same phenomena as for climate change and the evolution of species, no such controversies exist among those qualified in those areas, either. Damotclese (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no controversy. There is manufactroversy, a fake controversy whipped up by cranks. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
One crank in particular, yes. Perpetuated by others. "Controversy" fails WP:UNDUE; it implies that the question—to the extent that there ever was one—has not been resolved. You can't have a controversy when all of the credible evidence supports one side. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Right. We don't have a moon landing controversy article, we have one on the moon landing conspiracy theories. Ditto chemtrail conspiracy theory. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well quite, but we cant title this 'Vaccines causing Autism conspiracy theory' because its not a conspiracy theory (the recent stuff regarding the US CDC aside). The original controversy was over a non-existant link being discovered, not that there was a cover-up of said link. That came significantly later when the author had to justify being struck off and labelled a fraud. 'Vaccines causing Autism Fraud' would be more accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Right -- which is why I originally suggested (previous thread) that we simply call a fraud a fraud. If others insist on being polite, we can use a weaker descriptor -- anything but "controversy", which, once again, implies that there is an ongoing rational debate. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
With respect, it's not for any editor here to decide what is and is not rational. There plainly is a current, active, public controversy over the safety of this vaccine. You only had to watch the Today Show to see it. In California and numerous states, there have been propositions before legislatures concerning school entry requirements. Hardly a day passes without significant press coverage, and hardly a week without certain doctors filing opinion pieces. I fear that editors may risk bringing disrepute to WP if they seek to impose their personal views, as far as I can see unsupported by RS. Dallas66 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
With equal respect, you haven't looked very far if that's "as far as you can see". There are literally reams of RS -- study after study after study -- demonstrating the complete lack of linkage between MMR vaccine and autism. That was emphasized repeatedly on the Today Show broadcast this morning that you mentioned -- which, incidentally, was about a different controversy, De Niro's decision not to screen Wakefield's propaganda film. NBC made it abundantly clear that there is no longer any rational controversy about the vaccine itself; here are two direct quotes from the broadcast:

When asked about De Niro's comments, Autism Speaks gave a statement to NBC News: "Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism."

and:

The Institute of Medicine, an independent group that advises the U.S. government on health matters, has strongly advised that researchers stop wasting time looking at vaccines and search elsewhere for the causes of autism.

This is settled science, as reflected in all the credible evidence -- all of it -- and this article should reflect that now-ineluctable fact. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Japan" subsection under "Litigation" re-work

As they appear now, the first two paragraphs should be deleted - they are poorly worded to the point of incomprehension and really have nothing to do with "litigation" (they only provide an excessive amount of context). Edits by someone with access to the sources are required. The first paragraph also focuses too heavily on details concerning the "Urabe strain" (redundant and irrelevant) and so I have deleted the first two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.230.99 (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC) T

John Walker-Smith was not exonerated

An editor suggested a proposed update suggesting that John Walker-Smith was exonerated. That is not correct, as another editor has noted he was able to successfully appeal and was reinstated but not exonerated of his inappropriate behavior. I post a note in Talk: in the hopes that other editors note that innocence should not be assumed when someone holding suspended credentials gets reinstated, the arena is not a black vs. white issue. Damotclese (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Exoneration. “A High Court judge quashed the finding of professional misconduct against Professor Walker-Smith.” [1]. So he was indeed exonerated.--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
No, the article you linked to, as well as several others I read (Guardian, BBC), don't say he was "exonerated". The judge quashed a GMC finding of professional misconduct, and his being struck off the medical record register. But the articles are careful not to say "exonerated" and are quick to point out that this in no way changes any scientific finding. Zad68 19:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no issue with the current wording because it is straight forward. However, in english, a reversal by a higher authority or upon new evidence is exoneration.--Aspro (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, glad you're OK with the current wording... I think the range of meaning of the word "exoneration" carries implications not at play here. It isn't used by the articles from, say, the Guardian or BBC so just based on that we can leave it out of this article. Zad68 19:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad means "medical register" I believe, not "medical record". But yes, not exonerated at all.-Roxy the dog™ woof 19:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for catching! Zad68 19:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, no objective reliable source used that word—including, especially, the judge rendering the ruling. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed unprofessional and potentially (inflammatory) language.

The media have been criticized for their naïve reporting and for lending undue credibility to the architect of the fraud, Andrew Wakefield.

An editor reverted this proposed change stating

Removed unprofessional and potentially (inflammatory) language. There has to be a better way to put this.

I do not agree, the proposed text is entirely professional, accurate, well-documented, covered in extensive references and citations, and in no way it is in the least bit inflammatory.

The extant article is seeing a lot of proposed updated, reverts, and discussion about wording, most of which is the result of differences of opinion on tone despite the proposed text being wholly accurate. As an encyclopedia, accuracy is what matters, and when the truth of something -- whether it's this quack medical fraud committed for financial gain or whether it's the accumulative effects of the gravitational consequences of the curvature of space-time -- is stark, accuracy should trump feelings that the way the truth is worded being "unprofessional" or "inflammatory" should not dictate either self-censorship or supposition that the truth be "watered down." Damotclese (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue wasn't the intent so much as the wording. When you use words like "naive" and even "fraud" you are immediately telling people how to feel. Our goal at Wikipedia is to just give the facts. So it would be ultimately up to each reader to decide whether the reporting was "naive" or not. The sentence as it was written also seemed "loaded", as if someone had an agenda when writing it, which I also feel was unprofessional for this project. --Deathawk (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
We document facts, opinions, and biases here. The RS back up the current wording. It's extremely accurate. We don't censor such things, and we present the bias as it is, without editorial interference. We must remain neutral in that regard. We must not attempt to neuter such a balance. When the proper weight is more on one side than the other, we must present it that way. You may find my essay helpful: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no firm opinion either way about the use of "naive" and "fraud", they don't seem strictly necessary to the main point that media were blamed for giving undue credibility, nor do they seem unencyc or THAT inflammatory, except, probably media did not know this was a fraud. So, is 'giving credibility to a fraud', borderline synth when what is meant is 'giving credibility to what later turned out to be a fraud' ?
However, in the lead, 'time scales' are sometimes unclear, as in this instance. Was undue credibility given at the time of publishing? Later? Throughout? There were several instances when this was unclear to me. Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "have been criticized" is bad. The article should say who criticized. Jehochman Talk 19:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I second that. Personally, if the sources criticizing the media explicitly state that they are at fault for "naive reporting," then by all means quote the sources. Otherwise, don't make a point not made in the article. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Title

There is No Consensus for a move. Per the relevant article naming policy, the default name is the stable one, or the first one after expansion from a stub if there is no stable one. This title is MMR vaccine controversy.

By my count, 13 editors cast reasonable !votes to keep the current name, or else make a minor tweak from controversy to hypothesis, while 14 editors cast a reasonable !vote for a more drastic name change. The most common name change supported by this group was the write-in "MMR vaccine fraudulent autism hypothesis" by Somedifferentstuff. Other names were considered, but did not receive more than a few !votes each.

The policy arguments from both sides were considered. Both sides raised valid concerns. Specifically, what the subject is titles in reliable sources, as well as the neutrality and precision of the name. While it can be argued that controversy is generous to the point of non-neutrality, this argument was far from universally accepted in the discussion. Reliable sources were mixed on the term used to describe the subject, and therefore offered little coherent guidance.

This close is without prejudice to a future RFC/RM between Somediferentstuff's suggestion and the current name. Such a discussion would be interesting, as the name that obtained consensus would be available from the beginning of the RFC. Additionally, the format of this RFC had too many options, muddying the waters and leading to a somewhat predictable failure to gain consensus.

Tazerdadog (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

I see significant support above for a rename of this article. I think we need to agree the most appropriate title. Suggestions are:

  1. MMR vaccine controversy (no change)
  2. MMR vaccine safety
  3. MMR vaccine and autism
  4. MMR vaccine conspiracy theory
  5. MMR-autism hypothesis
  6. MMR-autism fringe theory.
  7. MMR-autism hoax
  8. MMR vaccine Lancet retraction

Apologies if I have forgotten any. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinions

  • My first preference is 5 (MMR-autism hypothesis), otherwise I would probably prefer no change to any of the others. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it too late to suggest "MMR-autism belief" as a neutral alternative that preserves the current article's scope? Kolbasz (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • MMR-autism hypothesis. Isn't 'belief' used in religion and 'hypothesis' used in science? Gongwool (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep it as it is because it probably is the best choice available. It is neutral and general enough to include everything and not appear biased from the start. Some of the hash tagged alternatives are so extreme I wonder what arguments could sustain them. For those with those arguments, maybe use them better and go try rename Islam to "Muhammad and his visions of God hoax" instead. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is (no change). This article is about the controversy. --Aspro (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. No problem to fix. Dallas66 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As-is. There isn't sufficiently good reason to change the title, and the article itself should be able to explain to readers that there is actually no "controversy". Failing that, I'll be happier with option 5 than any of the rest. --Topperfalkon (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed Vote Keep as is, my second choice would be "MMR-autism hoax" but I'm sure someone will complain about WP:NPOV. Davidbuddy9 Talk  01:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to keep existing title; the article should clearly focus on where the controversy is--It isn't around whether or not vaccines cause autism (it's a settled matter among authoritative reliable sources that they don't), but rather it's within the public sphere, and the article should cover that. Zad68 02:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support new title - MMR vaccine fraudulent autism hypothesis. There is currently no controversy, so the current title needs to be changed. As the lead sentence makes clear, this entire subject was predicated upon a fraudulent research paper. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually this is quite true, I personally support this more than the current title. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
As do I. The reasoning cited above - that readers "ought to be able to figure out" that there is no controversy, even as the word "controversy" remains in the title - makes no sense to me. Calling it something it is not is, at best, confusing -- and at worst, deceptive. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Want to add here that I would support Wakefield MMR vaccine fraud and controversy too. I very much want a different title that doesn't give credence to fraud. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Change I am not much concerned, but having examined the article, I could go for "MMR vaccine fraud(ulent autism hypothesis)" or "MMR vaccine conspiracy (theory)" (parenthesised suffixes optional) and in particular "MMR vaccine fraud" strikes me as brief enough, clear enough and definite enough. We could (and should) include a few of the others as redirs to the main article. JonRichfield (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I support changing the title to "MMR vaccine fraud(ulent autism hypothesis)" with or without the parantheses as noted above. If I had to choose from the others, I would choose #7. All of the others don't ascribe the proper level of deception that occurred in the original study or are simply too wordy. Lizzius (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. That is easiest and fine. IMO nobody should be suggesting alternates other than those listed, it will be hard enough to call consensus for anything other than "keep" as it stands. If OP wants a fairly neutral title for this, page, I think the current is the best they can hope for. If changed, change to 6>7>8>4. The options 2,3,5 are ridiculous, and give WP:UNDUE weight to a now thoroughly de-bunked fringe theory. We do not apply WP:NEUTRAL to things like flat earth, and we should not apply it here either. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
(Comment) I think we're looking for precision rather than "fairly neutral" - perhaps even less neutral than as-is Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Change to something that highlights the fraudulent nature of the original study. Fraud or hoax would be my choice. Torven (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I could support 1 (controversy/no change), 4 (conspiracy theory), or 6 (fringe theory). I do not think that "hoax" is precisely accurate, and I oppose "hypothesis" because it implies that it might have been a plausible hypothesis. Perhaps something with "scandal" would also be appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. We're safest if we use the term(s) most commonly used by RS. While "fraudulent" certainly qualifies, the article covers more than the fraudulent research and paper. It covers the controversy which ensued from it. Keep in mind that it wasn't until 13 years after 1998, in 2011, that the word "fraudulent" was first used. Up until that time, Wakefield's "results" had been accepted by the public and many medical professionals, although some professionals must have been aware of a controversy over the veracity of the paper: "The Lancet paper was partially retracted in 2004, and fully retracted in 2010, when The Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton described it as "utterly false" and said that the journal had been "deceived.""

