Talk:Andrew Wakefield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

MMR controversy

The MMR controversy section should be merged into MMR vaccine - there's no point having the information twice. --Khendon 12:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beg to disagree. That would lead to 'intellectual homogenization', no end of which can be found elsewhere on the net. The facts concerning the MMR controversy have been buried enough by poor reporting in the media. The unique relation of the matter to Dr. Wakefield needs clarification, not further on-line decimation. Ombudsman 21:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, reduce the section to clarification of the unique relation, but there's no need to repeat things. --Khendon 07:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really, it is not OK that:

• This information is mindlessly duplicated in several articles.
• The Andrew Wakefield-related text dominates the MMR vaccine article

• This material is not as relevant to readers of the MMR vaccine article as its length would suggest. It is longer than anyone needs it to be.

The detailed article on Andrew Wakefield exists. All that MMR vaccine needs is a paragraph or two on the historical note of Wakefield's controversy. Heathhunnicutt 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree. Midgley 21:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff

(revised) Jeff's revisions are dubious at best. Revision of the very first sentence misrepresents the study, which was not about a specific vaccine as implied by the edit. By focusing on its suggestions, rather than the actual study (of the association between a consistent set of bowel disorders and a range of neurodevelopmental syndromes), the edit fails to strike an NPOV balance between reasonable interpretation, and commonsense assessment. The interpretation offered by the authors was that "We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction," and recommended further study, "Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this (MMR) vaccine." The study did not address whether or not the MMR was the vector involved. The debate over MMR, if you could call it that, became truly irrational only after the government unilaterally took to proffering the MMR, and blocked access to single jabs.

The edits attempt to justify the campaign to smear Wakefield's scientific integrity, by ignoring the fact that proper disclosures were issued and that the Lancet study itself was designed and largely executed prior to the litigation and execution of the second study.

The edits also distort the so called "retractions" by the other authors. The retraction was prompted by government and industry pressure, and only related to the commonsense suggestion that the finding of consistent bowel disorders in the study participants merited further investigation of environmental causes. The retraction had nothing to do with the essential medical conditions at issue.

Also alarming about the edits is the lack of balance portrayed between the risks involved. Mention is added of the allegation that risk may increase for disease that could be prevented, without mention of the iatrogenic risks that have evidently contributed to the autism epidemic. In light of this spin by "Jeff", the following quote from Wakefield loses all touch with its true context, the exponential rise in autism rates.

The anonymous editor, who now goes by "Jeff", included brazen deletions and introduction of POV, consistently favorable to the British government and pharmaceutical industry. In contrast, the UK House of Commons Health Committee, in a recent report, expressed deep concern about each: "The Department of Health has for too long optimistically assumed that the interests of health and of the industry are as one. This may reflect the fact that the Department sponsors the industry as well as looking after health. The result is that the industry has been left to its own devices for too long. It may be relevant that this is the first major select committee inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry for almost one hundred years – the last was undertaken by the Select Committee on Patent Medicines which reported in August 1914." Ombudsman 21:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) (original 21:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Explanation of revisions

