Scientizzle (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 546: | Line 546: | ||
:I'd argue that it does a disservice to readers to not properly identify an organization that actively eschews scientific evidence and promotes a variety of medical nonsense. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; the present version answers both your concerns and mine. — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 16:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
:I'd argue that it does a disservice to readers to not properly identify an organization that actively eschews scientific evidence and promotes a variety of medical nonsense. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; the present version answers both your concerns and mine. — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 16:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Perhaps it would be more neutral to call GR an antivaccine advocacy group ''and blender vendor''. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 16:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:12, 29 July 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
Attribution to Deer
A lot of this article is cited to Brian Deer; we need to check it for attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It might be important to point out that Deer is using as source, and summarizing, materials reviewed and reported on (I'm not sure that the correct word is "published") by the General Medical Council, including the medical records of the twelve children, and drafts of the paper, which enabled the Council to see that Wakefield had changed the paper to misrepresent and contradict what was in the Royal Free Hospital's medical records, e.g. changing a finding of normal bowel histology to abnormal and changing the dates when problems were noted from before the vaccine was given, or months after, to just after. —Monado (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, generally attribution needs to be checked throughout-- I haven't done it, for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Aftermath of fraud charges
Many physicians, journals, and editors are making statements, some of whom make direct ties between Wakefield's fraudulent actions and various epidemics and deaths, laying the blame directly at his feet:
- BMJ Lifts Curtain on MMR-Autism Fraud, By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
More articles of interest:
- The fraud behind the MMR scare, Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ, BMJ 2011; 342:d22 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d22 (Published 6 January 2011)
- Brian Deer: Piltdown medicine: The missing link between MMR and autism, 6 Jan, 11 | by BMJ Group
- Link between MMR Vaccines and Autism conclusively broken, By IB Times Staff Reporter | January 7, 2011 4:01 AM EST
- BMJ Declares Vaccine-Autism Study 'an Elaborate Fraud', 1998 Lancet Study Not Bad Science but Deliberate Fraud, Claims Journal, By Nicky Broyd, WebMD Health News, Reviewed by Farah Ahmed, MD Jan. 6, 2011
Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Deaths
"That paper killed four children" in Europe, reported by CBS News and elsewhere, and caused 125,000 children in the US not to receive vaccinations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The study discussed by Michael Smith:
- Smith MJ, Ellenberg SS, Bell LM, Rubin DM (2008). "Media coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism controversy and its relationship to MMR immunization rates in the United States". Pediatrics. 121 (4): e836–43. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1760. PMID 18381512.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Smith MJ, Ellenberg SS, Bell LM, Rubin DM (2008). "Media coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism controversy and its relationship to MMR immunization rates in the United States". Pediatrics. 121 (4): e836–43. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1760. PMID 18381512.
- The deaths discussed by Offit:
- McBrien J, Murphy J, Gill D, Cronin M, O'Donovan C, Cafferkey MT (2003). "Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000". Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 22 (7): 580–4. doi:10.1097/01.inf.0000073059.57867.36. PMID 12867830.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a long-time critic of the dangers of the anti-vaccine movement who has written a book on the subject, Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. "Study linking vaccines to autism is 'fraudulent'". Time. 2011-01-06. Retrieved 2011-01-07.
- McBrien J, Murphy J, Gill D, Cronin M, O'Donovan C, Cafferkey MT (2003). "Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000". Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 22 (7): 580–4. doi:10.1097/01.inf.0000073059.57867.36. PMID 12867830.
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Vaccination stats in the US:
- Jasek, Marissa (2011-01-06). "Healthwatch: Disputed autism study sparks debate about vaccines". WWAY Newschannel 3. Retrieved 2011-01-07.
Since Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study was released in 1998, many parents have been convinced the measels, mumps and rubella vaccine could lead to autism. But that study may have done more harm than good. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than any year since 1997. More than 90 percent of those infected had not been vaccinated, or their vaccination status was not known.
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have prepared a new subsection for this to be added at the end of the Consequences of fraud section. Just fill it up! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
All of this is in the article now; can this section be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Lead sentence
The first sentence in the article was changed, and is quite awkward now:
- Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher known for his claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps and rubella), autism and inflammatory bowel disease, and for a well publicised 1998 study, that he led, that seemed to show that a connection existed.
Since it's on the mainpage, I suggest we fix it soon, perhaps to something like:
- Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher known for controversial claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps and rubella), autism and inflammatory bowel disease in a well-publicised 1998 study led by him that has been declared fraudulent.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. That's much better. I'd add "his" before "controversial claims".
- I still think that "former" is too uninformative. There are numerous innocent reasons for why a physician might be described as "former". In this case we need an informative word. I suggested "delicensed", while another suggested the awkward British technical expression "struck off". Whatever we use, it needs to be made plain right at the beginning that he was forcibly defrocked for misconduct (unfortunately that expression is used only for clergy). -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would say that "former" is sufficient. Remember that we don't need to fit everything in the first few words of the lede. The end of the first sentence notes that the study was fraudulent, the second paragraph covers the highlights of his unethical conduct, and the entire third paragraph (still well 'above the fold') is devoted to the GMC's findings and the (well-deserved) delicensing. We don't need to bash our readers over their heads in order to persuade them of Wakefield's recklessness, and we shouldn't write our article on the assumption that they won't get past the first sentence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with either "former" or "disgraced", but I feel that this may be slightly awkward: "... well-publicised 1998 study led by him that has been declared fraudulent"
- How about adding a couple of commas and tweaking a word: "well-publicised 1998 study, led by him, which has been declared fraudulent"
- I think that would read more clearly. We might even go a step further and split the "fraudulent" into a follow-on sentence. Comments / complaints? bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Somebody has since updated the current lede, new word bolded:
- "Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent claims of a causative connection..."
- Now, I'm no fan of Wakefield, but even though we have reliable independent sources saying Bad Things about him, we shouldn't try to cram it all into the first sentence. That may tend to make the start of article look more like an editorial or polemic. I'd like to suggest that we have might use either "disgraced", or "fraudulent" in the opening sentence, but not both. Would that be an acceptable compromise to people? bobrayner (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is his fraudulent claims for which he is known, and which underlie his notability. I think it is important at the first mention of his claims to make their status clear. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No one fixed the redundancies in the lead for the entire first day it was on the mainpage, so I just did. This article really needs expansion-- I'm surprised that being on the mainpage has resulted in no improvement or expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
"Consequences of fraud" section title
I'm not sure if that is the best title for that section. The events in that section occurred while most people were under the impression that Wakefield was merely wrong and unethical, not fraudulent. NW (Talk) 22:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. He wasn't struck off for fraud, and AFAICT the Lancet didn't quite allege fraud either ('fraud' implies intent to deceive, whereas 'false claims' can be the result of gross incompetence). I've changed the title to better describe the section. --GenericBob (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is the nature of Wikipedia articles that they are updated to keep up with the latest evidence and sources. We now know that there was fraud all along, so the heading should say so.
- The subheadings break it down and show a progression, with the last subheading (hidden until the content is provided) providing the ultimate consequence, the deaths and injuries to children. The main heading only limits it to consequences to him personally. That's too limited. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed the hidden placeholder until now. For my money it makes better sense to separate out discussion of the consequences to Wakefield from the broader consequences; certainly until that section is actually written it doesn't have a bearing on article structure.