    The current title covers and describes the actual content of the article in a very general sense. If there should be any change, it might be by getting more specific by adding an adjective, such as false, fraudulent, for example MMR vaccine fraudulent research and controversy or Wakefield MMR vaccine fraud and controversy, etc. The more I look at and hear the last one, the more I like it. Say it out loud several times. It really all comes back to Wakefield, so he should be mentioned in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Change. It's (no longer) controversial. Support MMR-autism fraudulent hypothesis or similar Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No change. Here by Legobot. I don't see a strong reason for a change right now. 3 and 5 can inadvertently make the idea appear legitimate. If there were a less notable topic, I'd suggest just using 2 for a broader article, but I think the title as-is does the best job right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What about "MMR vaccine panic"? A panic is what it was, started by a fraudulent paper. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree What the individual did was outright blatant fraud, done for financial motives. It was obvious fraud, it should not be called anything other than what it most accurately is. Damotclese (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The fraud is the paper. The scope of the article is larger. It's about the fraud and the resulting panic. In that sense, panic is broad enough to encompass the reason it started (fraud) and the social consequences. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think 'panic' feels too short-lived, the paper was 1998 and we're still feeling the effects nearly 20 years later. I'd suggest "syndrome" (not really) because that's what we've got--a collection of attitudes or behaviors that go together, affecting society. Zad68 13:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
More sugar coating. It was a fraud. Without the fraud, none of the rest would have happened. Encyclopedias are supposed to tell it like (as) it is. We have overwhelming—actually unanimous—WP:RS supporting that conclusion. Why are we afraid to call a proven fraud a fraud? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
"Fraud" is a strong word, so we have to be very careful about using it. Please read scientific misconduct for a list and description of the different flavors of misconduct. From that list, I see "fabrication" as an applicable word. See also Piltdown Man that uses the word "hoax". In the present case there was scientific misconduct, fabrication, with a financial motivation. I think that justifies the use of the word "fraud" rather than "hoax". Jehochman Talk 13:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
We're not, and nobody is backing away from citing reliable sources that use the word "fraud". But we're talking about the article title, which defines the scope of the article content. Naming it "MMR vaccine fraud" or the like would narrow the scope to the paper and subsequent retraction, GMC actions, etc. and wouldn't (clearly) allow all the societal aspects and characters at play. That's what I think this article's scope should be. This is why I think "controversy" is the best word for the title, the fraud can be explained clearly, and then the content can moved beyond that to cover the ongoing impact on society. Zad68 13:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
More sugar coating. The Piltdown Man analogy is valid. Call it what it is. Fraud. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's not make cumulative arguments about sugar coating. I think "MMR vaccine fraud" would be an improvement. This does not limit the scope, because we can add a section about the consequences to society, how many weren't vaccinated, how many may have died, how much money was wasted on redundant scientific studies to debunk the fraud. Jehochman Talk 13:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed! I'm not sure what "cumulative arguments about sugar coating" means, but you apparently agree that we shouldn't sugar coat an obvious fact. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I support "MMR-Autism Hoax." It was a hoax (a fake study, report, whatever) about MMR and autism. Fraud doesn't seem like the right word-it's often applied to financial transactions and the like, not BS scientific studies. We can then have a section on details of the hoax, response to the hoax, human and financial costs of the hoax, cultural effects... I also think too many of those titles sound like Google searches. It's an encyclopedia, we should be able to use proper English in titles. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • "Fraud" was suggested because that's what many of our sources have called it; I'm not aware of any that have called it a "hoax", but as always, I could be wrong. To my mind at least, "hoax" connotes more of a harmless prank -- a humorous sort of deception, e.g. a photoshopped photo or staged Youtube video passed off as genuine, or crop circles, or Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast. Then as now, there's nothing even remotely humorous about this. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Also "Fraud" has specific meaning under legal systems whereas "hoax" is not a legal framework. What the extant individuals committed was in fact fraud because there was a financial motive for committing the frauds. "Hoax" does not encompass acts committed for monetary gain whereas "fraud does," so "fraud" is the accurate word to use here. Damotclese (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    I see. In that case, I'll change my vote to MMR Vaccine Fraud. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this best encapsulates the issue, in a neutral fashion. I am quite familiar with the the controversy of using the word "controversy" in a denialist area, but still feel this would be best. Yobol (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Will have to disagree with you; there is a controversy, just not one based in science but based on fraud. Yobol (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This statement disproves itself; once the claim was proven fraudulent, the controversy ended. As Justice Mitting said, "There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Wakefield's] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked." DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 06:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I'm tempted by (MMR vaccine conspiracy theory), the fact is that there is a controversy that was started by a fraudulent research paper and shenanigans aplenty, resulting in controversy that escalates up all the way to literal death threats, real life harassment, doxing, attempts to get people terminated for cause, etc. That it's all based upon nonsense and fraud actually becomes irrelevant, due to the reaction of the accepters of the fraud.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • While I see your point, I would argue that the opposite is true -- the fraud made the controversy irrelevant, since once it was shown to be a fraud, the controversy ended. Once again, calling it a controversy implies that the MMR-autism question has not been answered. It has. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 06:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, even though the claims have been debunked, there remains no MMR vaccine in use in Japan, lower than nominal uptake is observed for the vaccine globally, all courtesy of this nonoversary. It's controversial in that very, very real way. The deleterious effects of popular and even governmental rejection of the vaccine, due to the debunked fraud.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
And guess what? The autism incidence rate continued to rise in Japan after their ill-advised ban! Even that part of the controversy has been resolved. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Alas, uptake is still lower than optimal. We can continue to ignore the 'issue', but it isn't going away and continuing to ignore it will only cause us to ignore epidemics. Addressing the non-issue would be effective, since ignoring it isn't working.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anyone ignoring the issue, or the resulting measles resurgences, least of all us (WP); we do our best to challenge the anti-vaxxer disinformation at every opportunity. The only "ignoring" I see is anti-vaxxers ignoring the mountain of evidence disproving their position. How else can we address it, other than finding some way to muzzle Wakefield, who started this whole meshugaas, and is almost singlehandedly perpetuating it? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, they sure do build a mountain out of aether! As for muzzling Wakefield, I don't think muzzles come large enough for that mouth. It's a shame we can't perform an extraordinary rendition on him... Harvard is now up to 40 mumps cases and fears for the commencement ceremonies.Wzrd1 (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow -- I wasn't aware of that. I haven't seen an unequivocal case of mumps since med school -- a very long time ago. Disgraceful. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous articles covering the Harvard outbreak, NBC News covers some of it, but apparently even people who claim to have been vaccinated have expressed, which has gotten school officials wondering how many of their students have forged medical documents claiming they were vaccinated when in fact they were not. You would think that lying on one's admission forms would get people expelled, but these are rich entitled parasite Wall Street brats with rich daddies so lying and committing forgeries is expected. "Just business," you know. Damotclese (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No change. The article is about a controversy, a disagreement. Anyone reading it can see the evidence, and form their own view on who is right. That is how it should be; this is an encyclopedia, not the Daily Mail. Maproom (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Therein lies the raw rubbed rub, the fraud and the resulting consequences, in short, epidemics. Dead children. Hence, how to approach the matter and not be false or rejecting those seeking honest, factual, coffin nail in the nonsense information.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
How to address it? Call it what it is, what reliable sources call it: Fraud. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree we should call it fraud, but the article covers more than Wakefield's fraud, it also covers the (now) bogus controversy resulting from the fraud. Above I suggested:
The last one covers the whole article. Since it really all comes back to Wakefield, he should be mentioned in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Well taken; I would support either of those. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I would support either as well (preferably the one specifically mentioning Wakefield). I think it's extremely important the word "fraud" is used in the title. Lizzius (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Disagree: Most of the RS's are woefully out of date. The John Walker-Smith legal court case used evidence that the GMC either did not have to hand or omitted at the time of their Wakefield examination. It is now recorded in a court of law, that on presentation of the full and complete evidence it is became evident that no fraud took place. Period. Can tell you this as well. It did not start with Wakefield's paper – so the lead is inaccurate. In 1994 I was starting to do volunteer work for a charity, so was a frequent visitor to the medical library to get gened up by reading every journal they had. So I can say with certainty that the controversy started well before Wakefieled's paper. As an encyclopedia we have to make an effort be neutral and accurate rather than parroting 'popular' out-of-date sound bites.--Aspro (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
If you're referring to Justice Mitting's ruling on Walker-Smith, it's true that he never used the word "fraud" -- but that wasn't what the ruling was about, as we've repeated a hundred times. Judge Mitting’s decision strongly implies that Walker-Smith was an unwitting dupe in Wakefield's fraudulent activities, which were proven. No matter how hard the anti-vaccine movement tries to spin this as some sort of exoneration of Wakefield, it’s not. As for the controversy starting before Wakefield's paper, yes, to some extent, but so what? It's settled science now, thanks to almost 2 decades of research. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Maproom and others, anyone reading the first sentence will get a pretty clear idea of the 'outcome', but the article charts the whole controversy, (which I personally was aware of, but did not know was 'resolved'). Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Exactly -- which is why we should not imply that it has not been resolved by continuing to refer to it as a "controversy". But since opinions continue to be pretty evenly divided, and no one is about to change his/her mind, it's probably time to hat this thing and move on. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Except that, in my previous state of partial-ignorance, I would be more likely to recognise 'controversy'. Is the intent to inform or pass judgement? How do sources documenting the whole history of the subject refer to it? No one here has suggested 'pussy-footing' around the fact that the 'controversy' has been clearly resolved, so what is gained by using a term which is not the general one used by those most likely to consult the article? Pincrete (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I understand your point, and it was a fair one while real doubt persisted; but do potential readers still think of it as a controversy? We're 20 or so years down the road now; scientists and organizations across the world have spent a great deal of time and money refuting the inferences in that minor Lancet paper, and exposing the scientific fraud that formed the its basis. I haven't seen references to "controversy" in the mainstream press for some time now -- the most recent articles I just found called it a "sensation", "retraction", and "fraud". (I simply don't have time to do a more comprehensive search right now.) There is no doubt at this point that it will be remembered not as a controversy, but as a fraud -- and one of the most appalling in medical history -- so it should be described as such, IMHO. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Change - This is no longer a controversy. By the standard naming convention, I would primarily support #4: MMR vaccine conspiracy theory, but I don't have any problems with #7: MMR-autism hoax since it has been revealed as such. Some other proposed names above also seem worthy, MMR-autism fraudulent theory for example is very descriptive, and accurately sums up the findings of the wider scientific/medical community in that the theory was proposed fraudulently. I expressly do NOT support options #1, #2, #3, and #5, as each of these choices unduely implies that there is still valid support for the theory. I am skeptical of "fringe theory", simply because the theory gained widespread popular (but not medical or scientific) support, and the widespread nature of it makes "fringe" inaccurate. I neither support nor reject "MMR vaccine Lancet retraction", as while it is technically accurate, I don't believe it follows Wikipedia's standard naming convention for topics of this nature. To boot, we tend to be much more blunt in article names. Fieari (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Once again, I'm not aware of any reliable sources that have specifically called it a "hoax", but I could have missed one. To my mind at least, "hoax" connotes more of a harmless prank -- a humorous sort of deception, e.g. a photoshopped photo or staged Youtube video passed off as genuine, or crop circles, or Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast. Then as now, there's nothing even remotely humorous about this. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I'm　not advocating "hoax" so much as I'm advocating changing the title to something clearer, and bluntly stating that the theory is neither controversial nor true. I like "fraudulent" as well... more, actually. Fieari (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Fraudulent -- I work in infectious diseases, and let me tell you, virtually nobody who works with diseases professionally who has commented to me or my staff about this consider the phenomena described here as being a "hoax." As has been noted repeated, there is no controversy over what the Wakefield paper's motivations were. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Quite so. But you didn't suggest a heading. I suspect it's because you are having the same difficulty as me, and others, which is to not use MMR vaccine and fraud together in the title. Thinking cap on. Moriori (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Then, how about the previously suggested MMR vaccine fraudulent research? Hard to misinterpret that. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not for me. There wasn't a "vaccine fraud". There was fraudulent research, but the efficacy of the vaccine remained. We shouldn't mention "vaccine fraud" in the title. Moriori (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
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.

