Talk:MMR vaccine and autism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unbalanced change

This change added unnecessary and unbalanced text to the article. It is possible that the claims in question are controversial; if so, let's see the other side's counterclaims with citations to reliable sources. In the meantime, there are reliable sources for the claims in question, and the article should not disparage these claims by prepending "so-and-so said" to them. Any reader who wants to find out the sources can easily follow their citations, which say precisely who the source is. If you want the reader to find out more about Fitzpatrick's background, you can write an article about him and wikilink to that article, and put source claims about his background there; this article is not the place for them. Likewise for the NHS. (I have added a wikilink to the NHS in the first citation, to make this easier on the reader.) It's not like the claims in question are merely the opinion of Fitzpatrick or of the NHS. Eubulides 05:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal Evidence

Personally I do not believe that there is a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism, but I was curious about all the so-called documented evidence created by parents of kids with autism. I have read elsewhere that there have been parents who, mostly with video tapes and photos, are able to demonstrate that their child developed autism shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine. Supposedly there is an abundance of what could be described as anecdotal evidence about specific children being effected. I was just curious if anyone here has done the research into this body of evidence, because, whether or not that evidence is bogus, it seems noteworthy as a point of discussion to mention. I just figured that a blunt assesment of what anecdotal evidence exists, arising from the parents of autistic children, might add to the quality of the article. Has anyone looked into such 'evidence?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.184.148 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any reliable source on that topic with respect to MMR vaccine. Citations would be welcome. There is Rogers 2004 (PMID 15362172), but its abstract says "Although several studies have documented the validity of parental reports of regression using home videos, accumulating data suggest that most children who demonstrate regression also demonstrated previous, subtle, developmental differences." Eubulides (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The parents are regrettably falling for the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. (It's obvious to me that autism is caused by kids' first visit to McDonalds, because one follows shortly after the other!) -- Skierpage (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been sceptical on the link, but an encounter yesterday shocked me. This one child I know was apparently a bright talkative 2 year old. Then she had the MMR and within two days of having the vaccine started having severe fits - up to 12 a day, and continuing for several years - resulting in loss of blood to the brain. These fits resulted in long term brain damage and eventual autism.

So we could say this is a post hoc fallacy but a bit of Bayesian analysis indicate to me that in this one situation the most likely scenario is that the vaccine led to the fitting and eventual autism. --Salix (talk): 08:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit of digging does indicate that there is 1 in 3,000 chance of convulsion after the vacine, probably not as severe as this one child though. --Salix (talk): 09:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What digging was that? Vestergaard & Christensen 2009 (PMID 19203855) say that at ages 15–17 months the chance of a child getting a febrile seizure within 2 weeks of an MMR vaccination is about 1 in 650, over and above the normal incidence rate of getting a febrile seizure. They write, "In summary, MMR vaccination was associated with a transient increased risk of febrile seizures in the two first weeks after MMR vaccination, but the absolute risk was small even in high-risk children." Agreed that the case you describe is severe; the vast majority of febrile seizures are benign. Eubulides (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

UCL Inst of Child Health and Netdoctor factsheet on MMRvaxPRO. It would be interesting to find out if there are many other similar cases, which seem somewhat different to the standard autism claims. --Salix (talk): 13:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the UCL Inst of Child Health is talking about the overall risk, for all ages, whereas Vestergaard & Christensen are talking about the risk at ages 15–17 months; that age is particularly prone to febrile seizures. There is intense interest in the sort of cases you're talking about but they are rare and I know of no systematic data. Febrile convulsions are a common complication of measles, and would be ten times more common if we didn't vaccinate against measles; not that this would be any consolation to those involved with the case you're talking about. Eubulides (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What about calling it the "MMR controversy of 2008"? The title makes clear that the hysteria is over and any uncertainties (were there ever any) have been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.234.205 (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather leave the article title alone, as it covers all controversies over MMR, not just the (huge) controversy started by Wakefield. The other (smaller) controversy is discussed in MMR vaccine controversy #Urabe mumps strain. Eubulides (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I suggest that we move this page to MMR vaccine autism controversy as a more descriptive title. MMR vaccine controversy would redirect to that page.

There is at least one "controversy" about MMR that is not directly related to the autism question. This concerns the benefits/disadvantages of the combined vaccine rather than injecting its three component ingredients separately. While governments generally recommend combining the three vaccines, some other authorities (e.g. The Vaccine Book by Robert Sears) recommend separating them. I'm not suggesting that this "controversy" is as intense as the alleged autism link, but there doesn't seem to be anything lost if we make the title of this article more explicit. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, would that not be an argument against moving? We mention the alleged link to autism in the second sentence, so I see no reason to muddle up the title. Article naming policy indicates that we should prefer simple, natural titles that readers actually use. Far be it from me to assume that a WP:POINT is being made, but increasing the social load of people who readily associate the words MMR, vaccine, and autism does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. Besides, the posited mechanism is immune system overload, which would have other adverse consequences not related to developmental disorders. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a emotionally charged area, but please assume good faith in your fellow contributors. Wikipedia naming policy says Do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. There is at least other controversy involving MMR other than the alleged autism link. This other controversy relates to whether the vaccines should be combined in one shot or given separately. Therefore the title "MMR vaccine controversy" could have meanings other than the alleged autism link, and the article as it currently stands is potentially misleading.

You suggest that putting "autism" in the title is a bad idea because people seeing the article's title (but not, presumably, reading the article) might get the subliminal message that MMR causes autism. This seems a bizarre reason to object to a move. The "encyclopedic purpose" of Wikipedia is to convey information about its subject as accurately as possible, not to engage in social engineering of those who might idly skim article titles.

You object that we "should prefer simple, natural titles that readers actually use". What names, then, do people actually use? I performed a Google search on a few potential titles, and came up with a few hits:

1. ""mmr and autism" 28100 Google hits
2. "mmr controversy" 7010 Google hits
3. "mmr autism link" 4010 Google hits
4. "mmr vaccine controversy" 2370 Google hits

So, going by what people "actually use", it seems that we ought to prefer MMR autism link to the current title. Now I emphatically do not think we should make such a change, but this example demonstrates that it is more important for the title of an article to be accurate than to reflect popular usage. (FWIW I personally do not subscribe to the MMR-causes-autism theory. I'm actually more interested in other issues with MMR, such as the combination shot versus multiple separate shot issue). Grover cleveland (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you then suggest some sort of disambiguator at MMR vaccine controversy with links to MMR vaccine autism controversy and MMR vaccine antigen load controversy? Or, better, put the history and consequences at the 'bare' title with {{main}}links to the more detailed articles? The page is currently 41 kB (though perhaps some pruning is due), which WP:SUMMARY indicates is ripe for spin-out articles. I am not sure, though that we have enough material and notability properly to cover all of these. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I confess that I had not fully realized that the article as it stands already encompasses multiple distinct "controversies" (autism, mumps, etc.) Rereading your earlier post, I see that my misunderstanding confused you, for which I apologize. At this point I would be happy if the article were lightly edited to delineate each "controversy" more clearly by the use of section headings, etc. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I object. The most natural place to have an article on the present topic is at its present location, 'MMR vaccine controversy'. Putative consequences other than autism may be added to this article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

More clearly stating the distinctions and overlap of the several controversies would improve the article, certainly. I am sorry for impugning your motives, I was confused as to the what and why of your proposal. Shall we withdraw the proposed move template, or would it be better to wait for a broader spectrum of opinion? - Eldereft (cont.) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the requested move. Thanks, everybody. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent rewrite to the lead

Deconstruction (hopefully in a not post-modern sense, and with the caveat that I did neither made nor objected to these changes) of this series of edits to the lead:

1. The biggest change involves removing text cited to the 2001 book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You about Children's Vaccinations and inserting text cited to a 2003 paper in Vaccine. WP:MEDRS suggests that this is the preferred direction for sourcing conflicts - towards more recent and more scholarly. Additionally, discussion of proposed mechanisms becomes less important when there appears to be no effect in need of explaining.
2. Said removed text singled out some of the controversy claims; these are better treated in the body.
3. Said inserted text describes the highest impact effect of the controversy. I might allow an argument that a description of departure from the mainstream is more relevant to this article than the effects of such departure, I am not sure.
4. Critics should be used carefully, as critics of the MMR vaccine, critics of mandatory vaccination, and critics of vaccine avoidance are all treated here.
5. There was also some rearrangement to make the new text flow better.

Discussion? - Eldereft (cont.) 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The changes substitute a more-reliable source (Offit & Coffin 2003, PMID 14604564) for a less-reliable one (Cave & Mitchell 2001, ISBN 0446677078).
• The changes deemphasize the results of an extremely reliable source (Demicheli et al. 2005, PMID 16235361) in favor of the conclusions of Offit & Coffin. I'd say that it'd be better to stick with Demicheli et al., as that's a newer review, and is a systematic review.
• Overall, the changes alter the emphasis of the original lead, which was about 50%-50%, into something that greatly emphasizes the mainstream view. They may go a bit too far in this area; after all, this is an article about the controversy, not about MMR vaccine.
• Also, I note that neither the old nor the new lead summarize what the vast majority of the body is about, namely the Wakefield case.
• In light of the above, I propose the following rewrite of the lead.

The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims that autism is caused by the MMR vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella. The scientific consensus is that no credible scientific evidence links the vaccine to autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

Claims of a connection between the vaccine and autism were initially published in a 1998 paper in the respected British medical journal The Lancet. After it was discovered that the paper's lead author had received major funding from British trial lawyers seeking evidence, ten of the paper's twelve coauthors retracted its interpretation of an association between MMR vaccine and autism.

Following the initial claims, multiple large epidemiologic studies were undertaken. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the UK National Health Service, and the Cochrane Library all found no link between the vaccine and autism. The Cochrane Library's systematic review also concluded that the vaccine has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, and that the lack of confidence in the vaccine has damaged public health.

Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You both make good points; Eldereft summarized the intent behind my changes, and Eubulides' criticisms are on point. I started out simply trying to improve the writing in the lead, which I found somewhat tortuous ("critics posit the assertion that...") I'm a bit leery of simply presenting the names of the august bodies which have found no link, because it sounds a bit like an appeal to authority - hence I was trying to get at the evidentiary basis for their conclusions by mentioning the negative epidemiological studies. I agree the Cochrane Review is among our best sources and should probably be preferred in the lead.