- We know now that his work was fraudulent, but it's misleading to say that he was struck off as a consequence of the fraud. It was in large part a consequence of his failure to disclose interests, mistreating his patients, bypassing hospital ethics rules, and buying blood from kids at a birthday party (seriously, wtf?) We already note the fraud in the article lede and in the BMJ's findings; it's not like it's being hidden from readers. --GenericBob (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good points. Okay, carry on. The article is being developed and updated nicely. This isn't finished yet since the story is being covered by even more sources and Brian Deer's three articles aren't all available yet. It will be interesting what his investigations reveal. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Call for extradition
I'm not sure of the status of this Forbes blog. It may be rated as RS if it's Whelan's column and he's a respected journalist:
- Extradite Andrew Wakefield To Face Fraud Charges In The UK, David Whelan, Jan. 5, 2011
Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just one guy calling for it. Might be worth including if there's more pressure from others. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The parent's lawsuits would be a civil matter, and I doubt extradition can occur for that. The lawyers that paid him could theoretically have a case, but I doubt it. The journals like the Lancet might have a case for the loss of reputation, but again, I doubt that extradition would occur over it. I've never heard of someone being extradited for something like this.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- He may be liable for criminal charges relating to the unethical and unnecessary procedures on children. The payments he received from the Legal Aid Board could also conceivably result in criminal proceedings, as could any statement he made under oath in his failed libel action against Channel 4 et al.. We should also remember that extradition from the US to the UK is much harder to get than extradition from the UK to the US. However, this is all speculation at this stage, and in the absence of anything more concrete should stay off the article. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree-- we need to give due weight to sources, and we don't yet see a number of secondary reliable sources raising this issue. Further, do we even know what kind of residency Wakefield has in the US? If he's in the US on a Green card, and is found guilty of something, extradition wouldn't even be necessary-- he could be deported. For now, it's all speculative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Correct categorization, please
Please don't add "2011 scandals" or similar categories to this article. There are two types of categories: set categories and topic categories. Set categories are generally in the plural, such as "2011 scandals". To fit into that category, the article has to describe a scandal. It desn't, it describes a person, and people cannot be categorized as scandals.
However, the article on Mr. Wakefield fits into the category of "MMR vaccine controversy", since it is a topic category. The article on the controversy fits both in its namesake category and the "2011 scandals" category, since it both is part of the topic and can be categorized as a scandal.
See WP:CATEGORY.
Thanks.
HandsomeFella (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I read that page (which is only a guideline) and can't decipher a reason for removing useful categories from this page; please quote the exact portions referenced, and explain why the guideline should overrule common sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you don't mean to say that the guideline contradicts common sense (would not be good news if it did). For an article to fit into a set category - such as the "2011 scandals" - it has to be an occurrence of what the category name indicates. Mr. Wakefield isn't a scandal (other than colloquially), the vaccine fraud is one. If we categorize all kinds of people, both purps and victims, into categories like this, first it wouldn't make sense, for reasons already stated above (and in the guideline), second it would clutter the category with people articles (since most of the time more than one person is involved in a scandal), making it hard to distinguish the scandals themselves.
- What do you expect when you view a set category? You expect occurrences of what the category name indicates. Try the set category of "Olympic ice hockey players", for instance. You have to be one to fit into it.
- HandsomeFella (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did mean to say that-- assuming isn't usually helpful, common sense frequently overrules guidelines, which are not policy. You haven't quoted the portion of the guideline that backs your assertion, and I can't locate it-- please do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Academic scandals contains a number of individuals. __meco (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unless the HandsomeFella can explain his cat deletions, they need to be re-added, per common sense and no guideline negating them. GorgeousBabe. 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the point is that when there exists a separate article on the scandal, these categories go there. In many cases, however, the scandal is discussed in one or more sections in the biographical article, and then they must go there or otherwise the scandal doesn't get categorized at all. __meco (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- GorgeousBabe and HandsomeFella....amusing. :) LeftCoastMan (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, categorization in WP is probably not an exact science, but I think bullet point 1 proves what I'm trying to say: "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs."
In categories such as "2011 scandals" you'd expect events, because that is what scandals are by nature. Persons are not events. That's where logic comes into it, if you ask me.
Yes, there are probably pages that aren't categorized along this way of reasoning, but the cause could be that no-one (so far) has been "enforcing" this with any vigour. It does not disprove my point.
Check this category for a parallel: Category:Political scandals in the United States. Wouldn't you say that it's much easier to find what you search for in this category than it would have been if it had been filled with all persons significantly involved in the scandals listed there?
This is the best way I explain my cat deletions. But if there is a majority against me, then I will not delete them again. Btw, GorgeousBabe, would asking for your telephone number be going too far? ;-)
HandsomeFella (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I left WP a while ago. People pushing illogical and silly agendas, pretending to be one thing, but really not. You're obviously here to clear Wakefield's name. If I had my way, I put him on the Mass Murderer category for all the deaths he caused by parents not vaccinating their children. Technically, he's one of the worst serial killers ever. So there. If we're going to push agendas, may as well push one that makes some sense. LeftCoastMan (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not here to to clear anyone's name. That is an insult. I don't know the guy, and I have no reason to believe other than what is reported in media. If you continue with argumentum ad hominem, we will not miss you in WP. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, so we have no guideline-based or common sense reason for deleting the categories, they should go back. We do know who's gorgeous at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that common sense is subjective. And guideline-based or common sense reasons would go for both adding and deleting cats, wouldn't they? Did you read the quite nuanced discussion on the talkpage of the category I mentioned above? It's good reading. Category talk:Political scandals in the United States, section "Inclusion Criteria".
- As far as I've understood, Wakefield isn't involved in any other scandal, is he? And he's already placed in the category "MMR vaccine fraud", so what's the point of putting him in the "2011 scandals" category?
- Maybe this discussion could be continued elsewhere, on a "higher" level (I mean in a broader context, WP-somewhere)? HandsomeFella (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Struck from record
Were Murch and Walker-Smith (co-authors) also struck after the investigation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have to read up, but several of the co-authors have retracted their "authorship." LeftCoastMan (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at our article on the MMR vaccine controversy, the GMC decided to strike off both Wakefield and Walker-Smith. (The GMC's Medical Register web site confirms this.) The full Determination by the GMC regarding Murch is here, the statements from page 6 are particularly relevant:
- The Panel acknowledged that Professor Murch’s status within the department at the time of events in 1996, was that of a relatively junior consultant and that he would attach significant weight to the opinion he was given by Professor Walker-Smith.
- The Panel accepted the expert evidence of Professor Booth, that a colonoscopist would have a low threshold for carrying out a colonoscopy that had been requested by a more senior colleague who had many more years of experience in assessing children. The Panel also accepted that it could not criticise Professor Murch for making an assumption that an investigation was clinically indicated if ordered by Professor Walker-Smith as it is appropriate to “respect the skills and contributions of your colleagues”, as indicated in the 1995 edition of Good Medical Practice.
- The Panel concluded Professor Murch acted in good faith albeit it has found he was in error. His actions, although comparable to professional misconduct in respect of undertaking procedures which were not clinically indicated, were mitigated by the fact that he was under a false impression that they were clinically indicated and this could not reach the threshold of serious professional misconduct.
- In relation to the Lancet paper, Panel has found that Professor Murch was not a senior author of that paper.
- The Panel noted that in the press briefing held at the Royal Free Hospital immediately prior to publication of the Lancet Paper, Professor Murch spoke to the findings. Professor Zuckerman, the Dean of the Royal Free hospital at the time, in giving evidence to the Panel, testified that Professor Murch vigorously presented the view that the findings in this research were not sufficient to advise discontinuation of the MMR vaccine. Professor Murch was also instrumental in the retraction of the interpretation that had been placed on The Lancet article by the media. In dealing with the repercussions of the Lancet paper and their possible impact on public health policy, the Panel considered that Professor Murch behaved professionally and responsibly.
- In other words, there is every indication that Murch was a competent and responsible doctor who trusted too much in his mentor, Walker-Smith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I read in one source that Walker-Smith was also struck, but don't recall which. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The footnote in the MMR vaccine controversy article cites Sanchez, Raf; Rose, David (2010-05-25). "Dr Andrew Wakefield struck off medical register". The Times (London). Unfortunately, as with most Times links, the URL seems broken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I saw it in one of the sources on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The footnote in the MMR vaccine controversy article cites Sanchez, Raf; Rose, David (2010-05-25). "Dr Andrew Wakefield struck off medical register". The Times (London). Unfortunately, as with most Times links, the URL seems broken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I read in one source that Walker-Smith was also struck, but don't recall which. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Found this, adding now, but should switch it to a more enduring source when one is found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do we actually need any additional sources – beyond the official GMC determination – for Murch not being struck off? In addition to being 'straight from the horse's mouth', as it were, I would expect that the public record of a GMC hearing is much less likely to disappear behind a paywall or other hindrance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- And, for convenience, the GMC determination which did erase Walker-Smith from the Register: [1]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Like many sources originally used in this article, the GMC documents are primary sources; secondary sources that discuss primary sources are preferable, although we can also link the primary sources. The way this article was built over the years, before secondary sources were available, it probably overrelied on primary sources. Since secondary sources are now available, they should be used. NPOV requires us to present all sides of the story according due weight to reliable secondary sources-- the General Council/Deer story is the main story, but we should still reduce reliance upon them as primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
POV Junk
One line reads, "The Institute of Medicine (IOM),[54] along with the CDC, NIH, and Food and Drug Administration (and their British counterparts) continue to deny that any link has been found between vaccines and autism." Denialism is the world of the anti-vaccination nutters. This should read "...have found no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism." They are not denying a link exists. No peer-reviewed journal has shown one. Nothing to deny.