Split this in to two halves

Why not split this in to two halves. One that focuses on journalists reiterating from information that originated from one sole source (undue bias). The other pointing out that in the fullness-of-time, the sole 'source's OR was found in a court of law to contain many errors. Is that difficult ?--Aspro (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Except, as several editors have explained in several ways on at least two talk pages, the Walker-Smith court decision left untouched the proven charges against Wakefield, and the judge went to some length to say that, explicitly, so it is completely irrelevant to any article about Wakefield. So, no. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with DoctoreJoeE Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy question

I question the accuracy of this statement in the article: "Deer continued his reporting in a Channel 4 Dispatches television documentary, 'MMR: What They Didn't Tell You', broadcast on 18 November 2004. This documentary alleged that Wakefield had applied for patents on a vaccine that was a rival of the MMR vaccine..." I have found 8 patents for Wakefield. Only one of them, GB2325856A,[2] is for a vaccine, and this is a vaccine for measles only, so it is not a rival of the MMR vaccine. If this statement is to stay in the article, somebody should provide a reference to the alleged patent for a rival to the MMR vaccine. Roberttherambler (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You would have to find a reliable source other than your WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So the statement doesn't require a reliable source but my disputing it does? Roberttherambler (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It is referenced, that what the footnote is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I now have a reference which supports my claim that the patent was for a measles-only vaccine and was therefore not a rival to the MMR vaccine.[3] Roberttherambler (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no mention of that in the source provided. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And even if there were, you're quibbling. The point is that Wakefield's "transfer factor" product could only succeed if the MMR vaccine were pulled off the market. There is a citation to that effect in the article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The briandeer blog is a c0nsp1raz7 l00n web site which has zero science-backed credibility, it's anti-science propaganda, not a suitable reference or citation for anything for Wikipedia. Conservapedia, perhaps, but not real encyclopedias. Damotclese (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Have you watched the Channel 4 documentary? [4] The claim that Wakefield patented a rival to the MMR vaccine does not appear in it, so the Wikipedia article is inaccurate. Wakefield did patent a measles vaccine but that would only be a rival to other measles vaccines, not to the MMR vaccine. Roberttherambler (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Clearly you don't understand what Wakers did. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I've explained what he did - he patented a measles vaccine but he did not patent an MMR vaccine. What part of that don't you understand? Roberttherambler (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand, but you clearly dont understand what Wakefield did. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Robert - one of the M's in MMR stands for Measles. As long as the UK was standardized on a combined MMR vaccine in its recommended vaccine schedule, Wakefield's single Measles vaccine had no chance in the marketplace. So the theory is, in order to create a market for his measles-only vaccine, his study was designed to cast doubt on the safety of the MMR vaccine. Clearly if he had been successful, someone would have had to come up with separate Mumps and Rubella (the other M and R in MMR) vaccines to go with his patented Measles vaccine. Does that make it clearer? --Krelnik (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
(1) "So the theory is..." Whose theory? Yours? (2) "someone would have had to come up with separate Mumps and Rubella (the other M and R in MMR) vaccines..." The three separate vaccines already existed before the MMR vaccine was invented. The problem was that the NHS in Britain would only allow the combined vaccine so parents who wanted their children to have three separate vaccinations had to pay to get them done privately. That was the fault of the NHS, not Wakefield. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The combined vaccine wasn't a problem though. Wakers manufactured the "problem" with his fraudulent study, and compounded it with coi. Nasty. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert, please read the sources in the article and read them carefully. I'm not making this stuff up, it's all covered in the sources. --Krelnik (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith on the part of Wakefield and I'm not satisfied that it was a fraudulent study. However, I can see that most Wikipedians are determined to assume bad faith so I will not pursue the matter further just now. Roberttherambler (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Casting aspersions in that way isn't acceptable Robert. You are of course free to assume anything you want about the subject of a Wikipedia article, but the rest of us just try to reflect what reliable sources tell us. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And since all of the evidence outlined in said reliable sources—all of it—renders obvious the study's fraudulent nature, remaining "unsatisfied" is a prototype example of WP:IDHT. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith on the part of Wakefield and I'm not satisfied that it was a fraudulent study.The people whose opinions matter were satisfied. Whether or not some random wikipedian was convinced is really beside the point. We don't write based on our opinions. We rarely write based on opinions at all, and when we do, they are always published, reliable, expert opinions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was deliberate fraud, all of the available evidence shows a financial motive. For purposes of the extant article, references and citations which underscore the motive is enough to ensure testability and accuracy of the content of the article. Damotclese (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Current status section

In response to the publicity given to the "CDC whistelblower" narrative by Andrew Wakefield's crockumentary Vaxxed, and the continuing promotion of the MMR-autism myth by anti-vaxers, I think we should add a section on current status at the bottom. Points I would include:

  1. The MMR-autism hypothesis is by now considered to be refuted;
  2. Nonetheless it retains some currency due to promotion by anti-vaccine activists;
  3. This was given a further boost by the "CDC whistleblower" narrative;
  4. The "whistleblower" meme was the creation of Brian Hooker, a parent engaged in litigation over his claims that his son became autistic as a result of vaccination;
  5. Thompson's words were recorded covertly and used without his knowledge or permission;
  6. Thompson remains pro-vaccine;
  7. The alleged effect appeared only in a minority (African-American males vaccinated before 24 months);
  8. Post-hoc subgroup analysis / p-hacking is a risk in this scenario;
  9. There is no dispute that the overall finding of the CDC was negative, with no link at the population level and no link in white, Asian or Hispanic children, or in African-American females;
  10. Hooker's paper promoting the link based on Thompson's information, was retracted due to concealed conflicts of interest and statistical anomalies;
  11. Hooker's lawsuit has since failed.

I'm gathering sources now and will write this up when I get a couple of hours.

I don't suppose this will stop the drive-by antivax edits, but it will fix the obvious problem that it is represented here as a dead issue, but Wakefield has actually reanimated the zombie corpse for another outing. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. William Thompson self-proclaimed 'CDC whistle-blower' Time article

Thank you, editor, that removed the proposed text covering the conspiracy believer Thompson. If you check the link that was proposed, it specifically states right at the top on Time's disclaimer "The claim, however, may just be more unsubstantiated fuel from the anti-vaccination movement" -- which is how Time manages to avoid lawsuits by people who are damaged by anti-vaccination conspiracy believers' actions (and inactions.)

The editor that proposed that addition, I have to ask: Did you bother to actually read the Time article you proposed to link to? It does not support the notion that there is a global conspiracy to hide the truth, and the mere fact that someone believes in a global conspiracy it not enough to be encyclopedic -- unless you wish to include that in a WP:BLP of Mr. Thompson, then his conspiracy beliefs might be relevant. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit more of an introduction in the lede?

Would it be worthwhile in the lede to have a couple of dozen words why a link betwnee autism and the MMR vaccine was suggested in the first place? I am making this same comment in the Causes of Autism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.173.37 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That is probably not needed since it is understood that Wakefield et al. allegedly committed the quack medical fraud for financial reasons, and the phenomena of gullible, uneducated people falling for such anti-science notions is well enough seen across the spectrum of mistaken beliefs harbored by humans that there's no use in underscoring the point. Quack medical beliefs are rampant, and describing why people believe in obvious, debunked nonsense is likely not needed. After all, if it were to be added here, there are thousands of Wikipedia pages which cover quack medical notions, every one of which are equal to the reasons why some people believed this one -- or still do despite scientific research proving otherwise. Damotclese (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Another reason is that it is explained at some length in the Andrew Wakefield article, and there is a link to that article in the lede. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the article should include more moderate views which are notable ; the way it is written now is if it is written by the pharmaceutical company it produces the vaccine. This is an example - Dr Sears says that : "Honestly, I’ve read ALL the research, and both sides present good data and good arguments. I’m not sure who is right at this point. Until I see enough evidence that shows vaccines are linked to autism, I certainly am not going to tell anyone that vaccines contribute to autism. But at the same time I can’t say for sure that vaccines absolutely do NOT play any role at all in contributing to autism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHoy (talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Dr. Sears" seems to be William Sears (physician). Why is he important? Because he appears on talk shows?
That's not a "moderate view". He says he doesn't know. We are collecting humanity's knowledge here, not humanity's ignorance. So we should use people who do know as sources. People who actually do research and know how to do it and how not to do it. People who know that "we could not find any connection" does not mean "the question is not solved yet" - because if there is no connection, "we could not find any connection" will be the status quo forever. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Science has a pretty simple answer to the question posed. No. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
We now have 20 years' worth of well-designed studies, conducted in multiple countries, incorporating tens of thousands of children. All of them -- one hundred percent -- failed to find any association at all between vaccines, IBD, and autism. So, what else do you need? How many more negative studies will this Dr. Oz wannabe need before he stops saying that he "can't say for sure" that there is no association? It's idiots like these talk show "doctors" who force the research community to do still more studies, all with the same results. You're never going to prove a negative any more conclusively than this one has been proven. Even Autism Speaks has admitted that the data is overwhelming, and that researchers should stop wasting their time proving yet again that vaccines are not involved, and turn their attention (and limited research funds) toward finding the actual causes of autism. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Well. He is a notable author. One thinks that an encyclopedia would like its readers to be informed that such views which don't concur exactly with the point of view of the article do exist and they might be - or not valid. I would imagine that only people who have a financial interest to sell vaccines do not want such views to be part of the controversy - especially if they are quite notable. Plus the "activists " who want to "save" the world with ,,,, vaccinations and believe that critical thinking is somehow.....dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHoy (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we are required to give due weight to different viewpoints as published by reliable sources. So for example, while there are still people who believe that the Earth is flat and that all other celestial objects revolve around the Earth, the article on Mars doesn't say "Some people claim that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun, but Dr So-and-so says that the 'planet' is in fact just a red dot painted on the celestial dome above our flat Earth" - it simply says "Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun", because that is the due weight of those viewpoints as published by reliable sources. In the same way, here we have a few promoters of fraudulent research and pseudoscience on one side and the entirety of medical science concluding that vaccines don't cause autism on the other. So the article reflects - and should reflect - that massive imbalance in due weight.
I would also like to point out that accusing other editors of believing that "critical thinking is somehow dangerous" is considered a personal attack. Kolbasz (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If a point of view is notable, then it should appear in proportion of its prominence. Not to give equal weight but inclusion of its view is required especially in an article which is called MMR controversy, not safety of the MMR vaccine. This is not a personal attack; Sorry, this is my impression and my opinion : whoever objects the inclusion of a notable opinion and author in an article called controversy of an X topic , then s/he either has a conflict of interest or does not like readers to know and think on the available evidence. I cannot find another possible explanation since wikipedia dictates that different points of view should be presented in proportion of their prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHoy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It does appear in proportion to its prominence. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
"...should include more moderate views..." -- Encyclopedias are not tomes which gather people's opinions and makes them available, they are intended to be accurate and informative, and including "views" is not something that any encyclopedia should do. What matters is science, testable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed, and the summary reporting of findings which this article does very well.
Also there is no "controversy" about whether or not vaccinations of any kind cause autism, science answered that question. One may accept reality or one may accept the "big pharma" / Chemtrails / Roswell / Flat Earth c0nsp1raz7 beliefs, however for purposes of creating and maintaining an on-line encyclopedia, "views" are utterly irrelevant. Damotclese (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I might add "But at the same time I can’t say for sure that vaccines absolutely do NOT play any role at all in contributing to autism." -- The real world does not work that way, science does not assume for or against anything unless evidence is provided, testable and falsifiable, yet at the same time the supposition that "I know know whether flying saucers from planet Teegeeack cause autism or does not" is not even remotely a valid aspect of the Scientific Method. Until there is a legitimate, science-based reason to even ask whether aliens from Teegeeack cause autism, merely asking the question is utterly irrelevant. Certainly no encyclopedia should ever pause to include any such nonsense unless the article is about anti-science or unfounded conspiracy beliefs. Damotclese (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but it's an important point: Guidelines such as WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI make it very clear that demonstrably fringe beliefs must never be given equal weight with accepted mainstream science. In matters scientific, Wikipedia adheres to the same principles as mainstream science: theories must be proven, experimentally, to be accepted as genuine. The opposite standard—that anything that can't be disproven must therefore be true, or can never be ruled out despite a mountain of negative evidence—is, like Russell's teapot, one step short of delusional paranoia.
Until such time as independent reliable sources state that the vaccine-autism theory is not an idea falling between misinformed hypothesis and outright scam, it falls under WP:FRINGE. While we may present the beliefs of proponents, we will not present those beliefs as though they are equal to the mainstream views. They aren't. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
One final thing (from me at least): the guy's views could in fact be worthy of inclusion if they have been discussed in reliable sources in relation to the subject at hand. For example, you could conceivably find a reliable source that discussed Dr Sears's statement above and linked it to a decrease in vaccination rates, or how the myth just refuses to die despite all evidence to the contrary. But we don't include the personal views of uninvolved parties just for the hell of it. Kolbasz (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Would like to translate the article in Romanian

Hi dear contributors,

I am a Romanian citizen, very worried about increasing vaccine controversy in my country.

