Realskeptic (talk | contribs) |
Realskeptic (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
:Yes, that decision is what I am talking about, and you're absolutely right. The matter is further discussed in the book [http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sale-Government-Corporations-Universities/dp/1626360715 Science for Sale], in which Wakefield tried unsuccessfully to have his paper reinstated. Not only that, but there is also the issue of the fabrication allegations which are strictly editorial in nature and are heavily disputed by Wakefield's critics and former colleagues, not just Wakefield. Yet this is also nowhere to be found in the article. Also, tying his name to a "discredited hypothesis" and even infectious disease deaths raises serious [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:BLP]] issues. Clearly, the subject has a lot of hostile critics including some Wikipedia editors here, but this article should not be written from their perspective. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Wakefield&diff=690859395&oldid=689268721 made changes to the intro] accordingly, but the entire article looks like it needs to be heavily rewritten IMHO. [[User:Realskeptic|Realskeptic]] ([[User talk:Realskeptic|talk]]) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
:Yes, that decision is what I am talking about, and you're absolutely right. The matter is further discussed in the book [http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sale-Government-Corporations-Universities/dp/1626360715 Science for Sale], in which Wakefield tried unsuccessfully to have his paper reinstated. Not only that, but there is also the issue of the fabrication allegations which are strictly editorial in nature and are heavily disputed by Wakefield's critics and former colleagues, not just Wakefield. Yet this is also nowhere to be found in the article. Also, tying his name to a "discredited hypothesis" and even infectious disease deaths raises serious [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:BLP]] issues. Clearly, the subject has a lot of hostile critics including some Wikipedia editors here, but this article should not be written from their perspective. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Wakefield&diff=690859395&oldid=689268721 made changes to the intro] accordingly, but the entire article looks like it needs to be heavily rewritten IMHO. [[User:Realskeptic|Realskeptic]] ([[User talk:Realskeptic|talk]]) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
== For editors reverting my edits, please discuss here == |
|||
Thanks. [[User:Realskeptic|Realskeptic]] ([[User talk:Realskeptic|talk]]) 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:03, 16 November 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
This article is not neutal. It is very one sided. Period.
Subject line says it all in that it is as if a "science only" radical has witten it with their beliefs only in mind...and I don't mean to imply that studies that show vaccines are not all that safe is "non-science", but the radicals paint it that way, and apparently wrote this article. Neutral studies are hard to come by when money rules the entire world. (hopefully you do know what I mean by that) Please get this fixed and write this in a neutral manner. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.192.226 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you have a reliable source that has not been reflected, please provide it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also read WP:NPOV, neutral here does not mean neutral as you seem to think it does Cannolis (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by saying that it is not neutral? The article is stating the facts: it has been proven that his research was fraudulent and that he was found guilty. Since there is no doubt about this, we cannot state that "perhaps he was right" when the evidence is pointing otherwise. BeŻet (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fraud allegations have been utterly abandoned http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6220 Realskeptic (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- That source actually says the exact opposite of what you claim. Fraud allegations are maintained by the BMJ! jps (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- It concluded that “the net result [from an investigation] would likely be an incomplete set of evidence and an inconclusive process costing a substantial sum of money.” Ergo there is no fraud; there is not even an investigation of fraud - only unsubstantiated claims by journal editors. Realskeptic (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- The BMJ has not retracted their claim that Wakefield committed fraud. jps (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are we reading the same words? Your source says that University College London decided not to have an independent investigation of Wakefield's case despite the BMJ calling for it to be done. Cannolis (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- It concluded that “the net result [from an investigation] would likely be an incomplete set of evidence and an inconclusive process costing a substantial sum of money.” Ergo there is no fraud; there is not even an investigation of fraud - only unsubstantiated claims by journal editors. Realskeptic (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- That source actually says the exact opposite of what you claim. Fraud allegations are maintained by the BMJ! jps (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fraud allegations have been utterly abandoned http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6220 Realskeptic (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Realskeptic is blocked, but it doesn't seem like they have even read the article and its sources. They are just cherrypicking something and adding their own interpretation, and totally ignoring all the evidence of fraud. If this can happen, then the article may need to be tightened up to make it clearer. He "showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer"[1] -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk}
04:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just for 24 hours - I have read it, the university chose not to investigate because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to conclusive evidence regarding BMJ's accusation. It is therefore wrong to call the paper fraudulent based on that re WP:NPOV. Realskeptic (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly you have not noticed that the British Medical Council carried out an investigation and found fraud in Wakefield's research paper and in his financial transactions. The college made clear that they would not re-investigate a matter that was already closed. The Lancet journal also stated that they were "deceived". Marmadale (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- We document what RS say, and they all say it was fraudulent for very good reasons. That's good enough reason for us to use their words.
- The list of offenses which justify the label "fraudulent" is long. He really screwed it all up in every way possible, from exposing children to painful and unnecessary tests, to falsifying the numbers, to having a serious and undisclosed financial conflict of interest.
- You need to WP:Drop the stick before you get banned for not being here to build an encyclopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)'
- The court decision quoted at the end of the introduction also overturned the GMC's findings concerning the ethics and the patient selection described in the paper. What the college refused to investigate were the wholly separate allegations of data fabrication, which have never been found proved in any legally binding decision. Also, my response is only for comments from editors who adhere toWP:AGF. Realskeptic (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have looked for some time and have not been able to find any court opinions overturning the medical board's findings against Andrew Wakefield, or any sources referring to one. The opinion you seem to be referring to is about a different author who performed a different role in the research. The findings against Wakefield stand (the medical council made a statement saying so), as do any number of reliable sources, including the Lancet journal itself. You may not like this, but this is an encyclopedia. Marmadale (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have to come in here because I started to edit WP since I am interested in Medical history and this article is out of date. Which I think is why some editors think it is bias. A bit of background. The GMC is not a court of law. The Wakefield case went on for two years because they allowed so much 'hearsay evidence'. Think Realskeptic is referring to the court of law case of Professor John Walker-Smith. The law courts use forensics ( i.e. establishing who did did what, when and where – but not on hearsay). Walker-Smith was able to establish from written evidence that he alone orded the tests on these children based on sound clinical need. i.e., The children would have undergone them anyway. Some background : Abnormalities in these findings, hitherto unrecorded, lead Wakefield to formulate his hypothesize (right or wrong) of Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. It is therefore, putting the cart before the horse to revers this order of things and time-lines as the GMC clumsily did. So whilst I have no objections to the article mentioning the GMC findings, we as as encyclopedia, should include and put into context (via our verifiable sources) to point what has since come to light and discovered in the passage of time. Wakefield did not, subject these children “to unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as...” He did not have that power. The article lead reads back to front.--Aspro (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that decision is what I am talking about, and you're absolutely right. The matter is further discussed in the book Science for Sale, in which Wakefield tried unsuccessfully to have his paper reinstated. Not only that, but there is also the issue of the fabrication allegations which are strictly editorial in nature and are heavily disputed by Wakefield's critics and former colleagues, not just Wakefield. Yet this is also nowhere to be found in the article. Also, tying his name to a "discredited hypothesis" and even infectious disease deaths raises serious WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues. Clearly, the subject has a lot of hostile critics including some Wikipedia editors here, but this article should not be written from their perspective. I have made changes to the intro accordingly, but the entire article looks like it needs to be heavily rewritten IMHO. Realskeptic (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
For editors reverting my edits, please discuss here
Thanks. Realskeptic (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)