Denialists are trying to conflate skepticism with denialism. Shouldn't be allowed here. LeftCoastMan (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree (but have to check the sources to reflect what they say). And by the way, the article includes no response from Wakefield, someone should find and add something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- We can't take the default position of accepting what was written and trying to debunk it. The FDA and CDC are certainly not denialists, so I doubt they would use that language. I have yet to read anything by Wakefield, just TV spots. Usually he's stammering because he's being attacked, so I suppose he might write something. LeftCoastMan (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's a response here, and I imagine more can be found at CNN. Someone should add something: I have a cold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- More here; I don't feel well enough to add any more content today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at what I could in the Google snippets of his book, Callous Disregard, and naturally, he refutes every point, but I can't read much of it on Google. Does anyone have the book or want to get it? We need to discuss which portions of his response need to be represented, for neutrality (and how do we do that, considering fraud has been shown? What weight do we give to his word?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do we have a decent article on a non-violent criminal who pleaded not-guilty or denied charges against them despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? (I'm thinking Bernie Madoff, but I can't remember properly what he did in response to the investigations). If so, we could try to do what that article did. If we don't have anything to go off on, I'm thinking perhaps two paragraphs in the response subsection—one on his book and one on other responses? NW (Talk) 05:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll snoop and ask around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Video inline
The link added (incorrectly) here hangs my computer-- anyone else? We don't place links inline; if it's any good, it belongs in External links, but I can't see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's back, now as a Youtube, but still as an external jump within the text. If we're considering Youtube a reliable source these days, at best, it belongs in external links, but not as an external jump linked within the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Washington Times copyvio
In verifying Wakefield's birthdate, I found two sources that indicated 1957, and updated the article.[2] While continuing to look for bio info, I found that The Washington Times appears to have lifted its text from Wiki's version with an unsourced birthdate.
See Washington Times and around this version of our article.
We've had similar wording for a very long time (July 2007 and January 6 this year when I started editing to add new news), and many of us have tweaked it here many times-- I've no doubt we didn't take it from them, they took it from us, without proper attribution and licensing.
And now, their information is wrong, according to other sources, which say his birthyear is 1957.
Andrew Wakefield Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and researcher best known for his discredited work regarding the MMR vaccine and its claimed connection with autism and inflammatory bowel disease. Wakefield was the lead author of a 1998 study, published in The Lancet, which reported bowel symptoms in twelve children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, to which the authors suggested a possible link with the MMR vaccine. Though stating, "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described," the paper adopted alleged parental allegations as fact for the purpose of calculating a temporal link between receipt of the vaccine and the first onset of what were described as "behavioural symptoms".
Also, the Washington Times entry only recently showed up on Google, and was apparently created after the January 6 revelations, and includes only that info. Their Google entry when I found it showed a January 6 date:
Andrew Wakefield - Bio, News, Photos - Washington TimesJan 6, 2011 ... Latest news and commentary on Andrew Wakefield including photos, videos, quotations, and a biography. www3.washingtontimes.com/topics/andrew-wakefield/ - Cached
In case someone is inclined to contact them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Curiously, our article when created had a 1957 birthdate, that was changed by an IP in 2006 to 1956. I find no discussion or attempt to source the birthdate before I sourced it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- us:
Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher best known for controversy over his claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease.
- them:
Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and researcher best known for his discredited work regarding the MMR vaccine and its claimed connection with autism and inflammatory bowel disease.
- While close paraphrasing, the copied elements are hardly creative and it is only a single sentence. What would you want achieve by contacting them? Yoenit (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- You missed the most important-- they copied unsourced, incorrect info (birthdate is 1957, not 1956, according to other sources). I'd think The Washington Times would want to know which of their esteemed journalists did that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am sure they do. So this is actually more about them not checking their facts rather than a copyvio problem? Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm busy trying to verify the accuracy of our article and improve it and expand it; do you have something useful to add here? For example, whether anything else printed by the Washington Times is an unverified mirror? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am sure they do. So this is actually more about them not checking their facts rather than a copyvio problem? Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- You missed the most important-- they copied unsourced, incorrect info (birthdate is 1957, not 1956, according to other sources). I'd think The Washington Times would want to know which of their esteemed journalists did that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- While close paraphrasing, the copied elements are hardly creative and it is only a single sentence. What would you want achieve by contacting them? Yoenit (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Medical Interventions for Autism (MIA)
Some of Wakefield's bios say he serves on the board of the charity, Medical Interventions for Autism. The only thing I can find about that group is this; I wonder if it's still alive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Wakefield's response and reactions to it
We should include Wakefield's own explanations for his innocence against the accusations that have been proven against him. "Wakefield called Deer a hitman" fails to elaborate Wakefield's specific explanations for the individual charges that have been laid against him. Timeofmind (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a link to a response written by Dr. Wakefield to Deers specific allegations: http://www.rescuepost.com/files/wakefield_press_release_bmj-deer1.pdf . Including Wakefield's responses to Deers proven allegation of "data fixing" seems rather fitting for this section of the article. Timeofmind (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, this is an interesting situation. Since the only question of reliability here is whether Wakefield himself actually issued the statements that were cited; the most reliable source for such statements would be Wakefield himself. It seems the fringers that follow him are the most likely one's to spread his statements around and so are the most likely sources to find statements issued by him... Does Wakefield have his own website? Would that be considered a reliable source to cite Wakefield's own statements? (I would think so, since I find it rather impossible that he could issue a statement that he doesn't support) Timeofmind (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- You can find some of Wakefield's own words, in his defense, in a page on whale.to called "Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words". The blacklist won't let me post the full URL, and I'm not surprised - much of the rest of that site is a profoundly unreliable source. However, if you can see a Youtube video of Wakefield saying stuff (and it's not heavily edited), plus a transcript, and it's on a site that supports Wakefield, I think that's a perfectly good source for Wakefield's own comments on the subject. Alternatively just go straight to youtube, or here. bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- If Wakefield has his own website, it is considered a RS for his own POV and we could cite it here. It wouldn't necessarily be considered a RS in other articles. I'd be cautious of Youtube. Yes, whale.to is blacklisted for good reason and I think its webmaster is banned here. He was very active. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I too would normally share your caution about youtube, but if it's a video of Wakefield facing a camera and talking for a few minutes about these issues, I think that's a good source for Wakefield's beliefs on these issues. The usual concerns about youtube are eroded in a situation like this - how could it be an unreliable source unless somebody has knocked up a CGI impersonation of wakefield and painstakingly dubbed it with plausible-but-false words in an appropriate accent? :-)
- But, hey, if the community doesn't accept the youtube videos, I'll just stand back. I'm not aware of any other good sources on the subject. Any bio page hosted by an organisation that supports Wakefield is likely to gloss over or distort the fraud allegations, and I can't remember (offhand) any direct quotes in mainstream newsmedia. bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- If Wakefield has his own website, it is considered a RS for his own POV and we could cite it here. It wouldn't necessarily be considered a RS in other articles. I'd be cautious of Youtube. Yes, whale.to is blacklisted for good reason and I think its webmaster is banned here. He was very active. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just stumbled upon this Lancet article MMR—responding to retraction by Andrew J Wakefield, Peter Harvey, and John Linnell. It provides good insight into Wakefield's reasoning behind his defense. It should definitely be cited and included here. Timeofmind (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is seven years old, and significant findings have emerged since then; does anyone see anything useful in there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
An article for comparison - Charles Smith
While the cases are by no means identical, it may be instructive – or at least constructive – to compare our handling of this article with our biography of another disgraced physician, Charles Randal Smith. Smith had a 20-year career as a pediatric forensic pathologist working out of a prestigious Canadian hospital, but had a rather nasty habit of interpreting ambiguous or even exculpatory physical evidence as signs of abuse or shaken baby syndrome. Smith's dubious conclusions in twenty cases led to at least thirteen convictions. He resigned (presumably under pressure) in 2005, but insists to this day that any failings of his were unintentional, and that his life's purpose remains "finding out the truth for parents who have lost babies" ([3]). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Smith article reads like a hit piece. We need to remember our ethical responsibilities when it comes to BLP articles, "Do no harm." It's not appropriate for us (and I'm not specifically referring to any one editor) to try to use Wikipedia to bring people "to justice." Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- One should be very careful in attempting to "do no harm" (interesting that we would allude to primum non nocere in dealing with unethical physicians...). It does not mean that we do not report openly and honestly negative facts about biographical subjects, nor does it demand that readers of our biographies must always leave an article with a positive impression of the subject. Where appropriate, we should give the subjects the benefit of the doubt, but we do our readers and our project a disservice if we misrepresent the level of doubt regarding an individual's (mis)conduct. With both Smith and Wakefield, Wikipedia is not being used as to bring individuals "to justice", nor as an instrument of vengeance.