Currently there's a measles outbreak happening. National public health officials said an ongoing measles outbreak in Romania has infected more than 3,400 people and killed at least 17 despite an aggressive nationwide vaccination campaign.[1]

Meanwhile, MMR vaccination rates have fallen in recent years in Romania to below the 95% threshold recommended to interrupt transmission. According to the ECDC, coverage for one dose was just 86% in 2015 in Romania compared with 97% in 2007.[2]

I would like to make it possible for Romanian speaking people to have access to this article in Romanian, as Wikipedia is a much more trustworthy source of information compared to the vast amount of blogs and media outlets that push a strong anti-vaccine message.

My plan is to dedicate a few hours per week for this task and do it as soon as possible. However, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I could use your advice on how to get the changes approved, since we are talking about another language than English.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Psprms (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The CDC Whistleblower

I can't find any information on the page about the CDC whistleblower and the associated findings as presented in the "documentary" Vaxxed. This seems like new information that would definitely have it's place in the "Media" section, and perhaps elsewhere too.

Anyone knows if there has been a rigorous external review of what is presented in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jul059 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a lie. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

POV Tag

I'd just like to say that you need to speak to Andrew Wakefield himself or someone in order to make this article unbiased. Animal28 (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It is well established that his article was fraudulent and has caused a great deal of harm. I don't need to talk to the river to know it is wet. The Tag has been discussed multiple time so it goes. Thank you. VVikingTalkEdits 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The extant article's contents have been discussed, vetted, refined, discussed again, over and over and over, there is nothing which has not been hashed out repeatedly over the years and nothing in the extant article violates WP:NPOV. Editors who find this article and don't agree with the referenced, cited, vetted content should examine the archived Talk:: page content if they find something they believe to be WP:NPOV, and they will find that whatever they're feeling is inaccurate or "unfair" has already been discussed endlessly. Damotclese (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Do we need to speak to Bernie Madoff and present his point of view credulously, in order to write a neutral and accurate article on the collapse of his Ponzi scheme? MastCell Talk 16:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to speak to Andrew Wakefield about vaccines. Let me ask him about his patents. The payments he received for testifying against MMR vaccine. How his article got retracted, and his co-authors bailed on him. I'd love to talk to him about his bromance with Donald Trump. I'd love to know why he doesn't want dogs vaccinated. I'd love to know his point of view about the hundreds of kids that have been hospitalized or died because they contracted the measles. I'm sure it would be a fascinating conversation. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake news

This article is so obviously biased that it falls into the fake news category. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world know Wakefield's work and consider him a hero who is standing up to a corrupt medical system that considers vaccine induced neurological damage in 2 percent of population a cost of doing business. And it's not just this article. It is clear when the editors of Wikipedia collectively label the worldwide vaccine safety movement, that includes scientists, medical practitioners and literally millions of people, a "Conspiracy Theory," that the publication is taking sides. "Conspiracy Theory" is simply an ad hominem attack and has no place a serious reference encyclopedia. The phase conjures up images of a small circle of maladjusted individuals trading speculative hypotheses. 1.6 million people took to the streets to protest government vaccine policy in Italy in the Spring of 2017, and hundreds of thousands more are protesting in France and Germany as I write this. How long can you hope to keep up this charade Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMcLeod (talk • contribs)

You misunderstand. The anti-vaxxers, those you call "scientists, medical practitioners and literally millions of people", are the people who adhere to the conspiracy theory. They believe that "a small circle of maladjusted individuals" conspire to hide "the truth".
And of course ideas do not become true by "millions" believing in them. See argumentum ad populum. We rely on reliable sources, not on what an uninformed mob thinks. If you find a reliable source that confirms your opinion, please name it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
ThomasMcLeod, I see that you're new here so let me assist you in how Wikipedia works. If you can find anything in the article here which is inaccurate or mistaken, do let other editors know specifics about what is wrong here in the Talk: page so that the article may be corrected. Also new comments in Talk: are typically appended to the page or to sections, they're not added at the top of the page. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Haha Hob Gadling, that's a joke, right? NO, it is not. The titling is propagandistic hate speech designed to denigrate a whole sub-culture of people around the world so as to implement forced vaccination without informed consent, which is against internationally recognized human rights. Reliable sources, hahaha. Tell me please, was Joseph Goebbels a reliable source on the question of how to characterize Jewish culture? If the answer is no, than why to you choose to use as a "reliable" sources whose mission is to destroy the people and the culture that is the subject of the article?
What do you mean with "a joke"? What do you mean when you say "The titling"? You do not seem to be a very clear thinker. We cannot read your thoughts, unless you write them down.
Your claim that "what we choose as" reliable sources have the mission to "destroy the people and the culture that is the subject of the article" is just the crazy conspiracy theory we are talking about. I do not think you and Wikipedia (or you and reality) have a common ground to base a discussion on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the article uses scientifically reliable sources. It's got a neutral point of view. It's pretty well written. And the scientific consensus, based on scientific evidence, shows us that the MMR vaccine is relatively safe and relatively effective. But if you want conspiracy theories, I'm sure this isn't the place for you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
SkepticalRaptor Just glancing at the reference list, all of the sources for this article are part of the global vaccine industry or have a financial ties to it. In general, the article describes the narrative publicized by Wakefield's enemies in great detail while failing to mention or minimizing the opposing narrative. Taken together the article presents a one-sided, false picture of the topic. Granted it is a picture that has been popularized by a well-funded media campaign of the pharmaceutical industry and their collaborators in the media. Wakefield has certainly been the main antagonist in that narrative, which pharma uses to attack the vaccine safety movement. You are welcome to write whatever to want on your own blog, as I'm sure you do. But Wikipedia is the commons. The time is coming and has now come when people who have been hurt by the lies and distortions on this page will take action to correct the record. Hob Gadling I'm very disappointed that you decided to go ad hominem and attack me, but since you did here are some prominent examples of what I'm talking about: Peter J. Hotez, MD, PhD, director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development in Houston, and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine, has become a prominent spokesman on the so-called scientific position on vaccines. On March 3, 2017, he published an opinion piece in Scientific American where he urged readers to "snuff out" the community of vaccine injured families that support Wakefield. Two months later, on May 8, the Boston Herald published an editorial calling the questioning of the dominant position on vaccines a "hanging offense." Others in positions of power in the current medical regime have recently called for the breakup of families who refuse to comply with the vaccination schedule, and still others have called for loss of license and occupation. And of course, the position of every rich pharma exec and medical high holy is that the children of vaccine resistant families should be denied access to education. So, here it is in black and white: vigilante justice and lynchings, denial of right to earn a living, denial of access to education for community members, the break up of families through misuse of the foster care system; these are the clearly stated intentions of the sources you call reliable. This is what I call the destruction of a community. This is nothing more than a hate campaign, and a call for some kind of Kristallnacht against a vulnerable minority who have suffered vaccine injury and paying the price for this one sided propaganda. By its biased, one sided presentation of the issue, this article is clearly part of that campaign. ThomasMcLeod (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, so you've told us your opinion, which doesn't help us improve the page. You need WP:RS for that. -Roxy the dog. bark 06:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to present the mainstream scientific point of view, which is that vaccines are effective, and that serious adverse reactions to vaccines are rarer than serious cases of the diseases they prevent, and that when adverse reactions do occur autism is not one of them.
You say that it is clear that there is massive collusion between the media and pharmaceutical companies, this is not clear to me or many other editors, it is just your opinion, which cannot be your basis for any edit, see WP:NPOV. If this collusion is real(I don't think it is), it is up to others to uncover, once uncovered and published in reliable sources, then wikipedia can mention it, but wikipedia is not investigative journalism.
If the article went beyond what science say is effective and was making a one-sided argument in favor of mandatory vaccination or any other law(s), this would be a blatant WP:NPOV violation, but I don't believe the article does this. BTW, just because I think vaccines are effective doesn't mean I think anybody deserves to be hanged, is is shameful that anyone called for the punishment, let alone execution, of those with which they disagree, regardless of who science says is right. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Tornado chaser There is nothing to uncover. It's already part of the public record that mainstream news organizations receive 70% of their revenue from pharma ads in non-election years. And even if this were not the case, anyone who can count to 25 can readily see that, on average, 17 of 25 ads on nationally distributed TV news programs are pharma ads. If tobacco companies were funding 70% of the news shows that uniformly reported cigarette smoking was safe, would you call those shows a reliable source? The problem is one of scale. The democratic world has never before seen an industry so wealthy and powerful as to be able to buy the allegiance of the free press. But pharma has done exactly that. ThomasMcLeod (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
ThomasMcLeod (talk) Editors have already addressed the claims you're making repeatedly, year after year. I told you that you need to learn how Wikipedia works, what is expected of editors yet you decided not to learn -- either how Wikipedia works or how science is performed. You already made your incorrect opinions clear and yet you can not point to anything in the article that is inaccurate. Stop wasting editors' time, please. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way, when you talk about "Wakefield's enemies" you are talking about science, the Scientific Method since the only "enemies" that Wakefield has, as was shown by the criminal and civil trials held to judge his behavior, is science. Science is not a c0nsp1raz7, gravity is not a personal attack on people who fall on their face, neither is medical science which debunked Wakefield's frauds. All of this has been discussed repeatedly. If you need assistance finding the archived discussions, just ask, editors with experience will be glad to assist you learn how to use Wikipedia. Damotclese (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Damotclese you're joking, right? You're making wild assumptions about who I am and you really haven't got a clue, and your ad hominems are pathetic. You are anthropomorphizing science as if it were some kind of god that acts independent of human beings. So tell me, does your science god possess the perfect goodness attribute or does he make stuff up along the way to suit more secular considerations? The notion that the mainstream scientific establishment somehow possesses the godlike quality of being uncorruptible is not only naive but utterly inconsistent with human history. But frankly, the issue is not about science. The issue is about the use of Wikipedia to attack, denigrate and stoke prejudice against a community of people. ThomasMcLeod (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Science is certainly not infallible or god-like, but it is appropriate for wikipedia to describe those who have been found guilty of fraud as, well, guilty of fraud. If you have a WP:RS to support your claim that wakefield is innocent/correct, post that source here and we can discuss changing the article based on reliable sources, if you can point out a specific part of the article that fails WP:NPOV, then point this out, but so far you haven't stated anything specific that needs to be changed about the article. Also, the article describes wakefield as discredited, but you say the article is bias against a whole community, what community is this? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
If you don't like reality, ThomasMcLeod, you might try Conservapedia. As for Wikipedia and this article in particular, when you can find anything in the extant article that is inaccurate or mistaken, do let us know. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, I am referring the the natural health community. This page is an attack piece designed to discredit, diminish and denigrate the concerns and aspirations of that community. For example, millions of people depend on the profession of Chiropractic as a healing modality and the profession is licensed in every state in the US and around the world. In 1990, the Chiropractic profession proved in US federal court that mainstream medicine as an institution carried out a campaign of unlawful discrimination against Chiropractic and that, essentially, claims that Chiropractic was some kind of quackery were patently false. Yet this page lumps Chiropractic together with a fabricated theory designed for provide justification for African slavery. This is just one example of manifest bias. In fact, because it is aimed at a community, and not just an idea, these attacks are hate speech. ThomasMcLeod (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As someone who has lost a relative to a chiropractor's mumbo jumbo, I can assure it you is most definitely quackery. A court decision does not invalidate the nature of reality, and it certainly wouldn't bring my aunt back. Sumanuil (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@ThomasMcLeod: Chiropractic isn't mentioned in the article (except for a link in the infobox list of fringe medicine) and what does slavery have to do with this? Are you discussing the article or the infobox? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tornado chaser: OK, infobox, if that's its name. The fact that Chiropractic and Acupuncture are lumped together with Medical Racism is clearly an attempt the tarnish and discredit these long-standing successful modalities that now compete with the fraudulent and destructive pharmaceutical industry. The intention comes through loud and clear.
@Sumanuil: Your story is unverified and anecdotal. However, the fact that the MMR has caused autism is not only supported by litigated court cases and over 140 scientific studies, but over vaccine safety advocates have documented over 1000 personal testimonies of the link. One such story is anecdotal evidence. Perhaps ten stories are as well. When the number of documented stories reaches into the thousands, this is no longer anecdotal evidence. ThomasMcLeod (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Damotclese: Yet another ad hominem: "If you don't like reality." I'm very disappointed in you. I thought all you high brow scientist types were trained to stick to the facts and reasoned debate. I shouldn't be surprised however. Your side always resorts to bullying and name calling whenever it is challenged. ThomasMcLeod (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@ThomasMcLeod: As for the infobox, I don't think it is trying to associate anything, just listing various things that are considered fringe medicine, not saying they are all similar. As for autism, you would have to provide a reliable medical source that says MMR causes autism, while cases of brain damage have been documented, these are not autism. All the reliable sources I have seen say MMR doesn't cause autism. Of all vaccines, MMR is the one with the most studies that show it doesn't cause autism. Also, don't criticize all scientists for the actions of 1. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Damotclese: The ad hominems aren't helping. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I read through the article and I don't see any biases. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this the French version of the article?

