→The Italian case: inappropriate |
Ducatidave5 (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself |
Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself |
||
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html#ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 [[Special:Contributions/91.88.8.179|91.88.8.179]] ([[User talk:91.88.8.179|talk]]) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism |
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html#ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 [[Special:Contributions/91.88.8.179|91.88.8.179]] ([[User talk:91.88.8.179|talk]]) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism |
||
In response to your question as to why you do not see a balanced point of view within this article, it's because this article, and oher pro-vaccine leaning articles are controlled by those who would use pro-vaccine propaganda to push their own political views. There is simply more of "them" than "us." Just as the vaccine industry hides the truth regarding vaccines, so does it's brainwashed minions, who troll Wiki day and night to suppress the truth. [[User:Ducatidave5|Ducatidave5]] ([[User talk:Ducatidave5|talk]]) 14:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: It's already been mentioned in articles here (and we've seen these links before), but this source isn't considered a reliable source. You need to get your "news" from better sources than Mike Adams and Natural News. They are very partisan sources, and aren't known for accuracy, only for pushing a fringe agenda against all evidence to the contrary. Don't worry. This will be covered more fully as RS cover it. If it ends up meaning that much of the article gets revised, that will happen, regardless of the outcome. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
: It's already been mentioned in articles here (and we've seen these links before), but this source isn't considered a reliable source. You need to get your "news" from better sources than Mike Adams and Natural News. They are very partisan sources, and aren't known for accuracy, only for pushing a fringe agenda against all evidence to the contrary. Don't worry. This will be covered more fully as RS cover it. If it ends up meaning that much of the article gets revised, that will happen, regardless of the outcome. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 74: | Line 76: | ||
::::: Yes, I heard about that strange case. Fortunately, proven facts of this nature are not determined by courts of law, but by scientific research. Unfortunately anti-vaccination true believers are often clueless about such things. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 04:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::: Yes, I heard about that strange case. Fortunately, proven facts of this nature are not determined by courts of law, but by scientific research. Unfortunately anti-vaccination true believers are often clueless about such things. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 04:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::Except for Kitzmiller. Always remember Kitzmiller. [[User:SkepticalRaptor|SkepticalRaptor]] ([[User talk:SkepticalRaptor|talk]]) 05:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::::Except for Kitzmiller. Always remember Kitzmiller. [[User:SkepticalRaptor|SkepticalRaptor]] ([[User talk:SkepticalRaptor|talk]]) 05:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Arbitrary break for further [[WP:NOTAFORUM|commentary that doesn't belong here]] == |
== Arbitrary break for further [[WP:NOTAFORUM|commentary that doesn't belong here]] == |
Revision as of 14:58, 11 September 2012
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Controversy?
Is there even a controversy? Or is one side so obviously right that the other is simply politicizing the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.241.118 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Depends how you define 'controversy'. In the sense that there are still plenty of people on both sides willing to argue the issue, then I think it still qualifies as a controversy.
In the sense of a scientific controversy, then no. --GenericBob (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Proper wording of article lead
The reason this article is entitled "controversy" is because it is just that - a controversy. Although there are court-rulings on the matter, there is still an ongoing "he-said" vs "she said" issue in the general public and that needs to be recognized, whether it's an accurate discussion or not. To maintain this article's impartiality, accurate and impartial language must be used. That is why my edits reflect using the term "case study" to describe Wakefield's Lancet contribution. We in academia call the Lancet submission a "case study," not a "paper." There's a difference.
Additionally, the lead should describe what said case study did. It did not demonstrate causative proof, but rather indicated a potential connection and called for more research. The edit re: the placement of "1998" is simply on a readability basis.
Please demonstrate how my additions do not add additional information and clarity to the article. EduZenith (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- There's actually been some debate here about the term "controversy" used in this article. There's certainly no scientific controversy, and, as far as a 'he said, she said' "controversy," I'm not aware of any debate going on outside of Wakefield devotee circles (which almost universally tend to involve people w/in the anti-vaxxer movement.) Can you point to some relatively recent sources discussing this debate? (I say "recent" because, as more and more damning facts have been released about Wakefield, it appears to me that the "controversy" has become even less controversial.)
- "I am fine w/ the readability changes (I just don't think they matter either way, frankly.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- "and called for additional research into the connection." should not be necessary. Scientists always say that. The real news is when they say that a matter is closed. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason I included "called for additional research into the connection" in the edit is because a very significant portion of the said scandal is that Wakefield supposedly "proved" a link or said there was one between MMR and autism in the Lancet article He didn't do this, even though both sides of the autism argument say he did. It's important to elucidate this fact. This point is worth further discussion.
As for the "controversy" issue I'll have to get back to you all on that.
Also, can we at least agree to include "case study" (vs report - more descriptive and more precise), "1998 publication" (vs publication in 1998 - fewer words and better readability)? EduZenith (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Could you explain the difference between a "paper" and a "case study". I though the latter was a type of the former but I'm willing to learn something new. Preferably with sources. I think, for the lead sentence, the extra precision of "case study" isn't particularly useful compared with the potential problems of that jargon confusing the reader (for example, there were many patients in the study so the reader might also get confused over the singular/plural).