I think Eubulides' version looks fine, and would be fine with moving it to the article. In the brief paragraph on the Wakefield studies, it may also be worth mentioning the failure of independent groups to replicate Wakefield's findings, and/or subsequent revelations that the labs performing some of the central tests were found to be unreliable (will dig up sources) - that's far more convincing scientifically than his source of funding, though I agree both are notable. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I did that and installed the new version. The version I installed also contains the sentence "It was also discovered that Wakefield had previously filed for a patent on a rival vaccine using technology that lacked scientific credibility, and that Wakefield knew but did not publish test results that contradicted his theory by showing that no measles virus was found in the children tested." which partly addresses the points MastCell raises. I don't know offhand of a secondary source summarizing the lack-of-replication issue, though I'm sure something is out there; when we find one we can add it too. Eubulides (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also be fine with Eubulides' proposal, especially the renewed emphasis on Demicheli et al. A question, while this talkpage has the attention of people more knowledgable about medicine than am I - the article currently talks only about autism except for a few bulleted studies mentioning the autism spectrum (but not Asperger's explicitly) or pervasive developmental disorder. This is in keeping with Demicheli et al. (at least in summary) and Wakefield et al., but I wonder if those aspects of the controversy should be explored in more depth? - Eldereft (cont.) 21:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know reliable sources don't distinguish between Autism proper and ASD in general when talking about this controversy. That is, the assumption is that PDD-NOS etc. are milder forms of autism, and that whatever causes the latter also causes the former. If we can find a reliable source that comes out and says that, of course we should say it and cite it; unfortunately I don't offhand know of any such source (it's usually an unstated assumption), and of course it's not something we should say without sourcing. Eubulides (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

← To go back to the lack of reproducibility of Wakefield's PCR findings: the article already mentions the allegation that Wakefield's own lab had issues with reproducing these results. Refs for outside groups which tried and failed to detect measles virus RNA by PCR in peripheral blood from autistic children: PMID 16555271, PMID 17015560 - both explicitly indicate that they were trying to replicate Wakefield's findings and failed. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated assertions

The article claims with regards to increased rates of autism that "This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices;" without any supporting references. This is an unsubstantiated assertion and gives the impression of bias. There should be links to the details of the changes in diagnostic practises, with credible evidence of any change in diagnosis rates that they may have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgodden (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The cited source (at the end of the sentence, after the clause separated by the semicolon) says directly in its abstract

The increase is largely a consequence of improved ascertainment and a considerable broadening of the diagnostic concept.[1]

It is, in fact, a substantiated assertion. — Scientizzle 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded; the full discussion on underlying prevalance vs. apparent prevalance is at Epidemiology of autism#Changes with time. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re inserting another citation to Rutter: Typically, it's better to avoid sentences of the form "Jack and Jill[27] went up the hill.[27]" as the multiple [27]s are not only distracting, they give the mistaken impression that the sentence has multiple sources. For most readers it's better to mention "[27]" just once, at the end of the sentence. For the benefit of skeptical editors it's sometimes better to put in a comment at the end of the phrase in question, so I did that. Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks Eubulides! — Scientizzle 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Court ruling: no link

A court hearing a petition to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled that vaccines and autism have no link:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vaccines aren't to blame for autism, a special federal court declared Thursday in a blow to thousands of families hoping to win compensation and to many more who are convinced of a connection.

The special masters who decided the case expressed sympathy for the families, some of whom have made emotional pleas describing their children's conditions, but the rulings were blunt: There's little if any evidence to support claims of a vaccine-autism link.

The evidence is weak, contradictory and unpersuasive, concluded Special Master Denise Vowell. Sadly, the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science conducted to support litigation rather than to advance medical and scientific understanding of autism.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/12/washington/AP-Autism-Ruling.html

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Denialism

Nature says that anti-vaccine claims are denialism, like how intelligent design is denialism. The Squicks (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nature didn't say it. John P. Moore said it, in a review of a book about AIDS denialism published in Nature (doi:10.1038/459168a). As that book review never once mentions the MMR vaccine controversy, it is not directly relevant to this article. (It briefly mentions vaccines, but it is rightly focused on AIDS, and it never mentions the MMR vaccine controversy, so it's not directly relevant.) The other source your edit introduced, namely Allen 2009, has the same problem: it never mentions the MMR vaccine controversy. As neither source is directly relevant to this article, I've [ reverted] the change. Please supply sources that are directly relevant to the MMR vaccine controversy, rather than go off on tangents about vaccines in general, or about denialism in general.
• Also, that book review does not even come close to establishing that MMR vaccine controversy should be in Category:Denialism. The controversy itself is not denialism, and the book review does not say that people who are opposed to MMR vaccine are denialists.

Eubulides (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed it twice, for the same reasoning; it should not be reintroduced unless it can be sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I had put the AMA source in (not the other, which I don't feel is appropriate) and was going to try to find the primary in the AMA archive, I remember seeing the whole survey and it did have information on MMR, however, I am not able to find it on the AMA internal website. If the primary source could be found and information is going to be used it would probably be better on the page for vaccine controversy or it could be used here if someone can find the part that refers to the MMR.Fuzbaby (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the reliable sources do not comment on the MMR issue specifically; they talk about vaccine issues in general. That's a completely valid point. I will go from here to vaccine controversy, which would be the relevent page, and discuss it there. The Squicks (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The AMA survey is a seperate issue. For that, it does seem a bit mystifying why their survey's primary document is not availiable. Thanks to Fuzbaby for looking, regardless. If it is found, the MMR reference would certainly be notable IMO to this article. The Squicks (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Pharma employee at work?

I have had an extremely difficult time adding information to the article on the MMR vaccine controversy; every time I add information on a study that tends to support the hypothesis that the MMR vaccine may be a factor in causing autism, another user removes this information, despite my complete, accurate sources (reputable news sources, I might add, like UPI). It seems likely that someone with a vested interest in keeping these studies quiet is deleting them in order to present a biased article, rather than a full account of all available information. I wonder if this is the work of a pharmaceutical employee. 24.215.244.23 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I briefly looked in the edit history to see what this is referring to. The most recent change made by your IP address is here. It causes the resulting page to be very poorly formatted; see here. Your contributions were reverted almost immediately by what appear to be several independent editors (including a bot, which rejected some changes as being vandalism, presumably due to the poor formatting). Certainly the last change that your IP address made wasn't right: it starts off by claiming that MMR contains thiomersal, which is incorrect. The general rule in Wikipedia is to assume good faith, which means that one should not immediately assume that a pharmaceutical employee is out to get you. Eubulides (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article IS very biased. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A POV tag on an article is not supported merely by saying "This article is very biased". It needs to be supported by an explanation of where the bias is. Is it the article's name? its structure? undue weight? tone? unfair characterization of sources? That sort of thing. It's also important to give reliable sources showing another point of view, suggest better wording, etc., etc. (Please see WP:NPOV for details.) Just saying "it's biased" does not suffice. A good-faith effort (noted above) was made to address all abovementioned objections; no reply was made. For now, I'm removing the POV template; if you have specific support for the claim that the article is POV (and ideally, suggestions for improving it) please feel free to restart this process. Eubulides (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's plainly no "pharma employee at work". All that's happened now is that some chunk of silliness that's circulating from the handful of crooks, quacks and idiots who've tried to turn a buck from faking a link between MMR and autism, has been swallowed whole by a contributor. The MMR controversy never had anything to do with thimerosal, didn't allege anything about anybody been "overwhelmed" or talk about other vaccines at all. It is true that in vaccine ligation the plaintiffs have sought to bolt together a whole bunch of different vaccine issues, but they've got nothing to do with the MMR issue, which is not unreasonably summarised on this page. 86.144.102.72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

totally agree.there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism,and unscientific information on Wikipedia.it is total foolishness to think that there is a "pharma employee at work".all we are donig is removing unscientific,unsourced information.It is not bias when you remove information that is clearly inaccurate.even if the wikipedian does not know that the information he/she is adding is false,it remains the right of other editors to remove any inaccurate,unscientific information.Immunize (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearer Labelling

After yet another study proving that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, shouldn't we move this article to a page with a clearer title? "Controversy" makes it sound like the issue hasn't been resolved or that this involves subjective options. I'm not sure what it would be called, but something with "hoax" in it would be clearest. Wikipedia may not be a corporation but we do need a bit of corporate responsibility here. If parents look up this article, it should be clear that Wakefield's allegation of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism is fradulant.

Baird G, Pickles A, Simonoff E; et al. (2008). "Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders". Arch Dis Child. doi:10.1136/adc.2007.122937. PMID 18252754. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The main article has more links to other studies carried out, again showing no statistical link between the vaccine and autism. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 23:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

'Hoax' may be a bit strong, that implies that someone deliberately constructed the debate and that isn't true (as far as I know! I think what the original researchers did was terrible, but they did do it for genuine reasons). I do agree with you though. The page name could be changed to highlight that their was a controversy in the past, but is not now - a point that is covered in the article well.

After the GMC findings, perhaps MMR Fraud would be more accurate. Pustelnik (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Urabe mumps strain: Germane?

It seems to me that the section on Urabe mumps strain (the first section after the table of contents) is not relevant to the MMR vaccine controversy. The lead text discusses the controversy surrounding a link between MMR vaccine and autism. The Urabe mumps section discusses the inclusion of a particular mumps strain causing meningitis and/or meningoencephalitis. This doesn't seem to relate to the autism controversy. If it does relate, perhaps someone can clarify the relation? Or perhaps it belongs elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capn ed (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea may have been that the overall page is about controversy invoving the MMR vaccine, and that even though most of this controversy is over the hypothesized link to autism, there is also controversy over the Urabe strain. However, I agree that the article and lead doesn't reflect this idea, and I agree with you that the article is really about the MMR and autism controversy. How about if we clarify this by renaming the article to "MMR vaccine and autism controversy" and removing the Urabe section? The Urabe stuff is already well-described in MMR vaccine so this wouldn't lose any info from the encyclopedia overall. Eubulides (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

wouldn't the following extract give some reason for maintaining the Urabe section :"But the introduction of the MMR in Britain was attended by some difficulties. In 1992, after only four years of administration, two of the three MMR vaccines (Immravax, made by Merieux UK, and Pluserix, made by SmithKline Beecham), both of which contained the Urabe strain of the mumps vaccine, were withdrawn from the market because authorities concluded that children faced an increased risk of contracting meningitis through these vaccines. Only the brand made by Merck & Co. (MMR II) was unaffected. MMR administration continued, of course, with assurances from public health officials that the remaining brand of vaccine was perfectly safe, but it certainly was not lost on the nation that there might be a problem with the MMR" (from :http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf ). It could be perhaps appropriate to change the name of the section and to give it a broader content so as to expose the technical,legal,.... background of the controversy ???Trente7cinq (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can this article be flagged?

Can this article be flagged as biased on non-objective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Which wording is biased, what wording should replace it, and which reliable sources support the proposed new wording? Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoax category ?

WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.219.143 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and removed that category. Eubulides (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as there was never any evidence that the MMR vaccine caused autism, and that the British news media ignored all peer-reviewed papers that showed this, the MMR scandal is widely considered a hoax. Retinalsummer (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The controversy wasn't a hoax; it did happen. The idea that MMR caused autism was wrong and was wrongly supported by the media and celebrities who, frankly, didn't know what they were talking about, didn't care about the consequences, and didn't do the basic journalistic step of checking their facts with real experts. However, the word "hoax" implies deliberate deceit over something the hoaxer knows is false. Such an allegation would be hard to justify, certainly doesn't apply to all parties involved, and, since categories can't be used for controversial attributes, shouldn't be made via a category. Colin°^Talk 09:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

↑ This. — Scientizzle 13:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but by your definition of a hoax a lot of entries under the Hoaxes in the United Kingdom category would not count as hoaxes. Look at the Highgate Vampire entry or the Holocaust teaching controversy of 2007. No doubt some people involved thought what was being alleged was true, but because of poor journalism (either incompetent or deliberately misleading) the story was reported as true. When looking at journalistic hoaxes it will almost always be impossible to tell whether the hoax was deliberate or came about from incompetence and it's probably often a mixture of both. By your definition it is impossible for a journalistic hoax to exist unless it is signposted as an April Fools joke. Retinalsummer (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This may be a case where the term hoax may not be appropriately applied to other articles as well...If you look at the parent category, Category:Hoaxes, it suggests:

This category includes notable proven hoaxes and incidents determined to be hoaxes by reliable sources. An article's inclusion on this list is not intended to disparage the authenticity of the report, but to denote that it is in general considered, or evidenced, as having being created as a hoax, or was known to be false (or a joke) as created.