I know only a little bit of French, but this French Wikipedia article seems to be talking about the same thing as this English article. Can someone take a look at it and if appropriate, add an interlanguage link to that French article? --Kinos0634 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I can confirm the French Wikipedia article is indeed on the same subject; unfortunately I do not know how to create an interlanguage link but feel free to do so.Partnerfrance (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The interlanguage link appears in the list for me. According to wikidata, it was added on October 15. DMacks (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

hoax

Can we redirect this page to 'MMR Vaccine hoax' ? Calling it a controversy is being generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.246.66 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

While I have to agree that it's silly that vaccines are being pointed at for "autism" (Autism doesn't make you retarded...), renaming it a "hoax" would be a very noticable show of bias. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
"Hoax" is the wrong word because Wakefield didn't do it for fun. "Fraud" is the right word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

MMR vaccine is still controversial. It's misleading for Wiki to suggest otherwise. Maybe Wiki editors tend towards the conservative or establishment view but it is wrong to suggest that view is the only rational one. psic88 15:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psic88 (talk • contribs)

It's only a controversy among conspiracy believers, people with mental difficulties, there is no controversy among scientists. Damotclese (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Damotclese:@Psic88: Damotclese, Please do not imply that another user has mental difficulties, WP:NPA. Psic88, wikipedia is based on reliable sources per WP:RS, what source do you have to say that the vaccine is still controversial? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
People who suffer from False_memory_syndrome are suffering mental problems. You might want to go research what causes people to have false memories implanted as well as review the extant research in how the spectrum of mental difficulties people who suffer from the affliction harbor. FMS and the McMartin_preschool_trial was something I was involved with during the McMartin fiasco as part of the debunking of numerous false memories implanted in the children by adults with serious mental problems, including false memories where children were eventually led to honestly believe that they had been taken to Peru through underground tunnels, ritually raped, murdered, and eaten, and then were ritually brought back to life, returned to the Preschool in time for their parents to pick them up in the morning. So I have extensive background in the psychological difficulties of people who suffer from FMS.
Also, vaccinations causing autism is a conspiracy belief harbored by individuals with mental difficulties, just as are so-called Sandy Hook Truthers, false memory implantation via mass media manipulation of weak minds is a phenomena resulting in False Memory Syndrome, as is "Pizzagate" and Flat Earth beliefs as well as belief in "Chemtrails", all of which are harbored by people with mental difficulties stemming from false memory implantation. Damotclese (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Damotclese: I didn't say mental issues can't cause false beliefs, I said it is a personal attack to say someone must have "mental difficulties" because they argue something counter to scientific consensus, you can be wrong without being mentally ill. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
You have strange ideas about what constitutes a "personal attack." Mental illness is not a joke, and if you think that the mental health profession covering people with mental difficulties are some how "attacking" their patients, then you have a behavioral problem. That's the last time I will discuss this issue with you. Damotclese (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Damotclese: I never said mental health professionals are attacking there patients, I said attempting to diagnose another editor (not a patient) as having a mental problem is not appropriate, especially when you use that diagnosis to discredit them, as you have done with me and Psic88. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
You may want to look up what "discredit" means. Science is not something one believes or disbelieves. If you don't agree with science, that's fine, leave me out of your problems, please. Damotclese (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I never criticized the science. I said that it is not acceptable to try to diagnose another editor as having "mental difficulties" or "a behavioral problem" especially when you use that diagnosis as grounds to say they are wrong. Psic88 was wrong and you were right to tell them that there is no controversy among scientists, but your comments about Psic's and my mental health were uncalled for. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There IS controversy about MMR and autism amongst scientists. It's not widely known but it nonetheless exists. "Controversy" indicates the existence of differing opinions, not how well-informed the public is. psic88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psic88 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Not among reputable scientists, only among fringe, disenfranchised, those who have lost their licenses, quacks, "alternative", and such like. They create a lot more noise than their numbers would indicate, and their influence causes children to die. Seriously. Their views are indeed widely known, and therefore dangerous.
Bill Gates has some strong words for them: "The world’s most influential humanitarian says a fraudulent research paper written by Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998 has indirectly “killed thousands of kids” by discouraging parents from immunising their children against preventable diseases." [5] -- BullRangifer (talk)
And also there is no controversy among scientists working within medical science fields. The people who think there's a cons;iracy or some kind of controversy are usually mentally disadvantaged people, right wingers and left wingers at the extremes. Damotclese (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the current title "MMR vaccine controversy" is reasonable, but I would also understand "MMR autism hoax"ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Hob Gadling. "Hoax" is the wrong word. Fraud or Fraudulent is more accurate, but I'm not sure how it can be used in a title. Andrew Wakefield's "discredited" work has been called a "fraud" by numerous RS, and we use both terms in his article. Now to find an alternate title, because "controversy" does lend support to the misunderstanding that there is a real controversy within the medical/scientific world, when there isn't. Let's play with some words:

Any other suggestions or tweaks? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Of your suggestions I like MMR vaccine/autism fraud the best, as this was a case of someone with a COI altering data for there own gain, so it is not really a fallacy (which would imply more of a faulty argument than something made up) or a delusion (which implies a mental problem), "misconception" still goes around the point that this was purposely made up, better just to stick with "controversy" over "misconception". It is not really a conspiracy theory either, those only came after the fraud. I think "fraud" sounds odd as a noun in the title, and "deception" sounds even weirder.
We could say "fraud", but I don't see what is wrong with "hoax", we have RS to say it was a hoax, and is there anything in the definition of hoax that means it wasn't done for money?. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, it has taken on a whole life of it's own since Wakers started it. It has become a controversy in the popular view, fuelled by teh Internetz. I would support a move to "fallacy" if consensus is to move though, but not the others. That's good brainstorming by BullR. Gorski has stuff to say today at SBM. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I feel like we've been around this issue before. The story has several elements to it, as near as I can tell the timeline goes something like:
  1. Wakefield publishes – and hosts a press conference for – a Lancet article suggesting a link between MMR and autism.
  2. Wakefield and fellow travellers stoke the controversy over vaccine (and especially MMR) safety. The mainstream media made more of Wakefield's (and others') conclusions than the scientific community—that is, the 'controversy' was generally more sociopolitical than scientific.
  3. A great deal of thorough, good-quality epidemiological research established very, very firmly that the MMR-autism hypothesis was bunk.
  4. Eventually, it came out that the Lancet paper was the result of breaches of medical ethics and outright fraud on the part of Wakefield, and the article was retracted. It was also revealed that Wakefield received some very significant, undisclosed payments from lawyers who wanted to sue vaccine manufacturers.
  5. Any 'controversy' has long been resolved within the scientific community, and has largely been put to rest among the lay public as well.
  6. What's left is largely manufactured controversy and doubt sown by True Believers and conspiracy theorists on the one hand, and cynical charlatans who – with callous disregard – seek to profit from the desperate and gullible on the other.
Trying to cram all of those concepts into the article title isn't going to work—MMR vaccine-autism hypothesis fraud controversy conspiracy scam is a bit cumbersome. I tend to believe that the core of the story is the "controversy" itself, not because a meaningful controversy remains, but because the controversy is what ties together all the other events. The controversy resulted (mostly) from the Lancet paper; the controversy triggered the social and political effects; the controversy is what led to the investigative reporting that uncovered the fraud and conflicts of interest; the fact that the controversy has largely been resolved in all but the fringe-est outposts is the conclusion. Even though any real 'controversy' is pretty much over now, keeping the article as it is now titled – MMR vaccine controversy – still seems to make sense. It certainly doesn't preclude an unflinching discussion of the aftermath.
Letting our editorial decisions as encyclopedia writers be guided by trying to serve readers who can't or won't read more than the title of an article is a losing game. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with TenOfAllTrades, editors have gone through this over and over again over the years, every time someone who is a believer in the Wakefield claims who then discovers the Wikipedia article tends to bring up the same complaints and we go around Piccadilly Circus yet once again. The extant article's core descriptions and explanations are fine. Until some evidence comes to light that contradicts the article's core commentary on the series of incidents, evidence which is supported by testable, falsifiable references and citations, there is no reason to make significant changes, certainly not in the article's title/name. Damotclese (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I would also agree that it is not important (or even necessarily desirable) to change the title, the fact that the controversy is mostly resolved dosen't mean that there was no controversy. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Dissenting studies

user:Sakaimover blocked as a sock of Architect 134. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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.

@Sakaimover: Sakaimover just added some studies suggesting that fetal DNA fragments in vaccines contribute to autism[6], I removed one that was clearly outdated[7], but I am not sure if the other ones belong here either, they look like they are drawing unusual conclusions from potentially inconclusive methods and I am not familiar with the journals they are published in. In short, the added material looks like it may be UNDUE or non-RS, but I am hesitant to revert a good faith editor unless I can point to a definite, identifiable problem with their edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC) @Doc James: pinging for advice. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The study you removed didn't even say what the editor claimed it did: It said that autism may be partially caused by an autoimmune condition, not the vaccine. The second source was written by authors at a group that exists to push for a link between vaccines and autism. So yeah, the whole edit was bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Thanks, I was afraid of that. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like this has been resolved... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
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.