I have made substantial changes and corrections to this page, which I believe I have substantially corroberated with links to material. It's clear that Ombudsman has very strong views about MMR, and I think he wishes to use this page as a vehicle for campaigning. I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, but I would guess that this is not the purpose of the encyclopedia. As it is, there is a long quote from Wakefield, which I have not removed, even though it is not referenced, and we have no way of guessing whether he said it or not. I have removed long passages about Dr Singh, as he is not a collaborator or even an associate of Wakefield's, his work has not been independently confirmed, and it is about "antibodies to MMR", which most people who know anything about biomedicine will tell you don't exist. If Dr Singh belongs in a biography of Wakefield, then surely there are at least another dozen persons with a better claim. I have also removed claims that Wakefield's Lancet paper has been confirmed by other studies, as I am unaware of any. The only evidence Ombudsman produces that this is so is an article in an Idaho newspaper, reporting something said by a Scottish journalist allegedly said about research. Hearsay upon hearsay. If Ombudsman can cite corroberating papers in journals listed on PubMed, then perhaps he should reference them (although I'm aware that in the 20,000 biomedical journal titles published annually you can usually find someone to say practically anything). Ombudsman will doubtless be very upset again, but I would recommend that he spends a little time reading the Wakefield paper and researching the background before handing down new "facts". For instance, he said the Wakefield paper was not about MMR, and that the vaccine was introduced in 1999. These are pretty basic mistakes. The last time I made corrections, he became very insulting and abusive. I can look at the rest of his contributions to Wikipedia if he would like me to. Otherwise, I suggest that instead of deleting my changes, as he has now done twice, he tries to improve upon them if he can. If he wishes to write a biography of Dr Singh, I will contribute to that also. Jeff. 217.44.174.81 22:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia, Jeff. Nice to see your explanation, at last. We have a long way to go, but from your lengthy explanation, now there is rational hope for a meeting of the minds. As time permits, sourcing of any quotes you are seeking will be sought, or you might find them faster by googling. The prop 63 implementation, etc., is taking considerable time right now. Please accept apologies for misconstruing your inexperienced edits. BTW, hairsplitting about the relevance of Dr. Singh's corroboration will work itself out, as Clockwork suggests, but right now the wisdom your deletion is disputed. Wiki on, Sire! Ombudsman 03:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Singh is up there on the priority list, but down a couple of notches from the Geier's, as vulnerabilities to mercury may be a greater contributor to the autism epidemic than live measles vaccines. Also, use of a single source is part of what led to the reasonable misunderstanding of your intent. Brian Deer may be an idealogue, and certainly seems to have let himself become part of the smear campaign against Wakefield. One link that will lead you to a wider palette of source material is Lenny Schafer's archives: AuTeach Ombudsman 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The edits incorporate material from a source known to be engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against Dr. Wakefield, and salient material repeatedly has been deleted by Jeff. The reference to the focus of the study has been deleted, in favor of irrelevant highlighting of the "first" finding. Rather than retaining the extremely relevant Singh corroboration (and its ironic timing and significance) distracted focus is placed on a single parent. That is not a rational approach to providing context, it is spin doctoring. Edits to the first sentence evidence distortion, as does deletion of Wakefield's response to the deceptive epidemiological analyses, proffered by those willing to abandon scientific principles for money and the good graces of the pharmaceutical industry. Use of terms such as "admission" and "non-clinical" are gratuitous at best, but typical of someone at the very beginning of the NPOV learning curve. But what is most disturbing is the fact the article is no longer about Dr. Wakefield, and his career and scientific contributions, it is now simply little more than regurgitation of detritus from the ongoing smear campaign against Wakefield. An examination of Brian Deer's reportorial exploits should be posted in his article, instead. Ombudsman 00:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

separate vaccines

They are available in the UK. They are not resticted. If you think they are you better contact these people [1][2][3] and tell them they are breaking the law. Of course there was a case where a clinic offering single vaccinations lied about results of immunity tests but that was a one off.Geni 23:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you getting confused (or being over pedantic) by supply on what we refer to in the UK as a 'Named Patient' basis.

The separate vaccines however, have definitely been removed from the British National Formulary (see page 606 ed. March 2005), and therefore have to be specially imported under those terms together with all the extra costs associated.

If you think about it for a moment... the fuss would not have arisen in the UK if the separate vaccines had not been restricted to ordinary NHS (National Health Service) patients. Also, these offers (the ones you give links to) for single vaccinations - on a named patient bases- also would not have materialised had there been no restriction.

In practical terms then, a family GP in the UK does not now, supply these single vaccines, although in theory, he can prescribe almost anything. Do this make things clear? --Aspro 16:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I know all this. I also know that the uk is a capitalist country. Just because you have to pay for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Geni 18:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you agree then: that you where being over pedantic -since I don't say that they are totally unobtainable, rather I am explaining or confirming that supply is effectively restricted in the UK; a matter on which you appear to be confused.

And in a sense they no longer 'exist' as they are no longer licensed in the UK, which you could have easily found out for yourself. Instead, your likely to confuse parents over here who are confused enough already.

So, would you allow a member of your family to take a medication that has not been licensed in your country? Well, don't suggest it to us... Is that OK!