- In Wakefield's case, when his actions came to light they were condemned in the strongest possible terms by his peers and by organizations most qualified to make such evaluations, in terms that left no room for doubt. His science was harshly criticized by two highly-respected journals (The Lancet and BMJ); his medical ethics were found grossly wanting by the UK's governing body for physicians. Medical licenses are not withdrawn lightly. In Smith's case, his dubious pathological findings sent more than a dozen innocent people – often traumatized parents who had just lost a child – to prison. His irresponsible actions were reviewed by colleagues, the provincial attorney general's office, the province's chief coroner, and as part of a public inquiry; he was reprimanded by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and is currently under suspension by the College, awaiting a final disposition. To borrow your colorful phrase, these people have already been "brought to justice"; we now have a responsiblity to straightforwardly report on that. In pursuit of balance, we must be careful not to trip over Okrent's Law. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Wakefield's side in the lede
An editor removed the addition of Wakefield's side from the lede. This article is biography of Wakefield, so why wouldn't his side be notable enough for the lede? It was only a single sentence stating that Wakefield has continued to defend himself. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That one statement didn't do much to tell his side of the story (and fraudulent as it may be, it still needs to be here); I'm not sure how it helps our readers, since many charged with criminal conduct continue to assert their innocence. Our readers need to know how and why. For those who asked above, I'll add again-- his side of the story is told in his book, Callous Disregard, which has only minimal snips available on Google. Someone needs to get the book so we can discuss how much due weight to give to a story that has been shown to be fraudulent and that contains multiple contradictions, but we still need to include something somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- When I read the lede with its long list of harsh criticisms of Wakefield, my first thought was, "So, what does Wakefield say or what has he done about all this?" Perhaps one sentence isn't sufficient, but in a bio about the guy I would think that his side is notable enough to be summarized in the lede along with others' opinions of him and his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- One sentence isn't enough, but it will have to suffice until 1) someone gets his book, or 2) an online reliable source produces something. I agree with this addition for now; we can't just completely fail to say anything about his side of the story. But I question this; he was stripped of his medical credentials because of the fraud, so why is it only "accused"? It's proven?? Who else would prove it besides the governing board that struck him from the medical register? And he is known for this ... how can we meet in the middle here-- alternate wording suggestion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Um, can we get some discussion here? The difference isn't really significant enough to edit war over; some middle-ground wording should be possible, talking would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68's removal of the reference to fraud in the lead seriously unbalances the article and has the effect of biasing it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a huge difference, it's semantics, and suggest our time would be better spent in finding wording acceptable to both, or at least discussing it. In fact, until we add something about Wakefield's side of the story-- even if his story is fraudulent-- the article is unbalanced anyway. I found some text here (search on "Wakefield, however, denies", which I will begin to add shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68's removal of the reference to fraud in the lead seriously unbalances the article and has the effect of biasing it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Um, can we get some discussion here? The difference isn't really significant enough to edit war over; some middle-ground wording should be possible, talking would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- One sentence isn't enough, but it will have to suffice until 1) someone gets his book, or 2) an online reliable source produces something. I agree with this addition for now; we can't just completely fail to say anything about his side of the story. But I question this; he was stripped of his medical credentials because of the fraud, so why is it only "accused"? It's proven?? Who else would prove it besides the governing board that struck him from the medical register? And he is known for this ... how can we meet in the middle here-- alternate wording suggestion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- When I read the lede with its long list of harsh criticisms of Wakefield, my first thought was, "So, what does Wakefield say or what has he done about all this?" Perhaps one sentence isn't sufficient, but in a bio about the guy I would think that his side is notable enough to be summarized in the lede along with others' opinions of him and his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that this wording gives a false impression of the case, and will be read by many as though Wakefield was only accused, when in fact a statutory tribunal has made very clear findings of fact about the study and his behaviour in it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
After I finish adding the portion mentioned above, I'll begin to add this; is the next BMJ report out? I can't find the source of this text in the BMJ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Found; I'll also begin adding this next, so if anyone wants to continue edit warring, could you hold off 'til I'm done :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why not lead off with, "Andrew Wakefield was a medical doctor and researcher who was removed from the general medical register in the UK for fraud after his conclusions and research into the MMR vaccine controversy was called into question." Or something like that? This way, we're making it clear who is calling him a fraud, and that it's not Wikipedia doing so. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about "...his report and conclusion... were shown to be falsified." - They weren't just called into question, they were very thoroughly debunked, and by a statutory tribunal too. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- "His report and conclusions...were shown to be falsified by...[name names]." Attribute who is saying these things about him and his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The GMC, when they struck him from the medical register. Try reading the article. We don't usually cite in the lead if cited below. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Citations can be quite useful, though, for controversial ledes. Personally, I think the lede is supposed to summarise the article, and the first sentence of the lede itself should only give the basics - otherwise we end up with rather stilted text. I'm not convinced that we need to stretch the first sentence to mention the GMC if it already mentions him being removed from the register - who else would remove him from the register? I think the notability and media coverage touches on much more than just his being defrocked; so I'd prefer to see a bit more of that mentioned upfront, even if only briefly. The GMC is not the only body to call wakefield a fraud, I believe. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- But there are problems with this article (it's organization, flow, and attribution), and I raised the attribution issue days ago here on talk. The article is not in terrible shape, but it's not in great shape either, and needs to be reworked once it's off the mainpage. The underlying problems are that: 1) the article was built over the years as Deer's investigations unfolded, under problems with ownership and tenditious editing and before all evidence was out in reliable sources as it is now, so the flow and organization is all off; and 2) Deer was the primary driver for the investigation, so there are attribution problems and problems with overreliance on Deer's own sources rather than sources that independently analyze Deer's work. Correctly attributed, many of the statements in the current article would have to look something ridiculous like: CNN reported that BMJ reported that Deer said that the General Council found". Attribution needs to be looked at so that we're not relying entirely on Deer, and it's clear who is saying what, and that it's not Wiki that is saying these things. A comprehensive story is now told by numerous reliable sources, which was not the situation as this article was built over the years, often with tendentious issues at play, as anti-vaccine and pro-science editors used sometimes Deer's primary sources to build the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Citations can be quite useful, though, for controversial ledes. Personally, I think the lede is supposed to summarise the article, and the first sentence of the lede itself should only give the basics - otherwise we end up with rather stilted text. I'm not convinced that we need to stretch the first sentence to mention the GMC if it already mentions him being removed from the register - who else would remove him from the register? I think the notability and media coverage touches on much more than just his being defrocked; so I'd prefer to see a bit more of that mentioned upfront, even if only briefly. The GMC is not the only body to call wakefield a fraud, I believe. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The GMC, when they struck him from the medical register. Try reading the article. We don't usually cite in the lead if cited below. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- "His report and conclusions...were shown to be falsified by...[name names]." Attribute who is saying these things about him and his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about "...his report and conclusion... were shown to be falsified." - They weren't just called into question, they were very thoroughly debunked, and by a statutory tribunal too. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why not lead off with, "Andrew Wakefield was a medical doctor and researcher who was removed from the general medical register in the UK for fraud after his conclusions and research into the MMR vaccine controversy was called into question." Or something like that? This way, we're making it clear who is calling him a fraud, and that it's not Wikipedia doing so. