Talk:MMR vaccine and autism

MMR criticism

When I first came across this issue, it was in a pamphlet I read in a UK doctor's surgery. The main drift of the article was that the administering of three vaccines at once was potentially more risky than giving three jabs at different times. The main focus of the pamphlet was on possible links to bowel conditions.

The pamphlet noted that by administering the three at once, rather than separately, the vaccination campaign was more likely to achieve the desired coverage. It also pointed out that Sweden was allowing administration of separate jabs, but that separate jabs couldn't even be bought privately from UK pharmacies.

That 'controversy' - the apparent conflict between the goal of achieving coverage versus the goal of minimising risk - has been swamped by the antivax thing and the Wakefield/Lancet scandal, so that I can't now find any information (here or elsewhere) about the potential risks of administering three vaccines at once. If I could find a WP:RS discussing such potential risks, and added mention of it to this article, I suspect it would be instantly reverted, because 'fringe'. There is no MMR 'controversy', it's all about autism now, and MMR is unassailable (at least on WP).

So to which article would one add material based on a WP:MEDRS that was critical of MMR? Is there any point in even looking for a reliable source? MrDemeanour (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Find a source first, then ask your question. Your Q is moot at the moment. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Three vaccines in one dose is meaningless. It would be safer as there are less total components than 3 individual vaccine jabs. The DPT vaccine, which is typically given 4 times before the MMR, has no controversy and is a triple vaccine for comparison. Even a single vaccine has multiple antigenic foci. WP bases it's inclusions on reliable sources, and that pamphlet is unlikely to be one. If the source meets WP:MEDRS criteria, however, it can be included. I would suggest searching the US National Library of Medicine. It's a fairly exhaustive source for scholarly medical publications. The source should be a secondary article, not a primary study. MartinezMD (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Title

Why does the title of this article assert a nonexistent connection? The postulation that this connection exists is nonsense, and well-debunked nonsense at that. We should not be leaving a bare title like "MMR vaccine and autism" sitting here suggesting that there's anything but nonsense behind said connection. I'm proposing adding "conspiracy theory" to the title, because (although this doesn't strictly look like a conspiracy theory at its core), it's widely referred to as one by reliable sources, and the extensive and irrefutable debunking of this link would necessitate any continued belief in such a link to also include belief in a conspiracy on the issue.

Sources supporting this (based on a 15 second google search, so I have no doubt there are more and better ones out there:

• https://www.elemy.com/studio/autism/vaccination-theory-origination/
• https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/covid-vaccine/facts/myths-busted
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831678/
• https://www.unicef.org/montenegro/en/stories/almost-one-third-citizens-montenegro-believe-vaccines-cause-autism
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/10/the-facts-about-vaccines-autism-and-robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-conspiracy-theory/

Happy (Slap me) 12:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If you take a look in Archive 3 and 4, you'll find some prior discussion of what the name ought to be. Perhaps it is time to look at this again though. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Reading through them now, I see the arguments "This page is inaccurately named, here's sources that say it's a fraud/conspiracy theory" and responses that basically consist of "But NPOV!!"

Considering that NPOV says we should be treating fringe claims as fringe claims, I don't think the counterarguments hold much water. There's an RfC in archive 3 that has a lot of support for a move to a name including "hoax" or "fraud" and I'd get behind those names, as well.

However, given the issues there (mostly procedural issues resulting from the broad choice of names) I'd like to pick one and discuss that. To that end, I'm suggesting we move this to "MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory". If that fails, we can discuss another renaming. There's clearly a lot of support for renaming this article. Happy (Slap me) 13:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose "conspiracy theory" because it wasn't a conspiracy theory as we understand it. How about "MMR vaccine and autism - The Andrew Wakefield Fraud" ? After the current naming I always feel uncomfortable because we are almost endorsing the conflation between the vaccine and autism per Wakers, and this association never existed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not just MMR vaccine fraud ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

.. because it might suggest the vaccine was fraudulent? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah ... wasn't it at one point named MMR vaccine controversy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Or MMR vaccine and autism fraud ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

.. um, perhaps. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

MMR vaccine and the Wakefield fraud? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Aw shit, here we go again...