I'd say, if you can find a reliable source on this mess that does refer to this topic with the term "hoax", I might be willing to go with it. Otherwise, I think the article makes it pretty clear that the evidence is...ahem...wanting for any association between MMR & autism. — Scientizzle 21:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know Ben Goldacre often refers to it as a hoax (see here in his book Bad Science - the extract also featured here in the Guardian). If this isn't enough then perhaps it's best to leave it outside of the category. As you say the article is fine without it. Retinalsummer (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect Goldacre and find his articles very entertaining. I disagree with him when he defends Wakefield while justifiably blaming the media. By calling it a hoax, I worry he's heading into Simon Singh's "bogus" territory. Fortunately, the media are unlikely to sue for libel. I can't read the article in your second link as it has been "removed" but you should know that newspaper headings are rarely written by the authors of the piece. So I can't really tell if it was Goldacre who claimed Wakefield "started" the "hoax". The difference between a true hoax and this one is that in a true hoax, someone knows damn sure that it is rubbish because they just made it up. There's plenty evidence that Wakefield would benefit from it being true, but to allege he just made the whole thing up is pretty strong. With the media, they callously didn't care whether it was true or not: it made great press and sold papers. Colin°^Talk 10:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article is (was) the same extract from the book on Goldacre's website. I linked to it to show that this wasn't just a post on someones blog, but was published in a national newspaper. Sorry for any confusion. Also, as stated above, my decision to include MMR in the hoax category was guided by the inclusion of other articles in that category, like the Highgate Vampire, that fit the same profile (crank story that media ran with). It's not so much that the news media didn't care whether it was true or not, it's that they deliberately ignored all the evidence that it wasn't true. The difference between knowing something is rubbish because you made it up and knowing something is rubbish because you ignore any evidence that says otherwise seems academic. Say a friend of mine comes up with a hoax to tell people that black is white and asks me to help him perpetuate the hoax and I agree. Now, I didn't make up the hoax, but I'm going along with it knowing that it is false. It is fair to say that I am part of the hoax. Retinalsummer (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the distinction would be if the "original" study was intentionally falsified as opposed to simply bad science and confirmation bias because the researcher was depending on the study results for economic gain. The link between vaccines and autism is mostly a temporal one (age of diagnosis vs. age of vaccination and a lot of post hoc assumptions) and it is not entirely based on the one study. Calling it a hoax assumes bad faith, and by Hanlon's Razor when stupidity or incompetence suffices, malice is exempted unless there is evidence of intent. Between foolishness and fraud, this appears to be foolishness. SDY (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming bad faith on behalf of the news media. Retinalsummer (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that "the media" (who?) distributed outright lies or obviously misleading statements about a possible link? They may have given it more credibility than it deserved and probably talked it up because it drew attention (hence advertising dollars), but I don't fault ducks for quacking. SDY (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is evidence of that. It's known as the MMR vaccine controversy. I don't see the problem with using the term "news media". You ask "who?", but I'm not going to go through all the articles, tv specials and radio spots devoted to the controversy in order to compile a list of perpetuators. As the wiki article says, "The controversy gained momentum in 2001 and 2002; in the latter year, 1257 stories were published about it". I think it's simpler to refer to the large amount of discussion in various media on this topic as "the news media". As for your second point, I do not think that misleading the public - whether deliberately or through incompetence - on matters of health is excusable on the grounds that the journalists who misled the public did so to make money. Retinalsummer (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, to be a "hoax" rather than just a "mistake" there have to be intentional and extraordinary attempts at deception. The media is simply making "ordinary" attempts at deception, and anyone who watches the news understands that it is usually overstated to make the story better "infotainment." Can you point to a news story by a reliable source that asserts the claim of a link is true as opposed to simply asserting that the claim and controversy exist (i.e. "teaching the controversy")? SDY (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoax would be stretching it too far, but including it in Category:Conspiracy theories would be justified. We just need to cover that subject in this article, as I suggested above. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

SDY, Journalists are not supposed to deliberately mislead the public, no matter what you think. If you read the above conversation you'll see a link to a news story I posted in reply to a similar question. Brangifer, Yes, perhaps that is the best course of action. Retinalsummer (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wholly agree that they should not, but what has been done to this topic by the press is not outside of the normal coverage that science and medicine get in the media (i.e. overstatements based on extreme ignorance of statistics and scientific method). That the news handles these topics badly in general is an obvious problem, but again I'm convinced it is more incompetence than malice. SDY (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I too think we can attribute most of the problem to ignorance, rather than malice. In principle, these types of things can experience a change over time, which also can result in different ways of accurately describing the situation. It starts with poor science and ignorance, then it gets exaggerated and conspiracy theories get added to the mix, followed by sensational media coverage. Finally serious scientific and governmental attention is directed at the subject and the flaws in logic, misuse of statistics, and final debunking ensue. Then the true believers remain, who will continue to preach their version of "the truth", in spite of evidence to the contrary. All along there have been scammers preying on believers in the ideas. They are the ones who are truly criminal. They perpetuate myths and falsehoods, and create even more vicious conspiracy theories designed to weaken their victim's and customer's confidence in mainstream science and the government so that they can use the cover of "health freedom" to sell their products and services to unwitting victims. It is their actions that can be termed a hoax, quackery, and healthfraud.

The article should cover all aspects, from the innocent ignorance, to the conspiracy theories, to the debunking, and to the healthfraud and hoaxes. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If we can document that scammers deliberately perpetuated claims that they knew to be a falsehood, then we should do so, and that would make the Hoaxes category appropriate. The problem is that, short of an actual confession, it's very hard to distinguish between the guy who knows he's lying, and the guy who is 'merely' incapable of accepting the truth when it conflicts with his prejudices and/or business interests. I say 'merely' in scare quotes because I'm not convinced it's any better than outright lying, but it's a different type of wrong. --GenericBob (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidence graph - is this actually showing incidence?

re. this graph:

Measles incidence (lower curve) and vaccination rates (upper curve) in England and Wales, 1991–2007.

The data source used for the 'incidence' part of the graph actually gives notifications (i.e. reported suspected cases) rather than confirmed cases, hence the discrepancy with article text that's based on laboratory confirmed cases. IMHO we shouldn't be representing notifications as 'incidence', since they include a large number of false positives; the confirmed cases are probably more relevant here. --GenericBob (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is notifications (source in image description). I will work up a new graph in a few days based on confirmed cases so that it meshes better with the text. No worries if you want to remove this one in the meantime. While we are here - is there anything else you think could be done to present this type of graph better? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment it out until the new version is up. No other suggestions on the graph at present; it's hard to present info where effect lags behind cause, but I don't know a good way to deal with that. Thanks for taking the trouble to create it, BTW! --GenericBob (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr Bernardine Healy

Early in 2008 Dr Bernardine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health said : "I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational," Healy said.( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml ). Even if this declaration has been made two years ago , I hope it could help writing the WK article with some ... serenity .Trente7cinq (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Who initiated the GMC proceedings ?

My proposition - not referenced -" Brian Deer seized the GMC " has just been reversed : could someone help me document that point ? I read that another person might have done so...but after the above cited journalist .It is not without importance . Shouldn't it also be recalled that B.Deer could attend the GMC sessions ? Another point : I had created the section on the PCC ; the information has been integrated in the section "manipulation of data " . I can agree with this change , but I would suggest the following : shouldn't the PCC proceedings be recalled...at the end of the GMC section ( since they had been interrupted by the GMC procedings ?- if I understood well !?-). PS : sorry for my english ; I am not used to the latest version of WK too !Trente7cinq (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Since the GMC proceedings are still under way , my suggestion /PCC is not valid Trente7cinq (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular issue with documenting the extent to which public information on the issue follows Deer's reporting, but I am not sure what "Brian Deer seized the GMC" is intended to say. Did the GMC initiate these proceedings in part due to Deer's articles? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote - a few days ago - "Brian Deer seized the GMC" - a formulation which has rightly been deleted , I intended to say that "the GMC initiated these proceedings not only due to Deer's articles but even to Deer's claim...which is not true as I came to know .This topic is rather hot, and I must carefully check almost every assumption ! That is why I wrote "the prosecution Sally Smith QC, is reported to have reasserted that the proceedings ”has been brought solely on the instructions of the General Medical Council" instead of simply "....Sally Smith QC reasserted " : I had no direct reference for that - just second hand; see the ref . -, making the supposition It should be true . That the GMC initiated this proceedings due to Deer's articles is obvious ; more risky would be to reason on the cooperation of Deer with the GMC ( and quite evil to ask " et vice versa ?").Trente7cinq (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My suggestions concerning the controversy within the controversy have been in most part deleted .I won't argue for my suggestions except on one point : The paragraph "The General Medical Council (GMC), which is responsible for licensing doctors and supervising medical ethics in the UK, investigated the affair[49]. The GMC had brought the case itself claiming that it was in the public interest. The then-secretary of state for health, John Reid MP, called for a GMC investigation, an investigation Wakefield seems himself to have wished [10]. During a debate in the House of Commons, on 15 Mar 2004, Dr Evan Harris [11], a Liberal Democrat MP, called for a judicial inquiry into the ethical aspects of the case, even suggesting it might be conducted by the CPS.[12] In June 2006 the GMC confirmed that they would hold a disciplinary hearing of Wakefield." should indicate that no parent complained . It is an important information . Not decisive, but important ..even if you can be of opinion that these parents were in error Trente7cinq (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Scientizzle , I can't fully agree to the argument you briefly raised ( 20:12, 1 June 2010 ) for not adding that "no parent complained " .You wrote :"parents of patients have no special purview over the ethical considerations--this statement is a non sequitur that only obfuscates" . Law is the law , I won't disagree with you on that point . ( but not every citizen does know the law , doesn't they ? And according to what I read that point played a part in the controversy . If just one parent had complained for bad treatment ...don't you think B. Deer - or whoever you want -won't have made an issue of it ? Wikipedia is not just intended to informed peoples , so I think it could be necessary to somehow clarify that point ... with other words than just "no parent complained " .Trente7cinq (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I only just saw this comment, so I apologize for the delay in reply. My reversion is, I believe, appropriate for a few reasons. 1) Whether or not any patient or parent complained about Wakefield's treatment is independent of whether Wakefield actions were within the standard of the ethical frameworks of the revelant governing bodies (a parent voicing support & consent for a procedure does not alone justify painful and invasive colonoscopies and lumbar punctures that are not medically indicated). 2) It's not necessarily true that "no parent complained" and proving this negative would require a high-level source to verify such a claim (such as the GMC itself stating that it had never received any complaints regarding Wakefield). It is true that the GMC did not cite any parental claims in its justification for bringing the case. 3) Parents of patients are not the only category of individuals that can submit valid complaints to the GMC. Indeed, Wakefield has been criticized by many scientific and medical professionals for the better part of a decade and it's abundantly clear that these criticisms influenced the GMC whether or not they were accompanied by any formal GMC complaints about Wakefield.

The subtext of the "no parents complained" claim is abundantly clear in the anti-vaccine fora: its a facile diversionary claim that implies that since the parents support his activities, Wakefield's actions were therefore appropriate. This is, naturally, obscenely incorrect and counter to ample established ethical and legal codes.