- As far as "controversy" goes, I've commented on this before. IMO there was a scientific controversy even though many here will claim there wasn't. Yes, many/most/nearly-all [take your pic] scientists didn't believe it but that didn't stop a huge amount of research money and time and people being spent/wasted establishing/discovering there was nothing in it. I think the "controversy" is essentially historical both in the scientific field and the lay one. The quality TV and newspapers now always prefix the research with "discredited" or similar. Those who claim there remains a controversy are really just on the fringe now.
- Remember the lead is supposed to summarise the body. If there's a point missed by the body text, then let's improve that first. There are lots of points that could be mentioned in the lead (such as your "further research" one) but the line has to be drawn somewhere and the issue is whether that is essential to grasp what the subject is. Colin°Talk 09:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Addition of the "further research" is not helpful, as Wakefield has done his best to promote the theory (going to alt med autism conferences, etc) that trying to make it appear now that he has been circumspect about the theory looks incredibly naive at this point. I also do not see the relevance to changing paper to case study, as case studies are a type of research paper and does not really increase the reader knowledge of it, and can confuse the reader. Yobol (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, at one point, it appeared Wakefield may have been (in part) the victim of an over-zealous press, attributing beliefs to him that he had not clearly enunciated. I heard a few people (several years ago) defending Wakefield on this point. However, once Wakefield started appearing as a speaker at anti-vaxer conferences, etc, it became clear that the media had it right (or, if the media had put words in his mouth, Wakefield was quick to make the fiction a reality.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Addition of the "further research" is not helpful, as Wakefield has done his best to promote the theory (going to alt med autism conferences, etc) that trying to make it appear now that he has been circumspect about the theory looks incredibly naive at this point. I also do not see the relevance to changing paper to case study, as case studies are a type of research paper and does not really increase the reader knowledge of it, and can confuse the reader. Yobol (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Why has this not been included?
These FACTS are important for anyone researching the MMR Autsim link. Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html#ixzz1vRz4IFom
and
Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html#ixzz1vS0NxMmf
AND
Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html#ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 91.88.8.179 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism
In response to your question as to why you do not see a balanced point of view within this article, it's because this article, and oher pro-vaccine leaning articles are controlled by those who would use pro-vaccine propaganda to push their own political views. There is simply more of "them" than "us." Just as the vaccine industry hides the truth regarding vaccines, so does it's brainwashed minions, who troll Wiki day and night to suppress the truth. Ducatidave5 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's already been mentioned in articles here (and we've seen these links before), but this source isn't considered a reliable source. You need to get your "news" from better sources than Mike Adams and Natural News. They are very partisan sources, and aren't known for accuracy, only for pushing a fringe agenda against all evidence to the contrary. Don't worry. This will be covered more fully as RS cover it. If it ends up meaning that much of the article gets revised, that will happen, regardless of the outcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- The anti-vaccine lunacy is so desperate to find something, anything to support their beliefs, because they are totally lack any evidence supporting any link between MMR vaccines and Autism. The IP editor keeps using that word fact. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Even if Wakefield were to get his license to practice medicine back again, it would not mean he was correct. There would still be no evidence of a link between vaccinations and autism. A reversal of the judgment against him could happen because of some possible procedural error or other technicality. Such things happen all the time. If it were to happen, antivaxers would still claim it meant he was right, which would be a very large logical fallacy. A parallel situation is the chiropractic profession's (mis)use of the Wilk v. American Medical Association finding. They claim it justifies their claims, but the judge expressly said it didn't, and that the AMA's claims that chiropractic was quackery and unscientific were justified and understandable. Their only mistake was carrying on an illegal boycott against chiropractic, when other methods might have been better. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I just wrote an article about how the anti-vaccine lunacy now has grabbed onto a court ruling in a small city in Italy that awarded damages to some parents who claim that MMR caused their child's autism. The judge ruled because of the Lancet article and refused to allow the retraction into evidence. If you heard a loud noise a couple of hours ago, it was my facepalm. Remember, logical fallacies are the bailiwick of pseudoscience. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I heard about that strange case. Fortunately, proven facts of this nature are not determined by courts of law, but by scientific research. Unfortunately anti-vaccination true believers are often clueless about such things. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Except for Kitzmiller. Always remember Kitzmiller. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I heard about that strange case. Fortunately, proven facts of this nature are not determined by courts of law, but by scientific research. Unfortunately anti-vaccination true believers are often clueless about such things. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break for further commentary that doesn't belong here
Thanks for the input but I’m still concerned we are missing something here. And I do try to look at other "news" sources - perhaps the FDA is better. Lets try this: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm
Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)
Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2000 Lazarou J et al. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200–1205 Gurwitz JH et al. Am J Med 2000;109(2):87–94
Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly 100,000 DEATHS yearly ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths Ambulatory patients ADR rate—unknown Nursing home patients ADR rate— 350,000 yearly
Of the 100,000 DEATHS yearly it would be interesting to know how many are from vaccinations. Do we have more information on this? 100k deaths is a scary number! And 2 MILLION serious ADRs per year – what is serious? Is autism part of the “serious” ADRs?