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still working to add the new text-- will catch up with y'all in about half an hour so we can fix it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm done expanding for now, have at it, but addressing the points above. Cla, first, this article was mired in a walled garden of POV disputes for years, Eubulides did his best to stay on top of it but it was tendentiously owned and hard to improve, so what was there when I started on it a few days was quite a mess to say the least. I've struggled just to keep it clean; it's not well written by any means, and the flow is all off, and lots of attribution needs to be checked, and it is stilted, was written by many different authors-- all the usual problems. Honestly, the article is not in good shape-- I've kept up as much as possible so it would at least be mainpage worthy. Yes, the article needs the kind of attribution you are suggesting above-- I'm done for now, but hope you'll all work something out on that, my prose stinks, but Cla is right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciated, but I don't think so :) I'm barely keeping up, and all too aware of the problems we still have in these articles. All hands on deck :) You're all doing great, and the collaboration here has been very nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe someone can make use of this Lancet article defending Wakefield? MMR—responding to retraction by Andrew J Wakefield, Peter Harvey, and John Linnell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeofmind (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's the same seven-year old article you already listed here-- no need to list it twice. Considering new revelations, how much of that is relevant today? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry. I wasn't sure where it belonged. I will remove the other copy of it. 216.232.255.81 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's the same seven-year old article you already listed here-- no need to list it twice. Considering new revelations, how much of that is relevant today? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe someone can make use of this Lancet article defending Wakefield? MMR—responding to retraction by Andrew J Wakefield, Peter Harvey, and John Linnell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeofmind (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciated, but I don't think so :) I'm barely keeping up, and all too aware of the problems we still have in these articles. All hands on deck :) You're all doing great, and the collaboration here has been very nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Wakefield has made a statement in his defense. There's a copy here and here. Might be useful for this article. bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course the 7 year article is a useful reference for statements made by him in response to accusations that were made against him. I'm surprised at your attempt to disregard it on account of it being old, unless you can somehow show that he has changed his mind since then. Timeofmind (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Retracted publications
I think it would be most proper to list the retracted publications with the others since he really did have them published, and then note that they have been retracted. We could place RETRACTED in front of the listing and then strike it through. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The retracted publications are listed (below the publication); we have to follow correct citation guidelines-- the articles were published, and later retracted, and the retractions have separate DOIs and PMIDs. It's not up to us to alter the titles of reliable sources with strike throughs, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've actually never been crazy about the practice of listing a person's publications at the bottom of their Wikipedia article. It makes the article sound a bit more like a C.V. or resume and less like an encyclopedia article, and it seems like a function more appropriate for PubMed, Google Scholar, or a similar search engine rather than us. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- MC, I agree, and I'm not sure how to overcome this, but I was trying to make the article more neutral by adding his most cited (100 to 200 cited by according to Google scholar) articles before the scandal (and to leave a record of the retracted/withdrawn articles, to eliminate confusion); it seems that he did some good work before he moved into MMR territory. I've been looking for reliable sources, but all I can find is various bios submitted by him (amazon.com and the like) which mention that he has over 130 published journal articles. I was concerned that the BLP was overfocusing on the scandal while excluding his work before the scandal; how can we, or should we, address this? If I've done more harm than good by introducing some Google scholar "cited by" text, we should fix that, but my bigger concern is that we not open the door here to allegations of POV against Wakefield, since the entire story relies so heavily on Deer's investigations and the General Council findings. Open to suggestion-- do whatever is best-- but I don't like linking to PubMed or Google scholar either-- not sure how to solve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've actually never been crazy about the practice of listing a person's publications at the bottom of their Wikipedia article. It makes the article sound a bit more like a C.V. or resume and less like an encyclopedia article, and it seems like a function more appropriate for PubMed, Google Scholar, or a similar search engine rather than us. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Date for Deer's acquisition of copy of patent application
Does anyone know about this?
- Although Deer said he possessed a copy of the patent application, a letter from Wakefield's lawyers dated 31 Jan 2005 said: "Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine." diff
If Brian Deer obtained the copy after the date of the letter from the lawyers, we could write it this way:
- Although Deer later obtained a copy of the patent application, a letter from Wakefield's lawyers dated 31 Jan 2005 said: "Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine."
Right now, by writing that Deer "said he possessed", we are introducing a possibility for doubt about whether he was lying or not. He DOES posses a copy and has posted it, so it's more just a matter of WHEN he got it, so I think that should be changed to:
- "Although Deer obtained a copy...." and can add "later" if we find documentation for the date. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know, and have similar questions; from the sources, I haven't been able to sort this yet, but I suspect we could find this info if someone can dig into Deer's and the Medical Council sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the hairsplitting about when Deer obtained the patent application. You can go to Patentscope: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/search.jsf and, from the ID/Number tab, search for WO1998055138. click on the description tab, and you see the following: "The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prevention and/or prophylaxis against measles virus infection and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (inflammatory bowel disease)." BINGO! When Wakefield says it wasn't a vaccine, he's a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.98.65 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
OTC nutritional supplement?
Per this addition, I'm wondering about something:
- According to CNN, Wakefield said the patent he held was for "an 'over-the-counter nutritional supplement' that boosts the immune system". Diff
It's possible that he holds more than one patent, so is this different than the vaccine patent or was he lying (again!)? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know, this needs to be sorted, suspect digging into the sources will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wakefield is referring to Transfer factor. Colostrum is rich in it. The FDA class this stuff as a nutrition supplement. The patent is about tailor making it so that it would (hopefully) rid a persistent infection, were the individual's own immune system has been unable to do so. Not suitable though, for mass immunisation of the population -no way. However, Deer is not a doctor, so perhaps this point has gone over his head. --Aspro (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- But are there two different patents? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wakefield is a researcher, so his name will appear on numerous patents. The patent in question is just the TF one (we looked at them years back when this first surfaced). If you can wait until tomorrow, I will request the medical librarian to dig it out and I'll post it's patent number. --Aspro (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I really can't keep up with every aspect here, and haven't sorted this piece at all, don't know how to fix our wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've got it and have found the US filing of patent is now freely available online, so here it is. Apparently, some people immediately pointed out this lack of basic fact checking to the British Medical Journal when the story broke, as can be seen on some of these letters [4]. The reason being that because TF's act on a different part of the immune system it should be immediately obvious that any benefit of this oral treatment will be of a short term nature and therefore unsuitable to replace any existing injectable vaccine. If it could have been made to work, it might have also been invaluable for treating Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis for which there is as yet no cure. A great shame. Anyway. This is supposed to be a biographical article, so I am not going to discuss this patent thing further or stick around here to wait for replies, other than to end with the observation that it does appear this story has taken on a life of its own, with most people mindlessly repeating what they have read in the press whilst presuming that everybody else has checked all the facts properly, a.k.a. Argumentum ad populum. Its all got far too silly for words but as some Wikilawyers like to point out: Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth. Still, I suppose the article serves as a demonstration to psychology students everywhere, on how hot blooded rhetoric can out pace slow methodical reasoning. Happy tenth birthday Wikipedia. --Aspro (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, well if someone else can sort this, I'll work on Wakefield's response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You can go to Patentscope: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/search.jsf and, from the ID/Number tab, search for WO1998055138. Click on the description tab, and you will see that "The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prevention and/or prophylaxis against measles virus infection and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (inflammatory bowel disease)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.98.65 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Jenny McCarthy responds
- Jenny McCarthy: In the Vaccine-Autism Debate, What Can Parents Believe?, January 10, 2011
I'm not sure how much, if any, of this is relevant here, or is more appropriate for the Jenny McCarthy and/or Generation Rescue articles, or all three. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'm not sure how much weight to give here to those characterized by a reliable source as "nincompoop celebrities", but I note that:
- "Dr. Wakefield did something I wish all doctors would do: he listened to parents and reported what they said."