Okay, so the arguing about the actual named seemed to have been what derailed past discussions. And asking that we simply opine on my suggestion doesn't seem to have been enough to address that, so let's make it a question of which of the following names is most popular. Let's call this ranked choice !voting, so as to better get a clear answer, with a clear hierarchy of favorites. Happy (Slap me) 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not in favor of moving to surveys too soon. And we are nowhere until a broader audience is brought in. Discussing options is always better than moving to surveys, RFCs or !voting too soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Besides, I'm not yet convinced any of those listed in the survey are the best option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems counterproductive. Girth Summit posted links to where this has already been discussed extensively. I doubt there's anything left to say, other than to settle on the title we want to move it to. Happy (Slap me) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit posted links to discussions that are at least three years old; that is a lifetime on Wikipedia. Premature RFCs and surveys rarely yield consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There is already Lancet MMR autism fraud, which covers the fraud part. Renaming this article would make it a duplicate of that one. This article is about the broader claim that there is a connection, a false rumor which was started by the fraud but gained more momentum using other instances of bad science. Maybe it is simply not necessary and can be merged into the Lancet fraud article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In what order does everyone prefer the following names for this article:

A. MMR vaccine fraud
B. MMR vaccine and autism fraud
C. MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory
D. MMR vaccine hoax
E. MMR vaccine and autism hoax

survey

• As for me, I actually like "fraud" best, and I don't care for "hoax" too much because it implies that the true believers are in on the hoax, when that's patently untrue. So my choices in order are; A, B, C, D, E. Happy (Slap me) 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• B I think A and D make it sound like the vaccine itself is a problem. I'm okay with the others. MartinezMD (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above, per Hob Gadling. There is already a separate article about the fraud itself, this article is about the broader idea that there is a connection between the two. If we don't think it's necessary to have two separate articles, this one should be merged into the other and deleted; if it's worth having two articles, their titles shouldn't give the impression that are about the same subject. (I also agree with Sandy that this survey is premature - the last discussion was a few years ago, participants have moved on. We should be spitballing ideas and discussing them rather than !voting at this stage.) Girth Summit _(blether) 08:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To merge them would create an article too long and confusing. The fraud is something of real interest on its own, not only in connexion with MMR and autism, but also to the wider scientific community such as myself. If anything, the fraud article might be shaved a little of general 'MMR debate' stuff, and an abridgment included in the mmr/autism article. Thus there needs to be two because neither article is subsidiary to the other. Sledgehamming (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To go back to the question raised, it's wrong to want to opinionate in the title. There has been a very widespread debate over whether MMR causes autism. This debate isn't a fraud or a hoax, but something that has happened. Setting out the terms of that debate and how it is resolving is about setting out facts, not dismissing them. What was found to be fraudulent was an element of this, but that doesn't make everything fraudulent or a hoax. This isn't meant to be advertising for the drug industry or the CDC. The title is fine. If any energy is available, someone might add more recent research findings, which continue to evidence the safety of this vaccine.Sledgehamming (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion at Doreen Granpeesheh

Advising editors here that there is a related discussion at Doreen Granpeesheh which would benefit from wider input. It is over the inclusion of the following content to the page:

In 2016, Granpeesheh participated in Andrew Wakefield's Vaxxed, a documentary which pushes his widely-debunked theory that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Granpeesheh features prominently in the film, claiming autism is caused by children "not detoxifying from the vaccinations" and can be treated by detoxification. Granpeesheh had previously worked for Wakefield at his clinic Thoughtful House.

Thanks! GordonGlottal (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC) GordonGlottal (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

'Claimed link' is not a hypothesis

Here is the claimed link. A link in time between MMR and autism. That is not a hypothesis.

'Findings Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular hyperplasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed patchy chronic inflammation in the colon in 11 children and reactive ileal lymphoid hyperplasia in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two). There were no focal neurological abnormalities and MRI and EEG tests were normal. Abnormal laboratory results were significantly raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with age-matched controls (p=0·003), low haemoglobin in four children, and a low serum IgA in four children.

'Interpretation We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sledgehamming (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Except there was no such temporal association. Actually, in some of the twelve cases, there were several months between the vaccination and the onset of autism symptoms, and in some cases, the symptoms appeared before the vaccination. But the paper claimed it was within a few weeks in all cases. That was the part Wakefield faked.