Whilst providing info for a patient of mine, on the benefits of Vaccination, I looked at this Wiki page, and was surprised to see some omissions.

For example at the end of the eighties (through to 1992), there was a problem with the triple vaccine for a year or so, and it rightly led to questions being asked.

I remember having difficult discussions and a decision over our first born at the time and , as a Practitioner , I was constantly being asked for my advice.

I used to tell patients to read all they could, that we had decided to have our child vaccinated, that it was their decision (risk benefit etc as well as 'herd' immunity, but when it became more apparent for a year or so, that it was perhaps safer to give the 3 vaccines separately, then that was the advice I gave.

Our decision at the time 1988-89 was to give our son the triple, but that was before the possible problem with the 'triple' was really suspected.

The big issue was though, that by the time this fully entered public consciousness, there was a great danger that 'the baby was thrown out with the bath water' and that people were starting to avoid vaccination, ironically at a time when any possible problems with the triple were better understood.

The resultant polarised views help nobody, and the vilification of some people who originally questioned the safety of a triple vaccine, was i think over the top. (some of the characters involved were possibly over evangelic about the results they had found however), and the resulting climate of some parents NOT giving their children vaccines, helped nobody either, as herd immunity is at the heart of much of the efficacy, as well as the risk to the individuals concerned.

It is though possible to still vaccinate un-vaccinated teenagers at a later date, as or before they enter the wider world, so if you have a non vaccinated child, I would still recommend you have them vaccinated, and if you are still unsure of the triple, then consider separate vaccinations, timed apart, but you will have to pay privately for this in the UK and i am unsure as to whether it is still really necessary, now that the triple is so closely monitored.

Anyhow back to the omissions. I enrolled on MediaWiki so as to contribute and noted that the opening sentence read "Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false."


Fine, but there is an "although" and while the "although" does not claim a link with autism, it does link a 4 year period (88-92) of the triple MMR with the Urabe strain of mumps, to quote "a demonstrable increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination."

So I submitted my edit with citation references (read from 'although'

Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there was a problem with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [3]. It was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the Department of Health in September 1992. Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which caused encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis, involving swelling of the brain or of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, that can lead to brain damage, deafness or even death. The Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.([4]

The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998..

References

  1. ^ Article in Scienceblogs
  2. ^ Article in Scienceblogs
  3. ^ https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/6/704/63700
  4. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544592/Vaccine-officials-knew-about-MMR-risks.html

My submission was "Reverted good faith edits by Stogjol (talk): Nothing to do with autism, undue prominence of a rare adverse reaction (TW))"

and while I agree my edit may have nothing to do with autism, it very much has a lot to do with MMR vaccination, and the history discussed in much of the ensuing wikipage.

I should be pleased to hear your responses. Thankyou. Stogjol (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is on the MMR vaccine and autism. Your edit had nothing to do with autism. We have an article on the MMR vaccine, whose talkpage would be the place to make your case for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

those young babies who had adverse effects born in 1988-92 were lumped in, or considered possible 'autistic' when this furore broke out. Subsequently although no link with autism was found, it was the reason why some people starting looking into possible causation. Remember diagnosis at such an early age is fraught. Although this info about Urabe only started to come to light in and around 2007, it is I think extremely relevant to a page on MMR Vaccination and Autism, especially a page that is discussing the history of the subject. Stogjol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Urabe is covered in MMR vaccine. It can conceivably be included on this page if you can explain how it pertains to to discussion of autism and MMR, but placing in the WP:LEAD (especially in the first sentence) is, I think, unjustifiably prominent. PriceDL (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The minutes of another meeting of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, in May 1990, show that there was " a special concern about "reports from Japan of a high level of meningoencephalitis associated with the administration of MMR". This I would suggest is not "undue prominence of a rare adverse reaction " as quoted, nor is it I would suggest ' unjustifiably prominent' especially as it, the meningoencephalitis, was one of the very reasons a link with autism was first postulated. Remember there were cases at the time presenting to Practitioners whose symptoms were being attributed to recently given triple jabs. Many of these cases were thought to be early signs of autism, but are now signed off as "meningoencephalitis" or similiar. But it was many of those very cases that initiated investigation into causation and links with their preceding triple vaccinations; the subject of this Wiki page. Stogjol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in this article. Nor do the references target or support a link to autism or a concern at the time. MartinezMD (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No, but the references do explain why there was justifiable concern. Behavioural anomalies at such an early age, were perhaps grouped, and as it turns out wrongly labelled as autism, or were those lesser affected infants turning up later in the 90s and beyond, as possible 'autistic spectrum' children?

The release of the UK documents in 2007 under the Freedom of information Act, is certainly an important proof of what many suspected from the end of the 80s to the early 90s; that there was a possible problem with the triple vaccine for a time, and that it did affect a great number of children and their families, hence the protracted legal issues described further on in the wikipage.

My edit does not dispute the 'no link' premise, but it does begin to explain why there was such a movement towards that way of thinking. My edit i would suggest gives the page a better balance, and also begins to show an acknowledgement that MMR vaccines are not always 100% safe and have to be constantly monitored, and that while they did not cause autism, they did for a short while cause some cases of meningoencephalitis., and that is a fact. Stogjol (talk)

I think this may have given you concern, but I don't see the source as indicating it triggered the autism concern in the general public. Read WP:SYN MartinezMD (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It gave not just me, but many of my new parent patients much concern for many years from 88--90s and beyond.

The sources are indicative because the affected children born 88-92, were appearing as possible 'autistic' in the late 90s when this whole concern became more mainstream. While your page states “and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, etc” which my edit does not refute, my added info preceding, does however allow readers to see that there were a number of children with encephalitis-type conditions, who had had a compromised triple MMR vaccine, and whose parents, their friends and their GPs had been seeking answers for many years before 1998. Stogjol (talk)

You need a reliable source to link the concern. With one of those, I'd have no objections. MartinezMD (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

What is unreliable about the sources cited?

The report "Risks of Convulsion and Aseptic Meningitis following Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in the United Kingdom" [1]published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 165, Issue 6, 15 March 2007, Pages 704–709, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk045 states "that Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines containing the Urabe strain of mumps were withdrawn in the United Kingdom in 1992 following demonstration of an increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination."

The 2007 Documents released under the Freedom of information Act and reported in the Telegraph [2]and elsewhere, describe "reports from Japan of a high level of meningoencephalitis associated with the administration of MMR" and Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, told one of the parents in a letter: "As soon as the Department of Health had clear evidence that there was a risk with Urabe-containing MMR and that there was no such associated risk with a different strain of mumps virus (the Jeryl Lynn strain) used in an alternative MMR vaccine, the department moved quickly to discontinue use."

References

  1. ^ https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/6/704/63700
  2. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544592/Vaccine-officials-knew-about-MMR-risks.html

This clearly indicates that there were problems with the triple MMR between 1988 and 1992 and as I have told you, it was well known that there were problems well before the Lancet 1998 event. That those problems were 'meningoencephalitic' and not autistic, confirms the wiki-wording of no linkage, but the page inaccurately states that such a suggestion of linkage only came into the public domain at the time of the 1998 Lancet article, which is not the case, as I am attempting to explain to you. The cases that were being seen by many Practitioners in the years 88-92 and beyond were often loosely diagnosed, and as these children grew there was understandably a suggestion that their condition fell into the autistic spectrum. That it took until 2007 and an enforced release of documents, to confirm the actual problems with the triple MMR of those years and the meningoencephalitic type diagnosis, meant that much rumour and conspiracy remained even after the events of 1998.

My edit does not conflict with the page's content as it stands, if anything it explains better why there were allegations of causal linkage and thus it merely helps balance and expand understanding of a timeline.

Compare

Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false. The link was first suggested in the early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, characterised as "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years".[1] The fraudulent research paper authored by Andrew Wakefield and published in The Lancet claimed to link the vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders. The paper was retracted in 2010[2] but is still cited by anti-vaccinationists.[3]

to my suggested edit

Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there was a problem with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [1]. It was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the Department of Health in September 1992. Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which caused encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis, involving swelling of the brain or of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, that can lead to brain damage, deafness or even death. The Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.([2]

The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud, characterised as "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years".[3] The fraudulent research paper authored by Andrew Wakefield and published in The Lancet claimed to link the vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders. The paper was retracted in 2010[4] but is still cited by anti-vaccinationists.[5]

I would suggest to you that the revised edit gives a much fuller view of the facts Stogjol (talk)

I'm not sure you've understood WP:SYN.MartinezMD (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand how this wiki page on MMR vaccine and autism reads to the visitor. It's opening denies the link with autism - fine, but then states that "The link was first suggested in the early 1990s" without any mention of why those links were being suggested for the best part of a decade, only concentrating on the more public tirade against the artificial 1998 Lancet report as the instigation, without any understanding of the preceding years which contributed to such an outcome. If the facts of the meetings in the UK, of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (which only surfaced in 2007) had been made public much earlier, then speculation as to any links with autism would have been less likely. Stogjol (talk)

also "What is unreliable about the sources cited? " Stogjol (talk)

You need a source that says the concern about autism is because of the Urabe vaccine or the associated aseptic meningitis. I don't think you've submitted that. You have that Urabe caused the meningitis; you have that there was a concern about MMR causing autism. You do not have a link between those two (yet). Making that leap is synthesis. WP:SYN MartinezMD (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:MEDRS - articles on medical topics require significantly higher-quality sources than those elsewhere on Wikipedia - you're going to need a great deal more to support your assertion. Acroterion (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

i am not, and have not wanted to make any link with autism, at any stage in this discussion or my edit.

But without an understanding of the problems of the Urabe MMR and its effects in Britain in the 8 or 9 years leading up to the 1998 Lancet report, this wiki page to my mind is missing important information. The very fact "of the Urabe vaccine or the associated aseptic meningitis" was only revealed in 2007 and as such, it provides the reason why there was ever a misguided attempt at linkage with autism in the first place.

My references simply acknowledge the meningoencephalitic cases resultant of the Urabe MMR being used in the years 1988-92 Stogjol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


I repeat, I am not trying to make a link with autism, I am simply explaining that the Lancet report of 1998 did not emerge out of a vacuum, but from out of what we now know were the resultant cases of Urabe MMR in the years 88-92 that were incorrectly diagnosed or suspected to be autism. We know now that these were encephalitis-type conditions (because of the FOI revelations in 2007), and that is what my references cite. Your wiki page already states “"The link was first suggested in the early 1990s" without any mention of why those links were being suggested for the best part of a decade. That is a vacuum. My edit seeks to fill that space, and does not make any link with autism. Stogjol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

We understand (at least I do) what you’re trying to do and I agree it’s not a MEDRS issue. The issue is that unless you find some published concern, it becomes your opinion inserted into the article. You’re leading the reader to your conclusion. If I were looking at a vaccine-driven worry for autism in the 80’s, I’d look at whole cell pertussis more than MMR. MartinezMD174.204.18.251 (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a "a vaccine-driven worry for autism in the 80’s", I am simply seeking to insert some factual reasons for the questioning of the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in the 9 or so years leading up to the Lancet articles in 1998.

in order to seek some resolution I suggest the following edit:

Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false, although there were problems with the triple MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps that was first used in Britain from October 1988 to September 1992 [1] and “withdrawn in the United Kingdom in 1992 following demonstration of an increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination." Documents released under the Freedom of information Act in 2007 show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which could cause encephalitis-type conditions, and the Vaccine was withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer MMR2.([2]

The link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first suggested in the late 1980s and early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet MMR autism fraud,....