However, I will grant that it may be a useful tidbit of information to more clearly indicate that the GMC did not cite any specific complaints. As such, I have made this edit. — Scientizzle 17:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientizzle, although not fully agreeing with the arguments you are developping I take your edit for granted and thank you for that .Better than nothing !Trente7cinq (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction : latest change

I dared change the introduction today . I left many phrases that , to my opinion , would better have their place in the main article . I think that "The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims , primarily raised by a 1998 paper published in the British medical journal The Lancet[1]that some form of autism may be triggered by the MMR vaccine, a vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella.The debate around this hypothesis – which has since been infirmed by numerous studies around the world – immediatly stirred a wider – and sometimes very emotional- controversy with a sustained media coverage due not only to the effect of such claims on the immunisation rate but also to several disturbing aspects of Dr Wakefield's work ,as unearthed by a journalist of the Times and that would drive to the longest GMC inquiry ever done ." could be enough ; some stress on the scientific consensus might be added ; mention of the latest decision of the GMC needed . But for the rest : in the different section of the article .What do you think of that ? Trente7cinq (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK my suggestion was not fully followed ! Nevertheless, the changes operated first by JoelWhy then by Scientizzle do ameliorate the introduction compared to the previous version . I totally agree with : "The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims that autism spectrum disorders can be caused or triggered by the MMR vaccine [" caused or triggered" : good writing ; but in the article precise extracts of the paper will have to be added ...since the position of the various tenants may have evolved underway in one direction or another], a vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella. Claims of a connection between the vaccine and autism were raised in a 1998 paper in the respected British medical journal The Lancet.[1] The controversy led to sharp drops in vaccination rates in the UK and Ireland,[2] which in turn led to greatly increased incidence of measles and mumps, resulting in a few deaths and some severe and permanent injuries.[3] The scientific consensus is that no credible evidence links the vaccine to autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks." [ in should be noted - but in the article itself - that the tenants of the hypothesis still hold their position .; I fully appreciate "the controversy" being the subject of the drops in vaccination rates...since this is a point subjected to discussion ....that should be tackled in the article itself in connection with the monovalent/trivalent debate, the writing of which - to my opinion, and as far as I know- seems unbalanced in the article]. I would have several other things to say concerning the other paragraphs of the introduction ( I'll have to search for acurate references to support my suggestions . What I can add now : the GMC proceedings - and perhaps other legal aspects of the controversy- should be mentionned in the introduction itself , shouldn't they ? Respectfully .( PS : how can I do to appear blue again ?!) Trente7cinq (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph's pretty good. I inserted the phrase "(later retracted)" into "Claims of a connection between the vaccine and autism were raised in a 1998 paper in the respected British medical journal . . .". I believe that otherwise, it's unsourced ("respected"), and POV. With this addition, it allows the "respected" to stand as contextual info instead of POV. Still needs a source, however. Umdenken (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Umdenken ! About "respected" : I had deleted it ...it had been restored : not that great a point to me ; many other points within the article need to be ameliorated . ( what about "famous"  ???? )Trente7cinq (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"recent studies"

It is not without much hesitation I decided to change - very imperfectly-the section " Recent studies" : I was aware that "This section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk pag...". I understand that my proposition may appear controversial , whereas I whished more serenity here above ! But it just wasn't fair that the only studies referenced were "contra" . It may be that the general consensus is that Wakefield hypothesis is wrong , but in an encyclopedic work it should be stressed only after rewieving the pros and cons . And if the article should be just a resume...there is no need for the list of all the " cons" studies ...Trente7cinq (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for a more appropriate exposure (?) of this section , couldn't a scroll menu be used ?Trente7cinq (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There are neither reviews nor meta-reviews in the "pro" list? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have concerns about this entire section. While I think there is great value in outlining some of the major research studies done in response to the MMR scare, I think the current laundry list of primary sources, namely the results of single published trials, is borderline original research, probably counterproductive to a good neutral presentation (especially a simplistic pro/contra layout), and is so jargon-heavy and disjounted as to be practically unreadable. Given that there are now several reviews and meta-analyses from which to draw, it might be better to incorporate the good descriptions of some of the major studies into written prose and lean heavily on secondary source evaluations of the research field. It will likely be next week, however, before I can think of tackling this. — Scientizzle 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, get rid of the list of clinical trials (primary sources) and use the reviews and meta-reviews (secondary sources). The reviews do the work of deciding which clinical trials are important, what they demonstrate, their relative weight to the whole field, etc, and they will draw conclusions that we can quote. If we decide by ourselves what the clinical trials mean, without relying on secondary sources, then we are doing original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, many (most? all?) of the studies in the Pro section don't appear to be relevant to an MMR / autism link. I.e., they all seem to be about an autism / bowel syndrome link, which is not the subject of the page. Dogweather (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK ! Up to you . I am not sure I'll be able to play some more part in this section .Trente7cinq (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just came across by chance on the report funded by the National Academies of Science titled : Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism which is referenced in the article on two occurences : in the introduction "Following the initial claims in 1998, multiple large epidemiologic studies were undertaken. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[9] the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences,[10]..." and at the end of the section Controversy following publication of report . In the present article the reference (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997 ) does not give access to the report . This link does :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997 .An exctract "The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism....The committee further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism that have been generated to date are theoretical only. " Perhaps precisions on the process that lead to this report would be welcome :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=nap10997&part=a2000af8fddd00135 ???Trente7cinq (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Omnibus Autism Proceedings

Today I inserted a link to the US Court of Federal Claims offering a general overview of the OAP . Trente7cinq (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Studies renamed to Recent Research

After removing the Original Research from Recent Studies, (1) there were no more Pro references remaining, and (2) the remaining references were no longer individual studies. I therefore removed the Contra heading and renamed the section to be more appropriate. Dogweather (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hannah poling case

I had added a short note on Hannah Poling case ( see : 22:58, 23 May 2010 ), writing :"(Although not linked to MMR but to thimerosal the case of Hannah Polling -taken off the agenda of the OAP when the government agreed to grant compensation - illustrates the vaccine-autism theory since "the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder."the judge said " .

This had been reverted by Bobrayner (23:07, 23 May 2010 )with this brief comment :"Reverted to revision 363813074 by Trente7cinq; if it's not linked to MMR then why add it to the article? (and HuffPo is hardly a great source" .

I can understand that a strict or narrow interpretation of what should be or shouldn't be in the article would impose this choice not to include any information on H.Poling case (or at least in the way I put it ...). Nevertheless, you are not without knowing that much of the opposition to Wakefield and al.'s theses is not just purely based on the appreciation of their written works ( not to speak of ethical considerations , which are important but not debated here). To be short , there is a deep rooten faith ,based on a so far long proven knwoledge , that autism can't be caused by vaccines , which make it very difficult to acknwoledge that ,in certain circumstances , some vaccines may cause/trigger certain forms of autism .Here comes the case of Hannah Poling . So, citing Hannah Poling case could help considering this possibility with reason and not just passion . The meaning of the case could perhaps be written in another way .I lately found this commentary  :"The implications have been the subject of much debate. Government officials and some scientists portray the case as an exception without much meaning in the global picture. That's because Hannah has something called "mitochondrial disorder" that the government believes made her uniquely susceptible to vaccine side effects. On the other hand, other scientists believe the case could begin to explain why some children suffer vaccine side effects when others don't - some have inherent weaknesses that make them susceptible"(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501263_162-4315501-501263.html?tag=contentMain%3bcontentBody) .( Perhaps someone could help find the URL where the ruling on H. Poling case is posted ? I mean an official site );Respectfully Trente7cinq (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want a more reliable source on the Hannah Poling case, try this: [2]

• "clinicians were at a loss to explain the reasoning behind the VICP's decision."
• "in recent years the VICP seems to have turned its back on science"
• "whereas it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations. Indeed, because children with such deficiencies are particularly susceptible to infections, it is recommended that they receive all vaccines."
• "After the Polings' press conference, Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, responded to their claims that vaccines had caused their daughter's autism. "Let me be very clear that the government has made absolutely no statement . . . indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism," she said."
• "Hannah Poling clearly had difficulties with language, speech, and communication. But those features of her condition considered autistic were part of a global encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. "
• "the VICP should more rigorously define the criteria by which it determines that a vaccine has caused harm. Otherwise, the message that the program inadvertently sends to the public will further erode confidence in vaccines and hurt those whom it is charged with protecting"

There has been a great deal of scaremongering about vaccines and autism. This is not compatible with the available evidence (which shows that vaccines are safe); instead, scaremongers resort to cherrypicking and distortion instead. It is very sad that a case of one person (out of many millions), who just happens to have a serious pre-existing problem was turned into a poster-child for vaccine damage. The pre-existing problem, in this case, is closely associated with the problems that are claimed to have been caused by vaccination.

Whatever next? "Yes, my son has always had a big appetite... he was chubby... but I got him a mobile phone when he was 12 and he grew up to be seriously obese. Therefore mobile phones can cause obesity in millions of users!"

If you think that this single case is sufficient to overturn large high-quality studies of vaccine safety, I would suggest that you reconsider.

bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bobrayner , thanks for this long reply . I have not much time right now : I feel like posting a comment later Trente7cinq (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bobrayner , to begin with I won't make that big an issue of Hannah Poling case .You wrote "If you think that this single case is sufficient to overturn large high-quality studies of vaccine safety " : I didn't want to overturn anything . As I wrote just above , I understood the Hannah poling case - as a possible example that in" certain circumstances , some vaccines may cause/trigger certain forms of autism ". Do you see any willingness to challenge "large high-quality studies of vaccine safety " in this cautious statement ? The commentary I quoted "The implications have been the subject of much debate. Government officials and some scientists [ as Paul Offit ]portray the case as an exception without much meaning in the global picture. That's because Hannah has something called "mitochondrial disorder" that the government believes made her uniquely susceptible to vaccine side effects. On the other hand, other scientists believe the case could begin to explain why some children suffer vaccine side effects when others don't - some have inherent weaknesses that make them susceptible" . Couldn't we elaborate a commentary starting from this point ? ( I wrote "Although not linked to MMR but to thimerosal" which - according to the very document you cited [When she was 19 months old, Hannah, the daughter of Jon and Terry Poling, received five vaccines — diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), measles–mumps–rubella (MMR), varicella, and inactivated polio.] looks like an error i would supposed caused by judiciary pigeonholing . The case of H.P. could have been introduced in the Omnibus proceedings under this thimoresal-only hypothesis ??? Trente7cinq (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"later retracted" ?

I just noticed in this edit (not that that editor did it) the words "later retracted". That is misleading, since Wakefield has never "retracted" anything. We need better wording that makes clear two things: (1) Lancet retracted it and (2) Wakefield still believes it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep; good clarification. Dogweather (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Simplify the lede?

I think the lede is getting a bit too big / complex / detailed. Would it be appropriate to simplify it and summarise? The individual sections of the article already cover the fine detail (though there might be scope for improvement). I'd suggest a lede like this:

The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims that autism spectrum disorders can be caused by the MMR vaccine. The scientific consensus is that no credible evidence links the vaccine to autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

Claims of a connection between the vaccine and autism were raised in a 1998 paper in The Lancet, a respected British medical journal.. Later investigation (particularly by Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer) discovered that the lead author of the article, Andrew Wakefield, had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest, had manipulated evidence, and had broken other ethical codes. The Lancet paper was retracted, and Wakefield was found guilty of serious professional misconduct in May 2010.

The claims in the Lancet article were widely reported; vaccination rates in the UK and Ireland dropped sharply, which in turn led to greatly increased incidence of measles and mumps, resulting in a few deaths and some severe and permanent injuries. Following the initial claims in 1998, multiple large epidemiologic studies were undertaken. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the UK National Health Service, and the Cochrane Library all found no link between the vaccine and autism. The Cochrane review also concluded that the vaccine has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, and that the lack of confidence in the vaccine has damaged public health. A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program rejected compensation claims from parents of autistic children.