- That isn't what the evidence reveals. And,
- "For some reason, parents aren't being told that this 'new' information about Dr. Wakefield isn't a medical report, but merely the allegations of a single British journalist named Brian Deer."
- That's not entirely true, considering the Medical Council's investigation, but that is what we must avoid in this article, with correct attribution (and I think we're doing OK on that, but we still need to review for attribution). And then we have this:
- "I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son."
- So, we see the Huffington Post continuing the same kind of journalism that has been soundly criticized-- giving a platform to a celebrity to continue the scare. I don't think this belongs here, but I'm not sure how we should treat it, or in which article, probably her article, since it's her lay opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I updated her article, but don't think we need to add here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
In The News page view stats
So, "nincompoop celebrities" pages get more views than the scientist involved in the controversy (her Jan 1 hits are due to the Super Bowl her New Years appearance on TV). Even subtracting the Super Bowl New Years hits, McCarthy has gotten more hits this month than either Wakefield, on the mainpage, or MMR vaccine controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Posted to The Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
More to come
Next week in the BMJ, I will go further, showing how the old boys' network of the medical establishment was mobilised to protect him. Are you getting the picture yet?
But times are changing. Wakefield's fall from grace is now slicing another scalp. One of the most insidious cartels at the heart of British science is being torn apart: the two top journals in medical science.
The Lancet once championed him. The BMJ has now nailed him – and commended my contribution. "It has taken the diligent scepticism of one man, standing outside medicine and science, to show that the paper was in fact an elaborate fraud," they wrote in last week's editorial.
Let battle commence, I say. Let doctors expose each other. Let journals compete to get the truth out first. Because 13 years passed before I slayed the MMR monster. And although a single, severed hand may yet come crawling across the floor, for science and public safety 13 years is still too long.
So, another aspect of this story, and why we have to watch for POV and attribution, is that we have a battle of two prominent, competing journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
What Drives Irrational Rhetoric? The Case of Childhood Vaccinations, Seth Mnookin
A relevant article which also briefly mentions Andrew Wakefield:
- What Drives Irrational Rhetoric? The Case of Childhood Vaccinations, Seth Mnookin, The Atlantic, Jan 11, 2011
It's based on his book (linked), which should have much more information. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yet another call for prosecution: Berezow
Vaccine-autism researcher should be prosecuted, By Alex B. Berezow, Special to CNN, January 14, 2011
Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Publications
Are those all his publications or merely selected ones? NW (Talk) 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Retracted publications; they are his best known, most-cited publications (we can't list all 130+ journal papers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should the section not be titled "Selected publications" or something of that sort then? NW (Talk) 03:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure-- I was surprised I got no feedback above. Whatever you think. What I did was list those that have the highest "cited by" other articles per Google scholar-- we can't list all of them, I can't find an RS discussing his other work, but felt it was POV to leave out his earlier work, but also feel what I did is OR. Don't know how to solve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Calling it "selected publications" is probably best; we don't want to give the impression that is all he wrote, nor are we going to list all of them, either. Yobol (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- In reviewing that list of publications, I just noticed that Hewitson (presumably another British import to the US?) also works for Thoughtful House. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Calling it "selected publications" is probably best; we don't want to give the impression that is all he wrote, nor are we going to list all of them, either. Yobol (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure-- I was surprised I got no feedback above. Whatever you think. What I did was list those that have the highest "cited by" other articles per Google scholar-- we can't list all of them, I can't find an RS discussing his other work, but felt it was POV to leave out his earlier work, but also feel what I did is OR. Don't know how to solve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should the section not be titled "Selected publications" or something of that sort then? NW (Talk) 03:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Former Lancet editor accused of cover-up.
Former Lancet editor accused of cover-up. The British Medical Journal has published a detailed account of the failure of The Lancet editor Richard Horton to properly investigate the complaint made by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield's now infamous 1998 article. [Deer B. "Secrets of the MMR scare: The Lancet's two days to bury bad news." BMJ 342:c7001, 2011] This is the third article in the BMJ series about Wakefield's misconduct. Casewatch has posted the transcripts from the General Medical Council's hearings that ended with the revocation of Wakefield's medical license.
Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Lead
An IP has been changing "fraudulent" to "un-proven" [sic]. "Fraudulent" is a pretty strong term, but his 'work' was proven fraudulent, wasn't it? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. I have restored the term and added a citation in the lead to the BMJ editorial of January 5, as a number of editors have tried to change it over the past week. NW (Talk) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
IP 194.145.60.134
An IP 194.145.60.134 tries to add a text and link to a naturalnews article claiming that Wakefield is innocent. Thrice now. When you follow the article to the source, you get to the site vaccinesafetyfirst.com, which was created on 15. Jan. 2011 and registered for 1 year(according to whois). The pdf containing the proof, was written by Wakefield himself. Doesn't look like a very reliable source to me... Crabel (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the assesment above and have warned the IP for edit warring. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The IP editor has been blocked for 24 hours. If they resume edit warring, please report them to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring, citing this case: [5]. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody please look at recent edits to Brian Deer? Somebody has added very similar material there, along with some extra sources, but I don't have the time just now to check it (work calls). --GenericBob (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- user:178.78.80.157 has just reinserted the disputed information. I am treating it as vandalism. If more IP's pop up consider requesting semi-protection. Yoenit (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The people at skepdic.com have written an article about the site/information the IP(s) try to insert into the article: http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia122.html About the supposed evidence: is a transcript of testimony by John Walker-Smith given at the Wakefield hearing conducted by the General Medical Council (GMC) on 16 July 2008. Walker-Smith states that he had data on 7 of the 12 children in the original Wakefield et al. study that found a pattern of children with both IBS and autism. Walker-Smith was also found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the GMC and struck off the medical register for his role in carrying out procedures on the children. There is nothing new here. Crabel (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Press complaint still pending
According to this document ( http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/BRIAN%20DEER%20IS%20THE%20LIAR%20.pdf ), the complaint to the UK's Press Complaint Commission is still pending : should'nt this be mentionned in the article ? Trente7cinq (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com may not be a reference (I mean : according to wiki ): could this complaint be documented elsewhere ?Trente7cinq (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I dunno, have you tried looking for it? Yoenit (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Yoenit ! Here it is : http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTgyNA== The PCC has received a complaint from Dr Andrew Wakefield about articles published in the Sunday Times on 8th February 2009, headlined “MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism” and “Hidden records show MMR truth”. Having examined the case, the PCC has indicated that it will temporarily stay its investigation until the conclusion of the GMC inquiry, which is likely to clarify information which is relevant to the investigation of the complaint by the PCC. No substantive ruling in relation to the complaint has been reached by the PCC at this stage.The newspaper – having initially removed the articles at the request of the PCC without any admission of liability – has reinstated them with an annotation to reflect the fact that the PCC complaint is outstanding. Will you insert a comment in the article ? Trente7cinq (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's ancient history and events have caught up with Wakefield. The GMC found he was deceptive and stripped him of his right to practice medicine. His colleague also suffered the same fate. Wakefield's complaint is a moot point now as it was proven false. In the present situation, after the recent BMJ articles which go into very precise details of the "elaborate fraud", Wakefield has again protested his innocence (what else would he do?), and Brian Deer has invited Wakefield to sue him. Wakefield's "evidence" is only old stuff that has already been debunked. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The point is not if this is an ancient story or not ( after all the 1998 paper is quite old isn't it ?), but: wether this proceedings are still pending ...and could have an impact - whatsoever- on the controversy . If so , it may be legitimate to comment briefly . Still pending : yes or no ?( from the Press complaint commission's site I understand it is "yes" )Trente7cinq (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- More exactly : I fear this point won't be settled now : it is not sure the page is still valid .