I trust this helps us further achieve a more understandable timeline of the situation I and other Practitioners experienced in those interim years before exposure of all or at least , more of the facts became better known in 2007. Stogjol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I also submit the following contained in one of your own Wiki pages in further support of my suggested modified edit

"After the start of the mass MMR immunisation programme in 1988, additional evidence that the strain was linked with viral meningitis surfaced in a number of countries, and by 1990, many had withdrawn products containing it. In November 1992, it was withdrawn in the UK, following the publication of government-sponsored research[3] which confirmed a high incidence of transitory mild meningitis.[4] Since that time, government agencies have acted to prevent the importation of single vaccines containing this strain.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Committee_on_Vaccination_and_Immunisation#Position_on_MMR Stogjol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Now you're mixing a concern that was apparently not revealed to the public (since it needed a freedom of information release) from the myth the public believe(s)d about the vaccine. To my knowledge it was not a concern before Wakefield, and, certainly if it was, a cited addition would be appropriate. My point is that to my recollection there was public concern about neurological effects from Pertussis at the time and not from MMR in the 1980s and 1990s - we weren't giving pertussis to children with seizure disorders or with other neurologic disease. MMR, we gave regularly in the same children we worried about with pertussis. Find a source linking public concerns with MMR safety at the time. If it truly contributed, how hard would it be to find one? Also, vaccine efficacy and safety are separate issues. and lastly, wiki pages aren't mine. I just participate. MartinezMD (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There were cases of young children having adverse reactions after having the MMR vaccine that I and fellow Practitioners were coming across in the late 80s and early 90s. That their families, friends and Physicians knew about these, but had no firm evidence, meant that there are no common citations from that time, excepting research papers and Government statistics that were beginning to be prepared, but that weren’t as such in the public domain.

That these cases existed (often undiagnosed or of unknown aetiology except that symptom onset often followed inoculation), and were being discussed in public, was very evident at the time; I described earlier how we ourselves as parents, looked very hard into the literature at the time, to try to help us decide whether to give the triple to our own son. I told you also that many patient families of mine at the time asked for similiar information.

It was this background that eventually brought about more the more formal medically orientated questioning of the efficacy of the triple vaccine, and the suggestion that there might be a problem or indeed a connection with autism.

That all this was later revealed in studies and FOI releases in 2007 described in my references, proves that there were cases (not of autism, but of varying symptomatology, and as such there was indeed a “ a concern before Wakefield,” as you put it, albeit a continuing general concern about the side effects of the triple vaccine.

Your stating that there were NO general public concerns with MMR at the time is indeed false, although I agree it didn't hit mainstream media until Wakefield, and that was an allegation of a link with autism. Stogjol (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Remember also that Wakefield and others were active in the years before the Lancet article in 1998 a more typical view of the time can be had from this Comment made years later in the Guardian by Brian Milne 17 Apr 2013 19:33 (find by recommendations (if viewed/sorted by recommendations 67)

"We once lived in Swansea and were aware of the risks caused by Urabe MMR vaccines in the UK in 1992. Our children were born a decade later. We are also aware that at no time did Andrew Wakefield advise parents not to get their children vaccinated against measles, mumps or rubella. He advised single vaccinations. Our GP refused to help us to achieve that. My wife and I are both professionals in the field of childhood and I have long term contacts within the WHO who said that there was no good reason why we should not have the single jabs. There are elements of both cover up and honesty counter acting each other. We fortunately left long before this measles 'epidemic' became news, but not before there were more rumours than clear advise. Tabloid newspapers have a lot to answer for and medical people who were stubbornly refusing to help people also have to take their share of responsibility." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/17/measles-outbreak-mmr-jab

For a more complete and comprehensive view on MMR in the UK I would recommend https://www.manchesteropenhive.com/view/9781526126764/9781526126764.00013.xml

here for example, with reference to the pertussis vaccine you mention , which was really before my time in practice, but informed hesitancy of uptake of the newly released MMR in the late 80s

“This is not to say that qualitative investigations into the issues surrounding hesitancy had not been conducted before the crisis and its aftermath. Questions about parental attitudes were being asked of pertussis vaccine and MMR going back to at least the 1980s.138

138 Karen A. Roberts, Mary Dixon-Woods, Ray Fitzpatrick, Keith R. Abrams and David R. Jones, ‘Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence’, The Lancet, 360:9345 (2002), 1596–9; C. A. Peckham, Action Research for the Crippled Child, British Postgraduate Medical Federation, Institute of Child Health and Department of Paediatric Epidemiology, The Peckham Report: National Immunisation Study: Factors Influencing Immunisation Uptake in Childhood (London: Department of Paediatric Epidemiology, Institute of Child Health ; Horsham, West Sussex : Action Research for the Crippled Child, 1989); Richard J. Roberts, Quentin D. Sandifer, Merion R. Evans, Maria Z. Nolan-Farrell and Paul M. Davis, ‘Reasons for non-uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella catch up immunisation in a measles epidemic and side effects of the vaccine’, British Medical Journal, 310:6995 (1995), 1629–39; Rachel Casiday, ‘Risk communication in the British pertussis and MMR vaccine controversies’, in Peter Bennett, Kenneth Calman, Sarah Curtis and Denis Fischbacher-Smith (eds), Risk Communication and Public Health (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 129–46; Calman, ‘Communication of risk’.

Stogjol (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You have to separate out the anecdotes of your individual practice with what is largely seen from the public and reliably reported. I have people concerned about all aspects of treatment. You have to find the source linking falling MMR immunization rates to the Urabe strain if that is what you want to add. The second article you link suggests vaccination rates fluctuate for various reasons including whether the disease outbreak was recent or not as well as distrust of government mandates overall. All I can see is that in the UK they replaced the strain but they don't report an effect on vaccination rates. Also please, make your responses briefer. It would make it easier for us to stay focused. This is simply an issue of citing the point you'd like to make. MartinezMD (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

IMO, there are quite a number of inaccuracies being introduced to this article, for example talking about lawsuits in the 1980s and Merck being the only manufacturer being willing etc... People seem to be writing off the top of their heads, for some reason. Also the part about the link being suggested in the late 1980s etc which came to notice largely as a result of the 1998 Lancet study. This really is original research, essay-writing, by an editor who gives little of where this comes from.

There is talk above about 'questioning of the efficacy of the MMR vaccine'. That is a quite different issue from its safety, and I don't believe there has been serious questioning of efficacy since MMR was licensed in the US in the early 1970s. Nor do I think there was any serious talk of autism before Wakefield. The editor needs to give references, or this material needs to be rolled back. Dallas66 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

re "Nor do I think there was any serious talk of autism before Wakefield. The editor needs to give references" I agree, but there were general concerns about the side effects of the MMR vaccine from its introduction in 1988 in the UK until its replacement (MMR2) in 1992. Wakefield's allegations in 1998, did not not appear from out of a void, but rather at the end of a continued informed hesitancy of uptake of the newly released MMR in the late 80s (and from earlier pertussis vaccine problems) as well as presenting cases of undetermined aetiology described in my posts above. Though none of this suggests a link with autism, I think it is important to understand where that allegation might have spring-boarded from.

For references please see my posts above in the section Missing information relevant to MMR vaccine (and history of its supposed link to Autism) made after your input and dated 29 April UK time.

Stogjol (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Litigation UK

In the section on Litigation, under the UK subheading, the final sentences reads as follows:

Several British cases where parents claimed that their children had died as a result of Urabe MMR had received compensation under the "vaccine damage payment" scheme.[116]

I was surprised when I read that, so I checked the reference, but it's decidedly dodgy - it's a 2007 'comments' thread, which (if you scroll down far enough) includes a brief to-and-fro between David Salisbury (then director of vaccination for the Department of Health) and the FOIA Centre, in which FOIA asserts that such payments had been made, but providing no more information, no evidence and no references to the actual cases involved.

It doesn't seem to me that this is a reliable source - I'd suggest that, if a better source can't be found, this sentence be removed altogether. I'm a bit of a newbie though, thought I'd raise it here before being bold. Girth Summit (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit more digging, and although I couldn't find anything specific about the cases referred to in the comments thread, I suspect that it was two cases where it was alleged that MMR had caused encephalitis. Given that this article is about the MMR/autism controversy, that doesn't seem relevant even if it were to be properly sourced; I've therefore gone ahead and deleted the sentence. Girth Summit (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"... an investigation Wakefield seems himself to have wished."

   My Yank ears perk up disturbingly, in response to the lack of "for" as the clause's next and final word, or something like "to have occur." (This is the full current sent:

The then-secretary of state for health, John Reid MP, called for a GMC investigation, an investigation Wakefield seems himself to have wished.)

   I see my instincts about syntax as normally pretty reliable, and my professional-copywriter informant shares my criticism in this specific case. This request for consultation comes from my concern that i might just be deaf to a syntax that is an idiom of UK or Commonwealth usage of English. Whatcha think?
--Jerzy•t 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed PriceDL (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Time to move

I propose this article should be moved. Obvious candidates include:

  • MMR-autism hoax
  • MMR-autism fraud
  • MMR vaccine and autism

Rationale: Scientifically, there is no controversy, and essentially there never was. Virtually all research from the time of the original fraudulent Lancet paper either failed to confirm its findings, or contradicted it. To describe this as a controversy is to give undue weight to the fraud and those who perpetuate it still. The statement in the lede that it is perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years is pretty compelling evidence that we should choose a less musteloid title. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support such a move, MMR vaccine and autism is a good compromise to please one side particularly, but MMR-autism hoax is close to relaity. I opt for the latter.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment If this is moved it should be moved to MMR-autism hoax, as this was obviously a hoax, it was also fraud, but "MMR-autism fraud" could sound like a category of fraud (like tax fraud). "MMR vaccine and autism" is a bad title, as it sounds like maybe there really is some association between the two. I am undecided about wether to move this to MMR-autism hoax or keep "MMR vaccine controversy", Wakefield definitely perpetrated a hoax, but this hoax triggered a lot of controversy that is mentioned in the article but was not a part of the hoax itself. Basically, I see our options as 1: Keep "MMR vaccine controversy" as the article is about the whole controversy, not just the hoax that started it. Or 2: move to MMR-autism hoax, as this is about a hoax and the controversy that the hoax caused. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to follow the wording of TIME and PBS and use "myth". "Fraud" has a legal meaning that I don't think anyone is implying here. To use it otherwise is to use it figuratively, and I don't much like figurative language in writing an encyclopedia. Similarly, "hoax" implies some level of intentionality. Yes, maybe some people are intentionally pushing this narrative while knowing good and well that it's false. But I think it's safe to say that most people are just stupid mistaken, but otherwise advocating their position in good faith, despite their stupidity the veracity of the claim. GMGtalk 15:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman - Why is it preferable to ignore known fraud and ill intention? Carl Fredrik talk 16:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
If we ignore the origin of the fraud/hoax/etc. for a moment, it's clear that plenty of individuals mistakenly but earnestly believe it. They may have been hoodwinked, but they are not fraudsters or hoaxters just for believing it. Myth works better. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
”...plenty of individuals mistakenly but earnestly believe it.” That’s the way it tends to be with hoaxes that gain any traction, a hoax being an attempt to hoodwink others. Brunton (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Prefer myth over hoax, since it's broader than that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A hoax implies a one-time effort to mislead the public, whereas a myth is more of a self-perpetuating meme that has continued to spread despite evidence. I'd say this is both a hoax and a myth, but the myth is a broader term which encompasses the scope of this article. Also, this is about the vaccine and autism, and the title should include both words (connected with an endash). I would support MMR vaccine–autism myth, or, if this article also should cover the related myths about other vaccines, Vaccine–autism myths. Bradv🍁 16:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support hoax or fraud. Myth is inaccurate and does not include the known ill intent and outright fraud that characterizes the movement. The argument that "myth" does not presuppose intentions is rediculous, because we base the supposition of intentions on countless reliable sources. It's not a myth. Oppose myth Carl Fredrik talk 16:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we base the supposition of intentions on countless reliable sources? Being willfully ignorant is not the same as being knowingly fraudulent. GMGtalk 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The original perpetrator of the hoax had intent to mislead, but nothing about the word "hoax" implies that the people who have been deceived are acting in bad faith. I oppose "fraud" though. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "MMR vaccine and autism": A title like "MMR vaccine and autism" is too general to serve as the article title. "Myth" doesn't seem to cover the errors committed by Andrew Wakefield, so opposing myth. I would support either haux or fraud, but leaning to fraud, since the definition of fraud is "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain", which seems to be the case here as Wakefield is/was an anti-vaccine activist. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ”hoax”, the fact that many people were taken in by a hoax doesn’t make it any less a hoax, oppose “myth” or “fraud”, one is too vague and the other too specific, oppose “MMR vaccine and autism” as it implies a link that doesn’t exist. Brunton (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support “MMR vaccine myths”, per Jehochman below. Would not oppose “hoax”. Brunton (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • MMR-autism fraud Fraud implies financial gain, which clearly applies to Wakefield. Hoax doesn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • MMR-autism conspiracy theory or MMR vaccine myths per Jehochman's arguments below. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • MMR-autism hoax Per Tornado Chaser's comment that MMR-autism fraud sounds close to something like tax fraud or insurance fraud. Calling it a hoax is better than calling it a controversy since, even though people have supported it in good faith, the claims were originally put forth with the intent to deceive. I also think calling it a controversy would be equivocating.TornadoLGS (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • MMR vaccine myths We should use the broadest designation for the article so that we can cover the views of those who are mistaken/confused/deluded as well as those who intentionally perpetuated a fraud. The fraud can be a subsection of this article. I also recommend "myths" because there are probably multiple varieties of myths, not a single unified myth. Some say it causes digestive problems (it doesn't). Some say it causes autism (it doesn't). Some purposefully misrepresented data to create a money making business... We should not lump different things together. We should document all the different nuances. If you want to write about fraud, title the article "Wakefield vaccine fraud" or something narrower. Perhaps that could start out as a subsection of this article and then become a child article. But don't assume all followers participated or knew about the fraud. Jehochman Talk 18:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Both the digestive problems and autism originated from Wakefield's hoax. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Myth seems the best choice so far. It is used in the literature and unlike hoax or fraud does not imply that the proponents know there is no link. Conspiracy theory is another possibility. I don't see a problem with the term controversy however. Controversy merely means disagreement. It's incorrect to say the term can only be used to describe disagreement within the scientific community and never disagreement within the general public. TFD (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The “controversy” is between a position that is supported by reliable sources and one that isn’t. Guess which one Wikipedia follows. We don’t allow people to “teach the controversy” on evolution-related articles, and we shouldn’t allow it here. Brunton (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Controversy: NO, as it's wrong to the point of being actively false. It started out as a hoax and a fraud, but most of the active supporters are gullible not criminal, so something using myth or conspiracy theory makes more sense. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Myth or conspiracy theory is best in light of this being an ongoing phenomenon rather than a discrete event in the past, which "hoax" suggests to me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Myth or Conspiracy Theory (and to a lesser extent Hoax or Fraud), Oppose "MMR vaccine and autism". UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conspiracy theory (no capitals). When having to choose between fraud and hoax, I prefer fraud. Oppose MMR vaccine and autism as per the above. Renerpho (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm seeing all of these opinions and votes, but is anyone considering WP:Common name and other things stated at the WP:Article titles policy? A number of reliable sources use the name "MMR vaccine controversy." And I don't see "controversy" as endorsing the validity of the fringe claims. "Controversy" is not meant to imply that what the overwhelming majority of scientists state about the matter is controversial. It's meant to get across the point that Wakefield caused controversy. His paper is controversial. This is a contentious topic, after all, which is what BullRangifer is stating in the #Another option, rather than move section below. The article also currently still uses the word "controversy" in parts, such as in the "Media role" and "Disease outbreaks" sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. 90% of this article should be located in an article named Andrew Wakefield MMR fraud scandal, or something like that. If we did that instead, we could clean up this article and devote it to the controversy which exists between the misinformed public and the medical/scientific community, because that controversy does exist.
This article could then have a (1) section summarizing the Wakefield/fraud article; a (2) section devoted to the misguided faux controversy, and how it is not a controversy in medical/scientific circles; and a (3) section devoted to the conspiracy theories. Other section would still exist.
I really feel that would be the right thing to do, because the current content does not match the title, and never will, no matter the title. There is far too much here about Wakefield. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

MMR-autism conspiracy theory

Reading up on this topic I came across the article Chemtrails conspiracy theory, and I wondered why this couldn't be a decent solution here as well? Carl Fredrik talk 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good suggestion. Myth is not quite as good because it suggests a literary basis. Conspiracy theory is good because it doesn't imply that promoters are knowingly committing fraud. It could be fraud or they might just be unscientific. Keep in mind that we are trying to teach people. You can't teach people by labeling them idiots at the get go. Jehochman Talk 21:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
See also World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Jehochman Talk 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose "conspiracy theory", this started as a hoax, and then misinformation(including but not limited to conspiracy theories) spread from there, so conspiracy theories are just one aspect of the fallout from this hoax. I agree that "myth" is weird though, makes me think of ancient rome. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Look at these:
  • fraud - "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. "
  • hoax - "A hoax is a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth. "
  • conspiracy theory - "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence."
  • myth - "folklore genre"
Which seems most applicable? Jehochman Talk 21:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm going with conspiracy theory because the believers resist all professional guidance, alleging that there's been a coverup. Example: Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe. Also have a look at Anti-vaccine sentiment associated with belief in conspiracy theories . Jehochman Talk 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I know a lot of anti-vaxxers think there is a conspiracy, but is that the general consensus among them? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO the term "fraud" fits well. See my comment for my explanation. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Because vaccines are government approved and mandated, people who think vaccines are harmful must inherently not believe the government or mainstream medicine. “These powerful interests aren’t telling us the truth.” Look through any anti ax literature and you will see this theme. Jehochman Talk 00:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hoax works fine and is supported by this source[8]. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

How about MMR-autism research fraud? It was Wakefield's deliberate research fraud that started this whole thing off. The BMJ called it 'fraudulent'![1] The myth and conspiracy theories grew up in the wake of this paper's fraudulent assertions. Kitb (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marcovitch, Harvey; Smith, Jane; Godlee, Fiona (6 January 2011). "Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent". BMJ. pp. c7452. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452. Retrieved 21 January 2019.

Options

Please rank the front-runners in order of preference:

  • MMR vaccine controversy (status quo)
  • MMR-autism myth
  • MMR-autism hoax
  • MMR-autism fraud
  • MMR-autism conspiracy theory

!votes

  • Conspiracy theory, hoax, myth, fraud in that order. Jehochman Talk 01:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    ...and strongly oppose any use of "controversy". That's a whitewashing word. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Fraud, hoax, myth, conspiracy theory in that order. The term, conspiracy theory, does not seem to adequately fit this article, as there is someone who clearly committed an act of wrong in order to receive a financial/personal gain (fits the definition of "fraud") -- which, I repeat, is evident that there was some time of gain acquired noting the decreased use of combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine (at the time of the study being published) and seeing that Andrew Wakefield was an anti-activist. No real "conspiracy theory" was made, but a deceiving, ethically-violating, and evidence-manipulating study was made available for the general public. "Hoax" seems like this was done humorously, which is not the case, though I'm content if "hoax" is used--while "myth" doesn't cover the erroneous and catastrophic intentions of Wakefield. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory, myth, fraud, hoax in that order. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: After reading through some of these votes I decided I DO care about one other thing: Using "controversy" is just wrong. It would be like putting that word on a Flat Earth article. It grants it unwarranted credibility. RobP (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • MMR vaccine autism hoax -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Fraud, conspiracy theory, myth, hoax. Not controversy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy Theory, Myth, Hoax, Fraud. Strongly oppose "controversy" and simply "MMR vaccine and autism" (Both of which seem to imply that there could indeed be some connection). It started as a fraud, but I don't think it conveys the info best, because Fraud (and Hoax) seems like a past tense thing that people no longer believe. Considering how long it has persisted after being exposed as a fraud, it has become both a full blown conspiracy theory, and a commonly held myth, so I think either of those descriptors would be best. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Conspiracy theory, Fraud, Hoax, Myth - Its not actually a myth, and fraud and hoax are equally valid in that it was an intentional distortion, and Fraud especially in relation to wakefield and the original lancet paper is both well sourced and technically accurate on a number of levels. However conspiracy theory is probably a more palatable title for some, even if less accurate. (specifically, the article doesnt actually articulate any 'conspiracy' - merely believing a vaccine is dangerous is not belief in a conspiracy theory, believing a vaccine is dangerous and the government is secretly covering it up would be). Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Whatever is the common name, or the clearest name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Another option, rather than move

The feeling of a need to move this article happens to be founded, whether we've realized it or not, in the fact that 90% of this article should be located in an article named Andrew Wakefield MMR fraud scandal, or something like that. If we did that instead, we could clean up this article and devote it to the controversy which exists between the misinformed public and the medical/scientific community, because that controversy does exist.

This article could then have a (1) section summarizing the Wakefield/fraud article; a (2) section devoted to the misguided faux controversy, and how it is not a controversy in medical/scientific circles; and a (3) section devoted to the conspiracy theories. Other section would still exist.

I really feel that would be the right thing to do, because the current content does not match the title, and never will, no matter the title. There is far too much here about Wakefield. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with creating a separate article for the Wakefield vaccine fraud. We could make that a child of Vaccine controversies. That article out to be renamed Vaccine hesitancy, which is the scientific term. The rest of the content could drop in there and if there's too much, additional child articles can be created. "Controversy" is a horrible word for the title because it's adopting a fringe point of view. Jehochman Talk 03:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I like that title. The WHO has just declared "vaccine hesitancy" to be one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019. See also Are Anti-Vaxxers a Major Health Threat? The World Health Organization Says Yes. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting on with it...

  • I moved vaccine controversies → vaccine hesitancy per the discussion above, and especially the WHO statement. In terms of avoiding loaded terms this is a vastly better title.
  • I moved thiomersal controversy → thiomersal and vaccines because the controversy effectively died when they took thiomersal out of the main schedule with zero effect on autism (and hence the shift to aluminium as the new reason why It's Always The Vaccines™).
  • I suggest moving this to MMR vaccine and autism as a neutral title, and framing this as a cross between a myth (which is how it started) and a deliberate hoax (which Wakefield made it) in the lede, thus:.
Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false. The link was first suggested in the early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the Andrew Wakefield MMR autism fraud (new spin-out from the sections in this article). Anti-vaccination activists still promote the claims, often citing Wakefield's original work, despite its subsequent retraction. This has led to a significant reduction in vaccination and numerous outbreaks of measles resulting in several deaths.

Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 16:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I like your lede and would like to get on with the changes as you suggest. I pulled back from your retitling of the article as you suggested but it grows on you and I see where you are headed with this. --Akrasia25 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I just wonder if Lancet MMR autism fraud would be a better title per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how "and autism" is between "myth" and "fraud". UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk · contribs) notes, correctly IMO and concurring with other users in the poll, that it is ambiguous to the point of being very overly generous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Good job! Jehochman Talk 15:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The only issue I have is that "MMR vaccine and autism" could lead someone (who doesn't read the article but just sees that it is there) to believe there might be validity in the link. I think that, in this case, a "neutral" title is giving false balance. It would be like if we re-named "9/11 conspiracy theories" to "Alternate 9/11 theories". It's a neutral title, but it gives false parity. When the article, and all reliable sources, fall so heavily on one side of the debate, the article title should reflect that, IMO. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is a concern, which I hope is addressed by a suitably robust opening sentence. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism/Archive_3&oldid=1087968266"