One thing I've added is a couple of words emphasising the extensive media coverage of the controversial claims, which I think the current lede neglects.

Any suggestions / comments / complaints? Although this does not make any drastic changes to content or meaning, I'd rather get consensus here before replacing the lede of a controversial article. :-)

bobrayner (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me. Go for it. Robofish (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the lede insists on the Cochrane Library , shouldn't it be recalled that this same organization added : “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing is largely inadequate."???? Trente7cinq (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Scientizzle , I fully agree with your modification ( 20:41, 1 June 2010 ) on Cochrane . Looks better Trente7cinq (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

tory or not tory

Bobrayner ,

You did delete the mention that Edwina Currie was Tory as exposed -among many other sites- at http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=299159 in such a way : "The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988 by Edwina Currie, then Tory Health Minister " ; Can't be more explicit ! If you do not doubt the veracity of this information ( don't you ? )why deleting it ? Did you think politics had nothing to do with the controversy ? If so, I shall invite you to reconsider that point owing to some well documented discussions that occured in the house of Commons , but even in the scottish parliament . I must add that this single word "tory" won't make the article too long ; It was not added so as to fuel polemics ...but just to recall to those who 'll pay attention to this single word, that the MMR controversy was not only a scientific controversy ...a view the article has already partly developped since it stress so evidently on ethical issues .Trente7cinq (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that she was a member of the Conservative party (for which "Tory" is a convenient short form in the media).

I removed the label because I thought it was irrelevant and added minimal benefit to the article. Currie acted in her capacity as health minister, not as a party member. We might as well label her as a radio personality or HIGNFY contestant...

If you want to imply inter-party controversy in the UK, could you link to a good source? All major parties in the UK supported MMR vaccination. Conservatives supported it; Labour supported it; and the article even mentions Dr Evan Harris, a member of the third-largest party... so what would be gained by adding a party label?

However, this is not a big deal to me; if other people think it's helpful to add "tory" then I will stand aside.

bobrayner (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bobrayner, thank you for your answer ...and sorry for the tone I used ( in fact I was a little annoyed by another issue cf : "no parent complained"...). All major parties ( what about the minor ones ?...) indeed are said to have supported the MMR vaccination...to a certain point : later, in 2001 the consensus seemed to be not that solid since : "Dr Liam Fox, the shadow health secretary, added his weight to the proposal. He said that the Conservatives would reintroduce single-dose vaccines if they were re-elected - if vaccination levels were still low. He said: "It must be better for children to have a single vaccine than to have nothing at all. This is not an ideal situation but it must be infinitely preferable to the prospect of dead or damaged children." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1314594/Ministry-is-blocking-single-dose-vaccines.html ). Dr fox is reported to have made this proposition after Julie Kirkbride, Conservative MP for Bromsgrove, introduced a Private Member's Bill calling for single doses to be available.The statement of Dr Liam Fox may be viewed opportunistic , that is not the point : more important to the article would be to know if such statements were reiterated or were ...single shots .(For the moment tory/conservative might indeed be set aside) .Respectfully Trente7cinq (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Did Dr A. W. appeal the GMC decision ?

When the GMC decision was made public late May , it was reported Dr Wakefield had 28 days to appeal it : could be useful for the purpose of the present article to make this point clear . Having not seen anything concerning it ( but having been far away from the question since June too ) I would say he did not appeal the decision . Would someone reference that point ?Trente7cinq (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference #76

I'm not sure this is the right place, but I figured this would be better than blindly editing the article. Anyway, reference #76 is a dead link, but the lay summary is still good. CBJamo (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the tip.Yobol (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fraud update

Can an editor familiar with this issue provide a better description and source than this at Vaccine controversy, please? Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks Yobol. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly useful commentary from the American Council on Science and Health

See http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.2224/news_detail.asp for details. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

About time

It's nice to see this report added to the article. What's sad about is a one-sentence line that states, "Last week official figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year, compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease." This fake controversy based on fake evidence actually killed people. Maybe Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey can apologize to every child who contracts measles. Of course, why would anyone listen to an ex-Playboy model and bad actor about medicine. Oh right, because Americans are idiots. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Offit is an idiot? (Though I do agree with you about the tragedy.) Eubulides (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, not all Americans. But once I find the stats for a rise in childhood diseases in the US, I might go back to my original statement. Remember, it's more than just MMR vaccine. It's Astrology, paranormal stuff, and the belief that drinking human urine cures all that ails you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This decision pretty much kills this conspiracy theory. We should re-title this article to the MMR vaccine non-controversy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

←The court decision could not be any clearer:

"This case, however, is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories. The result of this case would be the same even if I totally ignored the epidemiologic evidence, declined to consider the video evidence, and/or excluded the testimony of Dr. Bustin. The result would be the same if I restricted my consideration to the evidence originally filed into the record of this Cedillo case, disregarding the general causation evidence from the Hazlehurst and Snyder cases. The petitioners’ evidence has been unpersuasive on many different points, concerning virtually all aspects of their causation theories, each such deficiency having been discussed in detail above. The petitioners have failed to persuade me that there is validity to any of their general causation arguments, and have also failed to persuade me that there is any substantial likelihood that Michelle’s MMR vaccination contributed in any way to the causation of any of Michelle’s own disorders. To the contrary, based upon all the evidence that I have reviewed, I find that it is extremely unlikely that any of Michelle’s disorders were in any way causally connected to her MMR vaccination, or any other vaccination. In short, this is a case in which the evidence is so one-sided that any nuances in the interpretation of the causation case law would make no difference to the outcome of the case."

I'm not going to be so naïve as to believe that this ends the BS (I just listened to an interview with some anti-science idiot deriding the decision), but just like Kitzmiller (not going to link it to keep those nuts away), the courts are an unbiased authority in these issues. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought her up, this article seems geared towards a British audience. In the US, Jenny McCarthy, noted scientist ;), has been a big public proponent of the cockamamie MMR-autism link. Doesn't she deserve a mention on this here page? 128.196.202.73 (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't about la McCarthy, but about what she and her ilk say and do, so I don't see why she should enjoy inclusion in this article other than a possible link to her WP page waaaay down there at the bottom. MarlinOrange is correct in identifyng her as an American, but I assure you that there are plenty of us who recognize the looming disaster if many children remain unvaccinated. I saw her on TV in a discussion panel with Dr. Offit, maybe a year+ ago. She derided anything he said because he received money from his rotavirus vaccine research while not recusing herself from commenting because of the money she gets from her books and appearances. The poor man appeared to be quite frustrated and roadblocked by her, like someone who couldn't figure out how to pick up a pocupine. Wordreader (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to MMR Vaccine Conspiracy Theory

It seems fairly clear now that the MMR Vaccine does not cause autism, I suggest the title be renamed to MMR Vaccine Conspiracy Theory. Dionyseus (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the term 'conspiracy theory' really fits. To me, a conspiracy theory is all about secret plots by some group or other - "the government staged 9/11", "freemasons killed Princess Diana", etc etc. The core of the MMR shindig was the claim that MMR causes autism, which isn't a conspiracy theory in itself. Some people did spin that into conspiracy theories ("pharmacorps cover up the risks to protect their business" etc etc) but those weren't really central to the issue - I can't see any mention of them in the article at present.

But I'm not terribly fond of 'controversy', which is one of the most overused words on Wikipedia. Maybe something like "Anti-MMR claims"? (I'd go for "Debunking of anti-MMR pseudo-science", but that would probably violate the NPOV rules.) --GenericBob (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One reason that the conspiracy type talk isn't in the article is that the theories don't appear in RS, but they are mentioned in them. This lack leaves a hole in the article's coverage of what's happening in the real world. Here are some links to RS:

• The real MMR conspiracy, Joan Smith, The Independent, Sunday, 12 September 2004

• "Congressman Burton is alleging that the IOM was in conspiracy with the vaccine manufacturers..." JAMA

• "Unfortunately, dangerous beliefs that lack a scientific basis and should be further discredited by this type of flagrant conspiracy-mongering can survive and flourish." New England Law Review

• Google Scholar - 275 hits

So, conspiracy theories do exist and the subject should be covered, even if there is no change of title. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest "MMR vaccine hysteria", ala "Salem Witch Hysteria" of 1692, but it's proably too inflammatory, though to my mind accurate. Wordreader (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd intro sentence

Resolved

The current sentence is slightly absurd in the context and should either be referenced or shortened:

The scientific consensus is that no evidence links the vaccine to the development of autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

Now if the controversy is about MMR vaccine possibly causing autism spectrum disorders, the pattern is similar to:

It cannot be proved that I touched him with my knife, and by the way it did just a little scratch

What is relevant in the context is that there is no proven connection between MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders. The clause

the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks

regards something quite different, i.e. that people shall use it for its benefits, and ignore the low risks. Those alleged risks, should have no specific connection to the autism spectrum disorders. The context of the article is, as far as I can see, the scientific fraud controversy between some report writers (primary) and the rest of the science community (secondary), and any usage statement about the usefulness versus risks regards the tertiary party of vaccine users. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read and reread that intro in the context of this article's subject and I think it's justified to keep "the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks." That's because this article isn't only about an unproven vaccination -> autism link, but about all the accusations made against the MMR vaccine, which include general safety considerations. I'd like to hear what others think. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good; but I think "outweigh any risks" would scan a little better. bobrayner (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Done. I'm going to mark this section as resolved, if that's okay. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

better although wonderful, reasonable or substantial, and relativity of 122

I'm not expert enough to edit this article boldly, so I'd rather simply raise questions:

• "'In hindsight it may be a better solution to give the vaccinations separately, although administratively it is a wonderful idea. [¶] When the vaccinations were given individually there was no problem.'" The quote is accurate. But to say something is "better ... although ... wonderful" is confusing, and if it's idiomatic or humorous the editing should reflect that, perhaps with a bracketed insertion, an ellipsis, or wording after the quotation.
• "The initial press coverage of the story was reasonable for a small and not very significant study. The Guardian and the Independent reported it on their front pages ...." I assume that most studies do not get any reporting in those two papers' front pages, so should "reasonable" be "substantial"? Perhaps the intent was for "unreasonable" but that probably would depend on a degree of hindsight for which we can't hire journalists or scientists.
• "[O]nly 122 articles": Relative to what? The number sounds large to me precisely because I'm not an expert and I'm more typical of Wikipedia readers on medical subjects. A few words establishing why 122 is "only 122" would help, even if it's by linking to an article or a source on how to interpret these counts.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a quote: 00:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

I have noted your concerns and you're right, so with two edits I have removed unnecessary wording that only confuses, but kept what was essential. I hope that helps. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

PRWeek as a source

[3] What is the problem with using that article from PRWeek? Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

PRWeek is "a weekly trade magazine for the public relations industry." Is that really the best source available for the statistic in question? Why not a report in the mainstream media, e.g. NY Times or The Economist? Moreover, how was the statistic obtained -- a Gallup poll? a Web survey? Something else? And what is the population from which the "62%" figure is drawn -- doctors? reporters? the general public? the U.S.? worldwide? Sourcing aside, surely we do better than this vaguely-worded factoid. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have a problem with the source? The PRWeekly article is linked, so readers can look at it and decide on their own how much credibility to give it. Otherwise, it meets WP's guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The link allays my concerns; interested readers can go there to find details. When I tagged the source it was not linked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Helsinki

Please excuse my butting in here. A few days ago I noticed the following statement in the article: "The trial involved procedures with medical risks but was not approved by an Independent Ethics Committee and Wakefield was shown to have multiple conflicts of interest in the conduct of the study. These breached basic requirements for medical research ethics laid out in the Declaration of Helsinki, a widely recognized standard for research bioethics" This seems to be original research to me, at least based on the primary source cited. And it doesn't exactly seem like a bland commonly-known statement of fact. I thought rather than removing I'd post here to give editors familiar with the subject matter should the opportunity to find a good secondary source or tell me to piss off. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been through this article in detail (I've done more at Andrew Wakefield), but because of how it developed over time, I'm sure it may have plenty of original research, improper use of sources, and poor attribution. If you see something, fix it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I found a couple of secondary sources and removed some OR: [4] --Mkativerata (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a bland, commonly-known statement of fact to anyone who works in clinical research. Stating that it wasn't approved by committee and there were conflicts of interest is obviously naughty to anyone who's actually familiar with clinical research ethics, but a general reader might not understand why these things matter. If we're stating that he violated standards, we should explain what standards he violated. SDY (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Using one source to report on what a second source says?