(As for "Notice that it also claims the newspaper reinstated the articles with an annotation, but I don't see such an annotation in the articles in question" / "The Sunday Times of London, a Rupert Murdoch News Corporation paper, has defied direction from the UK’s Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to remove from its web site controversial stories it has failed to substantiate..." http://gryffins-tail.blogspot.com/2009/07/sunday-times-defies-press-complaints.html )Trente7cinq (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It strikes me that the easiest route to get a definitive answer would be to just ask the PCC. A quick check finds the complaint is not listed as resolved by mediation or adjudication ([8], [9]), so I suspect Wakefield has simply let it lapse. Unless the PCC upholds the complaint (very unlikely) I don't think there's anything article-worthy here. We already know that Wakefield attempted to suppress criticism by filing a vexatious libel suit; in comparison a spurious PCC complaint (that he can't be bothered to follow through on) is pretty small beer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- "It strikes me that the easiest route to get a definitive answer would be to just ask the PCC" : I agree with you ( I did write to the PCC for clarification; did you too ?). You then write "I suspect Wakefield has simply let it lapse" : did you read the document I referenced ealier ( http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/BRIAN%20DEER%20IS%20THE%20LIAR%20.pdf )which reported Fiona Godlee's mail : "If as you say, you now intend to pursue your complaint to the PCC of March 2009, which we understand to have been suspended almost a year ago, we will follow that development with interest. ?" Trente7cinq (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Have you received your response from the PCC? Wouldn't it save us time and effort to wait for that definitive response? From the 'source' you linked, it seemed that Wakefield and Godlee had very different views about whether or not the complaint was still active and being pursued. I see no need to investigate this msyelf because as I said, unless the PCC remarkably and improbably finds in Wakefield's favour (something which I am sure we would hear about very loudly), there isn't anything encyclopedia-worthy about the fact that Wakefield filed a complaint. His libel SLAPP suit was in the same vein, in a more important venue, and was much better covered by reliable third party sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't received any answer yet .More important : the PCC page hasn't been updated yet either : wait and see . Trente7cinq (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the answer of the PCC :"...I can confirm that the position with the Sunday Times case is that we suspended our investigation pending the outcome of GMC proceedings. At their conclusion, we were informed that Andrew Wakefield was pursuing a civil appeals process. As a result, the investigation remains suspended. If Andrew Wakefield asks us to reopen the matter in due course the Commission would of course then consider what action to take." The page will be updated as soon the PCC knows the position of Andrew Wakefield ... [ this is not verifiable ,for the moment : let's say I take a bid ]Trente7cinq (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Fiona Godlee of BMJ Responds to Wakefield Questions
An interesting letter from Fiona to Age of Autism:
While the Age of Autism website isn't a RS for other than its own opinion, the letter is interesting. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud
Another interesting one including podcasts:
Brangifer (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Bill Gates quote
There appears to be an incipient edit war about the inclusion of a quote from Bill Gates, a major donor to vaccination programmes. You can read the quote in this diff. I have reverted the article to the pre edit-war state, and invited the two editors involved to discuss this content issue here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is indeed surprising. I'm the one who added it, but I'm not part of any edit war. We have a rather militant newbie (look at his short contribution history) who deleted the image twice without using any legitimate policy-based reasons, ergo the quote should remain. That's pretty standard practice. Vandalism should not be rewarded. I'm going to restore it. One needs a policy-based reason for deleting something as signifant as this. The fact that he's a major donar isn't really relevant, but that he's so notable is certainly relevant. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I also wonder why it belongs in Wakefield's article. MMR vaccine controversy, sure, but what is the relevance here? It would be like putting a quote by <liberal United States legislator> into John Yoo. NW (Talk) 15:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm also leaning towards leaving it out. This is a WP:BLP and prominently featuring one person's opinion, with some fairly heavy allegations, seems to be on the wrong side of WP:UNDUE. At most, Gates' criticisms can be mentioned, but that doesn't even appear to be necessary given the weight of all the other criticisms already in the article. If that whole quote was placed into MMR vaccine controversy, however, I don't think I'd have a problem with that... — Scientizzle 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I restored the quote, after one of the occasions that the "militant newbie" removed it. I think it would be very helpful to have something like that in the article, to broaden it a bit, and I agree with Brangifer's point that vandalism should not be rewarded. This is a controversial subject, and there are plenty of folk out there who find that factual content doesn't fit their POV, but I doubt that it would be WP:UNDUE to have an 82-word quotebox halfway down a 64k article! One theme I've noticed in defences of Wakefield is the idea of a conspiracy by the medical "establishment", he's a lone hero pioneering new approaches &c. Bearing that in mind, it's very helpful to have a quote from somebody who is not part of the medical "establishment" - and yet is one of the world's most prominent supporters of vaccination campaigns. Who better than Gates? Looking at the quote, however, I do have concerns about the "thousands of kids" thing; that might be exaggeration. Could we, perhaps, compromise? I'd suggest that we keep the quote but replace the "so it's an absolute lie..." sentence with an ellipsis; this would also tone down the criticism somewhat. bobrayner (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do think there is a middle ground. Practically, the way the quote was presented here does a few things that concerned me:
→It had the effect of presenting Gates' quote in approximately the size of three full paragraphs of cited text (beside it)
→It gives a platform to Gates, who doesn't have any relevant scientific/medical (or legal) expertise beyond his generous donations; I think it would be similarly inappropriate to similarly present a defending quote from Jenny McCarthy
→It doesn't critically examine Gates' claims (some of which are debatable enough that I'd be concerned about British libel laws getting involved...)
I can appreciate your point, bobrayner, about presenting criticisms from outside the "medical establishment", but I think Wikipedia is better served to keep something like this within the relevant controversy article rather than this man's biography, which already paints a substantially negative picture of Wakefield's activities. Maybe it's worth making reference to in the "Epidemics and effects" section...perhaps a single line such as
I do still think it's best used in MMR vaccine controversy. Cheers, — Scientizzle 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Bill Gates heavily criticised Wakefield in 2011, after pledging $10 billion for vaccinations, asserting that the Lancet publication's "fraudulent data" contributed to lower vaccination rates that resulted in vaccine-preventable deaths of children.[ref]
- I do think there is a middle ground. Practically, the way the quote was presented here does a few things that concerned me:
- I've just noticed this discussion. For some reason, I didn't have this page watchlisted. The quote was added to the MMR vaccine controversy article on the 5th and I removed it on the 7th. There's some discussion on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Bill Gates. I don't think we should use it here or there, or even paraphrase it. It is a celebrity interview, not a MEDRS. If "Bill Gates on the MMR controversy" is itself a topic discussed widely by the press, etc, then the quote might have a certain notability, but at present we're just name-dropping celebrities that agree with our opinion. And as noted above, that's no better that the "other side" quoting some model or actress. Colin°Talk 22:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand some of the concerns above, especially those mentioned by Scientizzle. His solution also seems to be much better. It doesn't draw any special attention to Gates. There is no demand for a MEDRS source in this case as it's obviously his opinion in referring to what MEDRS sources clearly state. His quote has received enormous attention in the press and is very notable, so it's not just name-dropping. Per WEIGHT it's also justified because it's a mainstream opinion. Simply adding the sentence as formatted by Scientizzle shouldn't be controversial. It actually belongs in both articles since he's directing the focus of his attack on Wakefield, while also emphasizing the importance of vaccination and the foolishness of the anti-vaccination position. Both articles would benefit.
- For all those reasons, I believe Scientizzle's version should be used:
- Bill Gates heavily criticised Wakefield in 2011, after pledging $10 billion for vaccinations, asserting that the Lancet publication's "fraudulent data" contributed to lower vaccination rates that resulted in vaccine-preventable deaths of children.[1]
- That's the version I think I'd vote for. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- But that information doesn't really give the reader more information about Wakefield's life or the impact that he has had, which this biography should be about. Even a single sentence is really too much; the information is not really that significant. Currently, we have the GMC, Sunday Times, Brian Deer, BMJ and its editors, and The Lancet criticizing Wakefield. All of those people have a primary connection to Wakefield's work. Gates doesn't. NW (Talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- As much as I personally like the quote, I have to agree that it really isn't appropriate here, though the trimmed down paraphrase might be incorporated in some way in the "media role" section of the MMR controversy article. It adds no further information other than the fact that Gates agrees with his critics, not something that is especially relevant in this article. Yobol (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd support something along the lines of Scientizzle's suggestions. Gates is important enough that it's reasonable to mention that he's weighed in on this, but using the full quote is excessive weight. --GenericBob (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- As much as I personally like the quote, I have to agree that it really isn't appropriate here, though the trimmed down paraphrase might be incorporated in some way in the "media role" section of the MMR controversy article. It adds no further information other than the fact that Gates agrees with his critics, not something that is especially relevant in this article. Yobol (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- But that information doesn't really give the reader more information about Wakefield's life or the impact that he has had, which this biography should be about. Even a single sentence is really too much; the information is not really that significant. Currently, we have the GMC, Sunday Times, Brian Deer, BMJ and its editors, and The Lancet criticizing Wakefield. All of those people have a primary connection to Wakefield's work. Gates doesn't. NW (Talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's the version I think I'd vote for. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Dobyblue (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Gates has contributed massive amounts of money to both the vaccine industry and the GMO industry (ie - Monsanto). If there was ever a conflict of interests on what to include on this page it would be this quote. The man has donated 10 billion, what would you expect him to say, "Vaccines kill"? It doesn't belong in the article at all.