What edit are you trying to argue? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This is probably regarding recent edits ([1],[2]) in which instances of "claimed" in the article was changed to "hypothesized". Bennv123 (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

A hypothesis is only a hypothesis if a legitimate attempt is made to confirm the veracity of the statement. A hypothesis is a statement you later attempt to disprove, as part of the scientific method. Andrew Wakefield attempted to fabricate evidence for a lie he made up for personal gain. It follows that his was a fraudulent claim, and not a hypothesis. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The link works like this: These children were not a properly selected group for any legitimate study. Lawyers for a group of parents who wanted to blame someone for their child's autism worked with Wakefield to discredit the MMR vaccine and make a lot of money. It also would then enable him to market a vaccine he was developing as a replacement, with an unfathomable profit for himself. He would have become a billionaire.

There was nothing scientifically valid about this "identified association" or the candidate selection process. Wakefield, as a scientifically trained physician, knew that association does not prove causation, and that experiments should include blinding and control groups, yet he placed his own financial interests ahead of his ethical obligations. The claimed link was indeed "not a hypothesis" but a fraudulent claim that he continues to perpetuate to this day. In the beginning, he could have claimed to have misunderstood things and made mistakes, but instead he doubled down on his deception, described as an "elaborate fraud". Wakefield is listed among the Great Science Frauds. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that claim, rather than hypothesis is the correctly used term for this situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

July 1 edits

We've had prior discussions about the "claim" aspect of the fraud, and yet now the word "claim" is being excised from the lead. Pls explain? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

My edit just reverted poor grammar. The word "claim" could still be used, but "claimed to" is grammatically wrong, and "suggested a link" is factually correct.

• OLD: claimed to link the vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders.
• NEW: suggested a link between the vaccine, colitis and autism spectrum disorders.

The last is grammatically better, makes more sense, and still avoids any lean toward supporting any fringe claims. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet doesn't make it clear it is/was a "fraudulent" "claim". Could you work that back in, grammatically ? (I'd propose something myself, but swamped in good and bad ways IRL, no time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The first line of the article says: "Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false." The sentence under discussion is further down in the lead.

We could just add the word "falsely" to the existing sentence under discussion: "falsely suggested a link between the vaccine, colitis and autism spectrum disorders."

Here are some possibilities:

• "falsely claimed the vaccine was linked to colitis and autism spectrum disorders."
• "falsely suggested a link between the vaccine, colitis and autism spectrum disorders."

I favor the first one as it flows better, so will install it. If anyone thinks otherwise, feel free to tweak and discuss. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Either works for me, I just that don't want the "suggested" to confer any legitimacy, however that is achieved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Claim = loaded word, why not Suggested?

I see my edit has been undone to change "claim" to "suggested". Why is this? I assume we're talking about the 1998 paper that was retracted titled "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children"?

Am I missing something? Not aware it actually claimed a link; only implied it? LairdCamelot (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Read the discussion just above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Thanks, I see now. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Pushing a Pro-Vax Point of View

"Dr. [Andrew] Wakefield has been shown to have used absolutely fraudulent data. He had a financial interest in some lawsuits, he created a fake paper, the journal allowed it to run. All the other studies were done, showed no connection whatsoever again and again and again. So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts—you know, they, they kill children. It's a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important." Bill Gates

Instead of a reasonable comment of public interest, this (over-the-top) statement seems to be pushing a pro-vaccine agenda. Then again, should not Wikipedia want to avoid being considered as some kind of cheerleader for the medical establishment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.196.41 (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing over-the-top about it. Instead, it is a pretty accurate description.

some kind of cheerleader for the medical establishment Weird description, but indeed, Wikipedia is on the side of science and opposes proven frauds like Wakefield, not only in the field of medicine, but everywhere else too. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

To clear things up for future readers: there is virtually no reliable secondary research indicating that vaccines cause autism (or much else beyond the well-understood allergies, reactions, etc.). Wikipedia does not cheerlead the medical establishment; it’s just that nobody else provides reliable information to use, and as such we use all the information we can (which happens to be the stuff from the medical establishment).

I strongly advise anyone opening a new topic to START with finding reliable secondary sources BEFORE suggesting making the article “avoid cheerleading the medical establishment”. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)