I like the new additions, but this line bugs me: "According to WebMD, the BMJ article also claimed..." Shouldn't we just cite what the BMJ article says? (I recognize it's harder to access, but it's certainly a more reliable source than WebMD.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because the BMJ article is written by Brian Deer, an investigative journalist, who was the driving force behind the investigation, so we need to also access what other reliable sources say about the BMJ report. Careful attribution, and a variety of sources, are needed here, because of Deer's role in the entire thing. The BMJ article was not written by a doctor-- it was written by a journalist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, got ya. That works for me.JoelWhy (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's more-- we've got "celebrities" claiming it's only Deer, so a broad and correctly attributed use of independent, secondary sources is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's also this, from the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine... MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also to be added: The Autism Vaccine Fraud: Dr. Wakefield's Costly Lie to Society SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)  Done

Excellent work. While secondary sources are good, third party sources often add an extra degree of confirmation to the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:22, 13 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) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wake Forest study

I removed this addition from the article:

However, a new 2011 study revealed that there is a link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html ThVa (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I took this out because the study does not claim to have proved a link between MMR and autism. What it seems to be saying, as best I can tell from the Daily Mail article, is that examination of children who had regressive autism and bowel disease shows measles virus in the gut, apparently a vaccine strain. Correlation is not causation, especially given the children were apparently selected for autism and bowel disease and there don't seem to be control groups. (Maybe measles vaccine causes bowel disease but not autism, and the high rate of measles virus is simply due to selecting for bowel disease? Maybe the presence of measles virus in the gut is a consequence of bowel disease and not a cause?)

Edit: now I look, I find that Stephen Walker, the same researcher involved in the study above, previously warned about these interpretation issues: "Even if we showed association (between measles virus and bowel disease) and we published it in a peer-reviewed journal, the conclusion will be simply that there is measles virus in the gut of a large number of children who have regressive autism and bowel disease. End of story. We haven’t done anything to demonstrate that the measles virus is causing autism or even causing bowel disease.”

The study probably should be mentioned in this article, once the dust has settled, but we should be careful not to overstate its findings. --GenericBob (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

...and looking further, although the Daily Mail article shows a date of Jan 26 2011, it looks as if it's actually an old article reporting on the same 2006 work I quoted above. Note that the byline is 'Sally Beck, Mail on Sunday', but Jan 26 2011 is not a Sunday. You can also find a cache of the same article dated 18 April 2010; looks like the Mail's code is borked and is displaying current date rather than publication date.

See also this October 2006 article from Clinical Psychiatry News, which gives the exact same figures reported in the "2011" Daily Mail article (82 tested out of 275, 70 = 85% of those 82 testing positive). So this is not a new study, it's something that was released in 2006 - not peer-reviewed, and accompanied by cautions about interpretation and the preliminary nature of the data. The fact that it hasn't been followed up by peer-reviewed publication of the final data suggests that those warnings were well-founded. --GenericBob (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gates

I've removed the quote from Bill Gates here. This whole sorry saga was amplified by people listening to celebrities talking about subjects they know very little, exaggerating things and using forceful language about their opponents. I don't see why we need to quote Bill Gates any more than we need to quote Juliet Stevenson, say. I'm rather sceptical of the "has killed thousands of kids" claim, considering a significant section later in this article notes only a handful of deaths. Colin°^Talk 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering Measles caused an estimated 345,000 deaths in 2005, which makes me think that it's not unreasonable that this has not killed thousands. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/conditions/chd/0316/0316_background.jsp IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can see his claim could stack up is if some third-world country's vaccination program was shelved or severely disrupted because of this. Is there any evidence for that? BTW, it isn't very helpful to provide a bare link to a subscription-only article (especially one where the publisher won't even let you read an abstract). Colin°^Talk 08:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I think Bill Gates is likely correct here, I agree that his views don't need to be presented in this article. He is a major philanthropist in the area of vaccines, and as is his intense nature as a person, he seems to have done very intensive study, so I think he knows what he is talking about. However, rather than an off the cuff remark from a celebrity businessman/philanthropist style interview, it would be better to stick to verifiable medical sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is also possible that in an off the cuff remark, he got "thousands of cases of measles" confused with "deaths". However, if his facts are correct, then we should be able to find a source to back them up, and I'd be keen to include it. Extraordinary claims / extraordinary proof and all that. I'm comfortable with Offit's claim that "that paper killed children", but putting the blood of thousands of dead children onto Wakefields hands really does require a better source than a celebrity interview. Colin°^Talk 10:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that approach sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a third approach....we don't have to use the whole quote, and not in a quote box. A nice solution has been suggested here by Scientizzle:

• 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.

There is no demand for a MEDRS source in this case (we still use plenty of them) 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 this and the Wakefield article benefit from this inclusion.

As to the number of deaths (which we don't need to mention), well over 100,000 children die of measles every year. Gates is involved in the problem on a wider scale than just the actual "documented" deaths attributable to Wakefield, and he sees needless deaths in these high figures on a worldwide basis. That's what he's up against and wants to prevent. I suspect he blended the two issues in his quote, recognizing that there are far more deaths because of antivax fanaticism than are recorded, thus justifying him saying "thousands". Note that the actual quote ("So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids.") doesn't say that "Wakefield has done it", but that "the lie" which Wakefield and many others perpetuate "has done it", and that's very true. The antivax position is lethal to children and society. For the curious, here's a WHO report from 2007 documenting radical falls in measles as a result of vaccinations. Alone in Africa they've seen huge success: "In Africa, the progress has been even greater, with measles deaths falling by 75%, from an estimated 506 000 to 126 000." Sweet! It looks like my figure of nearly a million worldwide has likely dropped a bit in the last few years, which is great news. According to this WHO factsheet from 2009, my figures are really old, probably about eight years old. Things are really looking good. I have now refactored my comments above. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what a killer measles is and how valuable vaccination is. But where is the evididence that Wakefield's fraudulent paper caused such a drop or prevented an uptake in vaccination in a country where deaths are measured in thousands rather than counted on one hand? Gates says it is the "mothers" that believed the lie and didn't get their children vaccinated. Not some big government vaccination program that got cancelled. You can't extend "it's an absolute lie" to the general anti-vac situation because that would be OR and putting words in Gates mouth. He was clearly talking about the Lancet paper. Gate's words add no new information to the MMR vaccine controversy. The only reason to include it is because it is Bill Gates, billionare philanthropist. And that's a lame reason. Colin°^Talk 09:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Colin. Quotes from celebrities, however well-intentioned and passionate they might be, are part of how this mess got started. Let's stick to the facts. If Gates was talking about citable facts, let's cite what he was referencing. Making it clear that the anti-vaccination movement has had real consequences is definitely something I'd include in the article, but Gates is not WP:MEDRS. SDY (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI...another cause of autism discovered

This may not be directly related to this article, but I'm sure many editors here will find this interesting: Causes of autism#Closely spaced pregnancies. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ratajczak 2011

I shouldn't have to do this, but I will preface this comment with the fact that I 100% support vaccination, and understand the scientific consesnsus that there is no link between autism and MMR. With that said, should this article cover Ratajczak's 2011 review in the Journal of Immunotoxicology? DigitalC (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is a "review" of possible hypothetical causes of autism, in essence a hypothesis generating paper rather than a systematic review of the literature. As the hypothesis has already been tested and rejected by the scientific community, I don't see why we should place any weight on it in this article. Yobol (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

...and after reading it more closely, it's a wonder this "review" got through peer review at all. It hits all the high notes of the fringe antivaccinationist movement including the vaccine overload theory, the thiomersal causes autism theory as well as MMR. She cites prominent fringe antivaccinationists such as Mark Geier (of the medical license suspended fame) and Edward Yazbak and somehow manages to talk about the MMR theory without mentioning Andrew Wakefield once, or mention that definitive findings of the Institute of Medicine even once. She also manages to cite a wordpress.com blog as a reference (it's always a bad sign when Wikipedia has higher standards than the journal article)! Let's not mention the, uh, let's call it interesting theory about recombination from vaccines as a cause of autism. Garbage in, garbage out... Yobol (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename proposal

See Talk:Vaccine controversy#Rename proposal. Editors here may have an opinion on the appropriateness of that article title, or alternatives. Colin°^Talk 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Suppression of dissenting voices?

Looking through the talk page archive leaves me wondering.. it is amazing how biased Wikipedia editors can be. People push their POV by suppressing other texts. They don't want to accept any edits that conflicts with their beliefs. Suppression of unwanted dissent appears to be rife here. I don't know whether MMR causes all these problems people talk about, but the continual suppression of dissenting views is worrying to me. I saw some interesting stuff in the talk archives, and I just had to ask "why isn't this stuff in the main article", for example the Hannah Poling case isn't mentioned - which is obviously relevant and a glaring omission.

This is *supposed* to be a page about MMR controversy - IMHO this page should include many many more of the popular controversies, and present factual information for and against as long as it is from a reputable source. May I say that some peoples ideas of what is reputable/authoritative is very flexible, each according to their biased opinions, eg: Citing BBC News is OK if it supports you, but CBS News should be rejected as un-authoritative if it doesn't support your POV Zarkme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to edit the article. Important policies and guidelines to master, if you want your contributions to conform to accepted practice here, include WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and, for medical claims, WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia is strongly constrained by these, and contributions that don't follow them will be removed from any article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also examine WP:FRINGE. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Essential. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Frankly the idea of editing anything that is kinda "fringe" on wikipedia fills me with dread. A lot for a newbie to take in.. Zarkme (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This article really deals with two issues: (1) the scientific claims being made; and (2) the actual science. The claims being made include things such as that vaccines can cause autism. The actual science, however, overwhelmingly disputes this assertion. There's no room for 'dissenting opinions' in science. There's just the science. If the science shows X, then the article must state X. Obviously, not all science is so clear cut, but as there is virtually zero scientific evidence supporting the claim that vaccines cause autism, it would be a violation of Wiki policy to edit the entry to make it appear as if the science is somehow murky on this issue.