Misrepresented citation
First sentence, second paragraph of the lead: "Four years after the publication of the study, the findings of other researchers failed to confirm or reproduce Wakefield's."
The conclusion of the cited study: "No evidence was found that children with autism were more likely than children without autism to have had defined gastrointestinal disorders at any time before their diagnosis of autism."
Notice the "before their diagnosis of autism" part. The Wakefield report did not speculate on the presence of gastrointestinal disorders *before* diagnosis. The findings in this report did not attempt to reproduce Wakefield's findings, which were on children who had already been diagnosed. This cited study attempts to find a correlation which was never suggested in the Wakefield study.
Can we find a study to cite here which attempts to find a correlation between gastrointestinal disorders and autism *after* diagnosis? Timeofmind (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Did a quick search for studies and found that one: "Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study. Hornig M et al. PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9):e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140 *Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)". But I think that the first study is not a bad citation either. Maybe the sentence could be reworked and both studies factored in? --Crabel (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I think that we should change the sentence to reflect the findings of this study you have found and scrap the old sentence and citation (Black C, Kaye JA, Jick H (August 2002). "Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database"), unless you can explain to me how that study attempted to reproduce "Wakefield's findings", then the study cited is totally irrelevant, and the corresponding citation should be removed. Timeofmind (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the study authors do think that their findings are relevant and make several references to Wakefield's. They also reference other studies like this one: Fombonne E, Chakrabarti S. No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism. Pediatrics. 2001;108:E58. They conclude: Our results are consistent with those of other studies in providing evidence against a substantial association between gastrointestinal illness in children and the later development of autism. While the wording might be discussed, these studies did at least cast doubt on the results Wakefield had produced and are relevant because of that. Crabel (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I think that we should change the sentence to reflect the findings of this study you have found and scrap the old sentence and citation (Black C, Kaye JA, Jick H (August 2002). "Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database"), unless you can explain to me how that study attempted to reproduce "Wakefield's findings", then the study cited is totally irrelevant, and the corresponding citation should be removed. Timeofmind (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Selective Hearing Documentary: Brian Deer and the GMC Trials
This documentary has not seen much of the light of day, but it is available on a few sites. I think it presents a very interesting view of the man who is solely responsible for collecting the evidence against Wakefield. In it you'll note that he describes one of the children in the Lancet paper as "not having bowel disease" but rather "having diarrhea" despite the child's rather obvious ileostomy bag. Video is here - http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1 Dobyblue (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Watched it yesterday. Nothing new, it's from 2009 as far as I can tell. Footage of Brian Deer is used to present him in a negative light. Problem is: Even if the view the video presents of Brian Deer is correct, it doesn't matter. This article is about Andrew Wakefield, not Brian Deer. Crabel (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The video is quite clearly a hoax. The GMC transcript is quite clear that no child in the study had any surgical procedure. The person posing in the video as one of the Royal Free patients was in fact seen at another hospital, and reported in the Sun newspaper. Deer was plainly talking about the children whose cases were being reviewed in the hearing and not the hoaxer who stood outside pretending she was something to do with it. 81.108.171.172 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Searching for truth in published research
An interesting article that deals with other studies that have cited Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent "research", questions about the retraction of such articles, and about the worth of "review articles" (subjective opinions):
- "Searching for truth in published research", By Stephen Strauss, CBC News, Apr 7, 2011
- There is a description of Strauss at the top of this article.
Brangifer (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Possible source
New York Times Magazine article, which may have some good info on the popular/societal reaction to Wakefield, as well as some conspiracy-like talk on the part of Wakefield. Money quote: “To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one,” says J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a group that disputes vaccine safety. “He’s a symbol of how all of us feel."(italics mine) [User:Yobol|Yobol]] (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Generation Rescue labelling as "anti-vaccine"
Labelling the Generation Rescue website as "anti-vaccine" is not only irrelevant to this page, but dismissive of all the autism resources and help they provide parents that has nothing to do with vaccines. Should we also label them as "anti-blender" because they advertise the "magic bullet" for making single-serving shakes on their website? They are a great resource for parents who have suddenly found themselves with a child diagnosed with autism and they help thousands of parents find support just like Autism Speaks. Do you cite Autism Speaks as "pro-vaccine group Autism Speaks" all the time? I don't think so. Dobyblue (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Generation Rescue is decidedly anti-vaccine. They devote an enormous amount of effort (and vitriol) towards attacking vaccines, including those that clearly cannot possibly have a relationship to the development of autism spectrum disorders (e.g., [10] or the objections to Gardasil). There are also a number of reliable sources that back up the claim that GR and its most prominent individuals fit this description well.[11][12][13][14][15] — Scientizzle 13:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Your language is interesting. By listing Gardasil in that description you're implying that there are other vaccines that "can possibly" have a relationship to the development of autism spectrum disorders? Nevertheless, if it is irrelevant that James Murdoch and Sir Crispin Davies both received US$100,000k/year+ non-executive director positions on the board of GSK at the same time as the Lancet article was "retracted" and the GMC trails began, which most people familiar with peer-reviewed science would see as a conflict of interest that should be noted, I fail to see how a) describing GR in such a vitriolic manner is relevant and b) how that quote is relevant at all but as a redundant "jab". Given that their work with children with autism and support of families is ALSO well documented it should either have BOTH descriptions/adjectives, or neither. Have either of you received any useful information that has helped with your children that have been diagnosed with autism? Dobyblue (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't read too much into my language...I'm merely pointing out that a brand new vaccine for teenagers couldn't possibly have any causal influence on the epidemiology of ASDs, yet GR has targeted it repeatedly for attack. I'd assert that the hypotheses of a vaccine or vaccine component contributing to developmental disorders had a low, but non-zero plausibility a decade ago; however, multiple lines of independent research have iteratively and collectively reduced the likelihood of these hypotheses being correct to effectively zero such that they can be confidently regarded as falsified.
- That said, I would not be opposed to re-wording to include both adjectives and have done so here. — Scientizzle 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just taking a look at some of your "reliable sources". 1) Science Mag - Jennifer Couzin-Frankel - Staff Writer since 2002 - Studied history of science at Harvard. 2) Seth Mnookin - journalist 3) Newsweek - owned by Rupert Murdoch, massive conflicts of interest to pharmaceutical companies including his own son sitting on the board of GSK, MMR manufacturers.[16] 4) Discover Magazine blog - Phil Plait - astronomer 5) KQED blog - Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. 6) Michael Specter - journalist 7) Jennifer Steinhauer - journalist, mostly political contributions Not that any of this is relevant to this particular discussion, but showing how the mainstream media works by repeating everything they're told to say by other mainstream media networks and affiliates seems rather irrelevant. Dobyblue (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I still think it does a gross disservice to everything else the group does and to any familiy that is affected by autism, but I suppose it's a start. Dobyblue (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd argue that it does a disservice to readers to not properly identify an organization that actively eschews scientific evidence and promotes a variety of medical nonsense. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; the present version answers both your concerns and mine. — Scientizzle 16:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- ^ "Bill Gates: Vaccine-autism link 'an absolute lie'". Sanjay Gupta MD. CNN. Retrieved 2011-02-05.