I use the word “fact” because the Judge has ruled it thus. Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that Prof. Walker-Smith's striking "cannot stand" because of serious misconduct in the way General Medical Council (GMC) handled the case against him, and that the entire council needs to be reformed. Refer: http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/professor-john-walker-smith-exonerated-in-autism-mmr-case.html
logical fallacy - Why do we need to vaccinate everyone? You talk of logical fallacy – so perhaps someone can help with this: "vaccination only works if you do it to everybody". But surely if you are VACCINATED you do NOT need to worry about those that are NOT VACCINATED…? It implies you can get sick even if you are already vaccinated. So why do we need to vaccinate? Polio proves we cannot eradicate a virus (as was touted by WHO) and what a failure that has become. Refer 47,000 children in India with non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) which is Polio caused by the Polio vaccination. Refer: http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html
The CDC dropped the OPV from its vaccine schedule in the US because it was causing polio. In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio (NPAFP) in the United States. Refer: Shaw D. Unintended casualties in war on polio. Philadelphia Inquirer June 6, 1993:A1.
And what about this: Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). These people have been proven to lie and promote things that are NOT good for our society. I’m sure we are all aware of the facts without recourse to the multitude of references that support the statement. But, just to be neutral we’ll say the allegedly corrupt Murdoch empire's Sunday Times is run by Rupert Murdoch's son James. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer. James Murdoch is even on GSKs board of directors.
James allegedly hired a freelance hack journalist, Brian Deer, to fabricate the Wakefield fabrication. It created a firestorm in London that ignited another vaccine promoter, Dr. Fiona Godlee, who happens to be the editor in chief for the British Journal of Medicine…
The statement, “One can deny the facts but one cannot deny the consequences of denying the facts” seems relevant here. The earth was believed to be flat, then a new belief was discovered; It’s round! Now we all believe it’s round. Is the same scenario happening with vaccinations? Is the vaccination facade breaking down? It seems many are seeing a eugenics motive behind the call to vaccinate. That will have major repercussions. Perhaps we will see more of the MMR link to Autism in the near future. I would not like to be implicated if the link is proven: To hurt a child is a sin with repercussions – regardless of ones’ beliefs. 91.88.226.134 (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism
I should have stopped reading as soon as I saw a link to Natural News presented as evidence...as for the deaths from vaccines, it's like pointing to the number of deaths caused by motorcycle helmets falling off a shelf and hitting someone in the head to argue that motorcyclists are therefore better off not wearing a helmet. I don't think Wikipedia is necessarily the best place to educate people with a complete lack of understanding of science and medicine.JoelWhy (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I should have stopped when the IP editor brought up Adverse Drug Reactions without actually knowing what it means, and without actually understanding the analysis. I should have stopped prior to the point that the IP editor defends Wakefield, who committed a fraud by somehow tying Brian Deer to Rupert Murdoch. That is hysterical. The Lancet retracted the bogus article. We're done here.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The Italian case
I thought I'd start this as a place to discuss rather than edit war, as I know there are many editors with strong views on vaccines.
The Italian ruling appears to be very recent though I couldn't find a date.
I'm not sure the best way of including this here, I did my best. Its an ongoing story and could well drastically change this article. Cjwilky (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
--I have looked a little into this and so far I'm having difficulty finding a primary source that actually discusses what happened. A lot of third-rate rags seem to have covered essentially the same story but none of them actually cite a source or give you anything to follow on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.203.174 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- So, we should add a decision from a minor Italian provincial court that apparently set aside ALL scientific evidence as something that deserves weight in this article? I think not. A real court, such as the US Vaccine Court, which actually does weigh in with scientific evidence, has not approved of any cases, but I believe one, that directly links MMR and anything. There is no debate, unless by debate we mean there's a group over on one side who tends to ignore all scientific evidence, and decides to whine loudly that without this evidence they have to invent shit, and there's this other side, that has not only not found a link that vaccines cause neurodegenerative diseases, but in fact, show that vaccines don't cause neurodegenerative diseases. So sure, let's discuss this minor little case in Italy because it has no substance. And while were at it, let's move on to the other fake debates of evolution and global warming where science is completely in agreement, but we can "reignite controversy" because those without evidence keep reigniting. I get to use that particular strawman argument because the same exact tactics are used by vaccine denialists, evolution denialists, and global warming denialists. So, unless there's some real science that was uncovered in the Italian decision (and there wasn't in the review of the case…which was reviewed by plenty of individuals), let's move on. But seriously, if you found some real science in that case, bring it. But I've already reviewed it. I'm pretty confident I'll win. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I stopped reading around the time you suggested using the Daily Mail as a source. Its medical coverage is an embarrassment even by the standards of tabloid journalism. On a related note, I have a (somewhat outdated) list of medical articles which cite the Mail as a source here, if anyone wants to help me go through and improve their referencing. MastCell Talk 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)