As for the Poling case, please do not confuse the ruling by a court with scientific understanding. I'm an attorney and can assure you that the understanding of a court is a far cry from the scientific method. (And, in any case, if you look at Poling, you'll note it doesn't actually provide any factual support for the claims made by those who are against vaccines.)JoelWhy (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think this article was called "Why MMR vaccines don't cause autism" or even "The MMR autism controversy" and could only include information directly from mainstream scientists solely pertaining to research on the lack of connection between MMR and autism? Am I wrong? MsBatfish (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. This article is dealing with the controversy created by the Wakefield paper. The Wakefield paper (which has since been thoroughly discredited) claimed a link between vaccines and autism. So, what other information did you wish to include in the article?JoelWhy (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. If you like back in the article's history, you will find that this article has always been about the MMR vaccine autism controversy (at the end of 2009, for example, the lead said "The MMR vaccine controversy refers to claims that autism can be caused by the MMR vaccine, a vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella. The scientific consensus is that no credible scientific evidence links the vaccine to autism, and that the vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks."). The lead was tightened after Wakefield's fraud was published by the BMJ. Perhaps the article should be renamed. Agree with JoelWhy on Poling.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that renaming the article may be in order. This article, as it is written, is dealing with a very specific topic. Perhaps something along the lines of "MMR Vaccine/Autism Controversy"? (Ok, that's not very elegant, so if someone has a better suggestion, I'm all ears...JoelWhy (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No special characters (/ see WP:MSH) in article titles, and we should get WT:MED consensus before moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

MMR vaccine autism controversy? Though, I think the current title is OK. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would correctly be MMR vaccine—autism controversy, but unless someone can suggest significant controversies that (1) are specific to the MMR vaccine and (2) have nothing whatsoever to do with autism, I'm not sure that we need to bother being so precise. I believe that the readers will expect this article to be about whether the MMR causes autism even if the word autism doesn't appear in the article title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't support changing the name. Colin°^Talk 18:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I actually see your argument the opposite way. It's precisely because the controversy only deals with the (non)existence of a link between autism and the vaccine that the word "autism" should be included in the title.JoelWhy (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) Oppose. Wakefield's hypothesis included bowel disease. Can we please just leave the title untouched? JFW | T@lk 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• What I meant was that the current article title doesn't imply anything about it being specifically related to this one controversy. Editors and readers may assume that it is the place for any and all controversy or criticisms of the vaccine. The article currently seems mainly devoted to one specific study that connected the vaccine with autism and the research that refuted this claim. But the title it "...controversy", which would imply that it would be mainly about any controversy, which would be the public debate or disagreement about this vaccine, which, right or wrong, continues to this day. Some other topics might include the connection with meningitis (which is discussed in the article but not mentioned in the lead), concerns over side effects, prominent people who were and/or to this day are involved in spreading the message that the vaccine is connected with autism or other illnesses, parents refusing to vaccinate their child, opposition to compulsory vaccination, and so on. Many but not of these things were initiated by the autism connection paper, but even if there were, I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Other areas of controversy don't have to be as significant to merit inclusion in the article (the way the title currently stands), they simply have to involve controversy and the vaccine.

I support either changing the title or broadening the article's scope. Either way, the lead needs a bit of work. Right now it says "The MMR vaccine controversy was a case of scientific misconduct". That's not very grammatically correct. At least it should be something more like "...was a public and scientific controversy stemming from research that was later found to be a case of scientific misconduct". MsBatfish (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Point of order. It was never a scientific controversy. Almost every scientist and physician thought that Wakefield was wrong. Just took awhile for the system to prove he was a fraud. It was a political controversy on one level, and a star-studded public frenzy at another.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I guess it depends on your definition of controversy. There was a disagreement between scientists, even if there were more on the side of "MMR vacinne doesn't contribute to autism". Something like 13 scientists were on the original Wakefield paper, a few of whom never retracted. But even if you remove the word "scientific" from my proposed sentence, which I don't really object to, it still makes better sense than the current lead.

And your (OrangMarlin's) point only further disproves the claim (above) that this article can only mention "the scientific claims being made; and the actual science". MsBatfish (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

13 scientists signing on to a fringe theory is not a scientific controversy. You can find 13 scientists who don't subscribe to germ theory (or gravity, suppose.) There was no scientific controversy. Also, I there's no "controversy" about the potential side effects of vaccines. There is a potential for side effects, including death. There's really no dispute about that. It's just incredibly rare, and the simple cost benefit analysis shows that saving tens of thousands of lives is worth the miniscule risk of a serious side effect. That being said, I agree the title needs to more succinctly describe what issue this page is dealing with.JoelWhy (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a bunch of scientists who think Intelligent design is real science, and the theory of Evolution is wrong. Of course, science isn't a democracy so there wouldn't be a vote, and if there were, ID would lose 99.9 to 0.1. I remember when the Wakefield study was published. I was skeptical when I read it, because there were so few data points. My ex-wife and I argued about vaccinating our young daughter, when I threw in her face the tons of data of what happens if an unvaccinated kid gets one of these preventable diseases. I actually printed out all the articles I found, then gave her the Wakefield article. I said the risk benefit was way over on the side of vaccination. The physicians who signed onto the Lancet paper by Wakefield have all withdrawn their co-authorship (before it was found fraudulent). Basically, they thought his data was accurate. There is a matter of trust. BTW MsBatfish, how does my point support anything but what this article is about? I'm confused. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I thought your post was mostly about how you disagree with anyone who thinks that vaccines are riskier than they're worth or that they might cause autism? I think you might be missing my point. I'm not disagreeing with the article's conclusions that MMR has not been shown to cause autism. In fact, our personal opinions are irrelevant. I am just explaining possible examples of what types of things might be included in the article (if there are reliable sources found). The article as it's currently titled is supposed to be about any public controversy regarding MMR, regardless of what any editor's views on the subject or the safety of the vaccine are. Whether or not you agree with my inclusion of the word "scientific" in my initial suggestion or that there might potentially exist some controversy over the side effects (meaning which side effects exist and/or their prevalence) doesn't invalidate my main point. Also, nothing precludes Wikipedia from having an article about how some notable people believe in Intelligent design, and notes that the majority of experts disagree and so on. However, whether you would call that a "controversy" is another matter. Anyway, just remove the word "scientific" from my post if you like, arguing over trivial details is preventing us from discussing the real issues. Which I believe are:

1) What is our definition of "controversy"?

2) Can we all agree that either: a )the lead needs a bit of work and the article is allowed to contain things other than just the MMR/autism debate, or b) if not, the article needs renaming?

3) There is no rule that the article can only include science, since it is supposed to be about public controversy?

MsBatfish (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

MsBatfish, as you say, "our personal opinions are irrelevant". Can you supply sources that indicate any notable controversies specific to the MMR vaccine other than the Wakefield/autism/bowel-disease one? Colin°^Talk 13:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So is this a health scare, a case of scientific misconduct, or a genuine scientific controversy? I'm categorizing the latter right now - see category:scientific controversies. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a case of scientific misconduct. It's absolutely NOT a genuine scientific controversy.JoelWhy (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Then the article needs a new title. Move it to MMR vaccine scandal or MMR vaccine misconduct case? How about MMR vaccine scare? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There's always more than one way to classify things. We can't choose names based on how we perceive the topic. Looking at the titles of scientific papers on pubmed and articles in the quality press, both "controversy" and "scare" are used to describe this event (though the former is more common). To say it wasn't a controversy is frankly to rewrite history and to do a disservice to the good scientists who researched and published the many papers subsequently showing no link. I'm fine with the current title but if there is a consensus for change then I'd be happy with MMR vaccine scare. Colin°^Talk 08:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cost of beating a dead horse?

This seems like a good place to put a list of the large studies that were conducted looking for a link between MMR & autism and their cost. It seems to me that there was a large study more or less every year from 1999 in different countries and their cost is relevant as a result of this controversy, as the funds spent not available for other, more useful research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monado (talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 January 2011‎ (UTC)

Misleading Information in lead

I appreciate the sentiment of this recent addition: "As of 2012, autism can be detected in children as early as 6 months, half a year before the first dose of the MMR vaccine is administered."

However, I believe it is unintentionally misleading. Quack Wakefield and his ilk never claimed MMR was the only cause of autism, just one potential cause. This recent addition implies that, because autism has been detected in children who have not yet received the vaccine, the vaccine cannot be the cause of autism. It would be like saying we have detected asthma in people who have never smoked, so therefore smoking does not cause asthma . Given the wealth of evidence we have demonstrating there is no link between the two, I don't think we need to resort to pointing to science which amounts to a logical fallacy. (Again, I recognize that this is a good faith edit.)JoelWhy (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy?

Is there even a controversy? Or is one side so obviously right that the other is simply politicizing the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.241.118 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends how you define 'controversy'. In the sense that there are still plenty of people on both sides willing to argue the issue, then I think it still qualifies as a controversy.

In the sense of a scientific controversy, then no. --GenericBob (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper wording of article lead

The reason this article is entitled "controversy" is because it is just that - a controversy. Although there are court-rulings on the matter, there is still an ongoing "he-said" vs "she said" issue in the general public and that needs to be recognized, whether it's an accurate discussion or not. To maintain this article's impartiality, accurate and impartial language must be used. That is why my edits reflect using the term "case study" to describe Wakefield's Lancet contribution. We in academia call the Lancet submission a "case study," not a "paper." There's a difference.

Additionally, the lead should describe what said case study did. It did not demonstrate causative proof, but rather indicated a potential connection and called for more research. The edit re: the placement of "1998" is simply on a readability basis.

Please demonstrate how my additions do not add additional information and clarity to the article. EduZenith (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There's actually been some debate here about the term "controversy" used in this article. There's certainly no scientific controversy, and, as far as a 'he said, she said' "controversy," I'm not aware of any debate going on outside of Wakefield devotee circles (which almost universally tend to involve people w/in the anti-vaxxer movement.) Can you point to some relatively recent sources discussing this debate? (I say "recent" because, as more and more damning facts have been released about Wakefield, it appears to me that the "controversy" has become even less controversial.)

---

"I am fine w/ the readability changes (I just don't think they matter either way, frankly.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

"and called for additional research into the connection." should not be necessary. Scientists always say that. The real news is when they say that a matter is closed. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

The reason I included "called for additional research into the connection" in the edit is because a very significant portion of the said scandal is that Wakefield supposedly "proved" a link or said there was one between MMR and autism in the Lancet article He didn't do this, even though both sides of the autism argument say he did. It's important to elucidate this fact. This point is worth further discussion.

As for the "controversy" issue I'll have to get back to you all on that.

Also, can we at least agree to include "case study" (vs report - more descriptive and more precise), "1998 publication" (vs publication in 1998 - fewer words and better readability)? EduZenith (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain the difference between a "paper" and a "case study". I though the latter was a type of the former but I'm willing to learn something new. Preferably with sources. I think, for the lead sentence, the extra precision of "case study" isn't particularly useful compared with the potential problems of that jargon confusing the reader (for example, there were many patients in the study so the reader might also get confused over the singular/plural).

As far as "controversy" goes, I've commented on this before. IMO there was a scientific controversy even though many here will claim there wasn't. Yes, many/most/nearly-all [take your pic] scientists didn't believe it but that didn't stop a huge amount of research money and time and people being spent/wasted establishing/discovering there was nothing in it. I think the "controversy" is essentially historical both in the scientific field and the lay one. The quality TV and newspapers now always prefix the research with "discredited" or similar. Those who claim there remains a controversy are really just on the fringe now.

Remember the lead is supposed to summarise the body. If there's a point missed by the body text, then let's improve that first. There are lots of points that could be mentioned in the lead (such as your "further research" one) but the line has to be drawn somewhere and the issue is whether that is essential to grasp what the subject is. Colin°^Talk 09:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition of the "further research" is not helpful, as Wakefield has done his best to promote the theory (going to alt med autism conferences, etc) that trying to make it appear now that he has been circumspect about the theory looks incredibly naive at this point. I also do not see the relevance to changing paper to case study, as case studies are a type of research paper and does not really increase the reader knowledge of it, and can confuse the reader. Yobol (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at one point, it appeared Wakefield may have been (in part) the victim of an over-zealous press, attributing beliefs to him that he had not clearly enunciated. I heard a few people (several years ago) defending Wakefield on this point. However, once Wakefield started appearing as a speaker at anti-vaxer conferences, etc, it became clear that the media had it right (or, if the media had put words in his mouth, Wakefield was quick to make the fiction a reality.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why has this not been included?

These FACTS are important for anyone researching the MMR Autsim link. Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html #ixzz1vRz4IFom

and

Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html #ixzz1vS0NxMmf

AND

Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html #ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 91.88.8.179 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism

It's already been mentioned in articles here (and we've seen these links before), but this source isn't considered a reliable source. You need to get your "news" from better sources than Mike Adams and Natural News. They are very partisan sources, and aren't known for accuracy, only for pushing a fringe agenda against all evidence to the contrary. Don't worry. This will be covered more fully as RS cover it. If it ends up meaning that much of the article gets revised, that will happen, regardless of the outcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The anti-vaccine lunacy is so desperate to find something, anything to support their beliefs, because they are totally lack any evidence supporting any link between MMR vaccines and Autism. The IP editor keeps using that word fact. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if Wakefield were to get his license to practice medicine back again, it would not mean he was correct. There would still be no evidence of a link between vaccinations and autism. A reversal of the judgment against him could happen because of some possible procedural error or other technicality. Such things happen all the time. If it were to happen, antivaxers would still claim it meant he was right, which would be a very large logical fallacy. A parallel situation is the chiropractic profession's (mis)use of the Wilk v. American Medical Association finding. They claim it justifies their claims, but the judge expressly said it didn't, and that the AMA's claims that chiropractic was quackery and unscientific were justified and understandable. Their only mistake was carrying on an illegal boycott against chiropractic, when other methods might have been better. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I just wrote an article about how the anti-vaccine lunacy now has grabbed onto a court ruling in a small city in Italy that awarded damages to some parents who claim that MMR caused their child's autism. The judge ruled because of the Lancet article and refused to allow the retraction into evidence. If you heard a loud noise a couple of hours ago, it was my facepalm. Remember, logical fallacies are the bailiwick of pseudoscience. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I heard about that strange case. Fortunately, proven facts of this nature are not determined by courts of law, but by scientific research. Unfortunately anti-vaccination true believers are often clueless about such things. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Except for Kitzmiller. Always remember Kitzmiller. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for further commentary that doesn't belong here

Thanks for the input but I’m still concerned we are missing something here. And I do try to look at other "news" sources - perhaps the FDA is better. Lets try this: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm

 Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)

Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2000 Lazarou J et al. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200–1205 Gurwitz JH et al. Am J Med 2000;109(2):87–94

   Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly
   100,000 DEATHS yearly
   ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths
   Ambulatory patients ADR rate—unknown
   Nursing home patients ADR rate— 350,000 yearly

Of the 100,000 DEATHS yearly it would be interesting to know how many are from vaccinations. Do we have more information on this? 100k deaths is a scary number! And 2 MILLION serious ADRs per year – what is serious? Is autism part of the “serious” ADRs?

I use the word “fact” because the Judge has ruled it thus. Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that Prof. Walker-Smith's striking "cannot stand" because of serious misconduct in the way General Medical Council (GMC) handled the case against him, and that the entire council needs to be reformed. Refer: http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/professor-john-walker-smith-exonerated-in-autism-mmr-case.html

logical fallacy - Why do we need to vaccinate everyone? You talk of logical fallacy – so perhaps someone can help with this: "vaccination only works if you do it to everybody". But surely if you are VACCINATED you do NOT need to worry about those that are NOT VACCINATED…? It implies you can get sick even if you are already vaccinated. So why do we need to vaccinate? Polio proves we cannot eradicate a virus (as was touted by WHO) and what a failure that has become. Refer 47,000 children in India with non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) which is Polio caused by the Polio vaccination. Refer: http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html

The CDC dropped the OPV from its vaccine schedule in the US because it was causing polio. In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio (NPAFP) in the United States. Refer: Shaw D. Unintended casualties in war on polio. Philadelphia Inquirer June 6, 1993:A1.

And what about this: Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). These people have been proven to lie and promote things that are NOT good for our society. I’m sure we are all aware of the facts without recourse to the multitude of references that support the statement. But, just to be neutral we’ll say the allegedly corrupt Murdoch empire's Sunday Times is run by Rupert Murdoch's son James. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer. James Murdoch is even on GSKs board of directors. James allegedly hired a freelance hack journalist, Brian Deer, to fabricate the Wakefield fabrication. It created a firestorm in London that ignited another vaccine promoter, Dr. Fiona Godlee, who happens to be the editor in chief for the British Journal of Medicine…

The statement, “One can deny the facts but one cannot deny the consequences of denying the facts” seems relevant here. The earth was believed to be flat, then a new belief was discovered; It’s round! Now we all believe it’s round. Is the same scenario happening with vaccinations? Is the vaccination facade breaking down? It seems many are seeing a eugenics motive behind the call to vaccinate. That will have major repercussions. Perhaps we will see more of the MMR link to Autism in the near future. I would not like to be implicated if the link is proven: To hurt a child is a sin with repercussions – regardless of ones’ beliefs. 91.88.226.134 (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism

I should have stopped reading as soon as I saw a link to Natural News presented as evidence...as for the deaths from vaccines, it's like pointing to the number of deaths caused by motorcycle helmets falling off a shelf and hitting someone in the head to argue that motorcyclists are therefore better off not wearing a helmet. I don't think Wikipedia is necessarily the best place to educate people with a complete lack of understanding of science and medicine.JoelWhy (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have stopped when the IP editor brought up Adverse Drug Reactions without actually knowing what it means, and without actually understanding the analysis. I should have stopped prior to the point that the IP editor defends Wakefield, who committed a fraud by somehow tying Brian Deer to Rupert Murdoch. That is hysterical. The Lancet retracted the bogus article. We're done here.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"To hurt a child is a sin with repercussions"... yes, I think that's exactly why people are so upset with anti-vaccinationists: their conspiracy theories hurt children by exposing them to vaccine-preventable diseases. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Italian case

I thought I'd start this as a place to discuss rather than edit war, as I know there are many editors with strong views on vaccines.

The Italian ruling appears to be very recent though I couldn't find a date.

I'm not sure the best way of including this here, I did my best. Its an ongoing story and could well drastically change this article. Cjwilky (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

--I have looked a little into this and so far I'm having difficulty finding a primary source that actually discusses what happened. A lot of third-rate rags seem to have covered essentially the same story but none of them actually cite a source or give you anything to follow on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.203.174 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So, we should add a decision from a minor Italian provincial court that apparently set aside ALL scientific evidence as something that deserves weight in this article? I think not. A real court, such as the US Vaccine Court, which actually does weigh in with scientific evidence, has not approved of any cases, but I believe one, that directly links MMR and anything. There is no debate, unless by debate we mean there's a group over on one side who tends to ignore all scientific evidence, and decides to whine loudly that without this evidence they have to invent shit, and there's this other side, that has not only not found a link that vaccines cause neurodegenerative diseases, but in fact, show that vaccines don't cause neurodegenerative diseases. So sure, let's discuss this minor little case in Italy because it has no substance. And while were at it, let's move on to the other fake debates of evolution and global warming where science is completely in agreement, but we can "reignite controversy" because those without evidence keep reigniting. I get to use that particular strawman argument because the same exact tactics are used by vaccine denialists, evolution denialists, and global warming denialists. So, unless there's some real science that was uncovered in the Italian decision (and there wasn't in the review of the case…which was reviewed by plenty of individuals), let's move on. But seriously, if you found some real science in that case, bring it. But I've already reviewed it. I'm pretty confident I'll win. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are inappropriate for an article talk page. This is not a forum. For either side of the debate. If these sort of comments continue on this page, they may be removed. Colin°^Talk 17:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I stopped reading around the time you suggested using the Daily Mail as a source. Its medical coverage is an embarrassment even by the standards of tabloid journalism. On a related note, I have a (somewhat outdated) list of medical articles which cite the Mail as a source here, if anyone wants to help me go through and improve their referencing. MastCell ^Talk 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hanna Poling case

I reverted what I considered to be a POV edit that also failed MEDRS. I think the case is notable for the MMR vaccine controversy, but if we're going to add it, the last thing we want to reference is a citation that makes it appear that the case is a de facto proof that MMR causes autism, when the vast bulk of data debunks such a link. Anyways, I'm sure there are more neutral sources for this case that make this case exactly what it should be, a one-off issue. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A one-off issue reliably sourced may still be important and notable. If it is generally stated that autism is never caused by the vaccine, evidence to the contrary becomes more interesting. (Of course, if it were said that autism was caused by the MMR vaccine, it would instead be interesting to see cases of autism where the MMR vaccine could not have been a cause.) As to the source, it is secondary, independent, and considered a generally reliable source. It is simply reporting established fact (that the US Government, in a case before the US Court of Federal Claims, conceded vaccines aggravated a condition leading to the development of autism). I will tone it back a little instead of reinstating it as it was. --Nouniquenames 00:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this source is appropriate for this article. It's a column written by a lay person with some clear misunderstandings about basic physiology. For a claim that "Dozens of other families have since reached similar settlements", a news source would be a bare minimum improvement.

Discussing Poling specifically, here are sources from TIME, NEJM, New Scientist & New York Times. Currently the Poling case is discussed @ Vaccine court#Previous rulings. However, because it involves more than just MMR, it probably doesn't fit on this page. — Scientizzle 19:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the original edit, and I didn't realize he re-added the same source. Why would the editor use an Australian news article for an American legal case? I think we need to discuss this further before adding it to the article. It really has nothing to do with MMR at this time. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not find mention of the name "Hannah Poling" in the source used. This is even before any questions about whether the source used meets Wikipedia policy and guideline for reliable sources. Zad68 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for that issue. It was originally a content restoration. You will notice when I added a modified version back in, I did not mention any specific names, and stayed within the support of the source. I am concerned that Bobrayner also reverted my ce/pov edit. My comma around line 11 seemed uncontroversial to me, and I'm not sure the justification of maintaining "manufacturers of MMR under..." instead of my adjusted "manufacturers of MMR vaccines under..." Is the allegation that these manufacturers are in fact making the disease with intention to infect? Surely not! (That would require many reliable sources claiming the same.) These manufacturers are/were making vaccines against the MMR diseases (which would contain, but not be the same as, the individual diseases). Not to mention MMR by itself is not something which can be made (or contracted). It is three separate diseases. So the logical expansion to which Bobrayner's evaluates is "manufacturers of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella under..." The only possible contentious point would be the language I toned down at about line 5. Unless the source specifically states that one directly led to the other, (which is technically an unsupportable claim, so it should be supported by more than one source to be included here anyway,) this article cannot (per WP:OR) claim that it did. We can only report that one was followed by the other and let the reader make an informed conclusion about possible correlation. --Nouniquenames 14:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored your "pov cleanup and ce" edits. They seem fine. It was a bit of a baby/bathwater situation. — Scientizzle 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)