If you Google something that seem to be at odds with something someone has written, ask yourself: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How And you might be able to discover more useful info to add, instead of taking things at face value and out of context. --Aspro 21:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

by the definition are using we have to add to the article of every single item that has a non zero value in the uk that it is resticted in the uk. We are a capitalist country. The fact that something costs money doesn't mean it is resticted.Geni 21:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I've taken this out.

"Wakefield's medical critics say chance alone would explain the frequent temporal association
 between vaccination and the appearance of developmental disorders noted by tens of thousands of 
parents, since autism is commonly first revealed early in the second year of life, when MMR 
vaccination is routine."

It isn't what I regard as _chance_ that two things which occur at similar times occur at ... well, similar times. "Chance" of course suggests a weak explanation of something for which there is a preferred one proffered. The issue is whether there is a causal association, and given the timing of the event and the disease, the temporal association is not relevant to causality.

This article is not very encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midgley (talk • contribs) .

Well, it does matter epidemiologically. If this is a common response from Wakefield critics, it needs to be cited. I agree that the encyclopedicity of this article is poor. It needs copyediting, sourcing and NPOV. JFW | T@lk 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Presentation of data in graphs

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/articles/2005_mar06_2.html#fig1

The graph held up as having a pronounced multiphasic form - a dip and then rise again - is presented much bigger than the graphs presented as monophasic. Thus any bumpiness in the trends in the latter is made to look much smaller. In addition, the quite wavery - bumpy - UK data is given a straight "trend" line through what is probably a best-fit (assuming the data is jitter around a straight line.) This gives the impression to the eye that it is straighter. The Japanese data, whcih we are told is polyphasic, has no trend line, and it also has no confidence lines on the data points. If the confidence limits are added to it, then it would become apparent that it is less different from the UK data than the text suggests. I have no doubt that any peer-reviewed journal editor would throw the graphs out on any one of those three elements of "advertising". I suspect that if a proper treatment of the data - with all the graphs either having or not having trend lines on, drawn on the same scale and zoomed to the same size, and with confidence limits applied to each data point (preferable), or to none - showed the claimed complex relationships convincingly, that they would have been produced in exactly that fashion. Red Flags as far as I know is an on-line publication, rather than presenting images of printed pages, and thus page-space and layout are no more problems for them than they are for the WP. I invite comments on the graphical treatment of the data in that reference. Midgley 00:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(Pagespace) If you pull the images out and look at them, you find that the actual image size - the rectangle in whcih the graphs are drawn, is really quite similar. But the Honda data is presented as a graph occupying much more of the image area. The others are little shrunken things in the middle of a big blank space. So the explanation for the size is not that that was how much space was available...Midgley 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(Confidence limits (sometimes called "error bars")). The UK data - I don't have the raw data used to prepare that graph, but in general - would be for the UK, it seems a reasonable assumption. Call the UK UK_traditional_counties 39 English + 34 Scottish + 13 Irish and I suppose 6 N. Ireland ones = 92 counties (56 000 000), and the Japanese area one county (300 000)... (a rough approximation which someone with population figures to hand can make exact) and we would expect the confidence limits/bars on the Japanese data to be considerably larger although not I think 92 or 150 times larger, than the bars on the UK data. What that means is that if you draw them in, the sharp and precise rises and falls disappear into a general trend and the need for statistics. So why are there no bars on the Japanese data? Perhaps the original publication didn't treat its data statistically and it has just been copied to the Red Flag article? For that we have to go to the Honda et al paper (which is on the Web, but which is not given a link from the Red Flags article, but then no references are.) We can't do it from this WP article either, because the paper to which that Red Flags article is a reply, isn't in the references here. Yet. So from the ref in MMR_vaccine :-

The main graph is presented in Bandolier [graph http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/noMMR.jpg] [article ] (and inter alia, you might note that it has the rate of MMR immunisations on it, which Edward Tufte might well point to as a more clear way to demonstrate the relationship between the MMR (steep down) and the diseases (wobbly shallow up). If the Red Flags graph had added to that the upward graph of the immunisations that replaced it, that might have been more clear than the boxes that are drawn on it. One would have to try that)

The paper is at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x which is this moment dead. And it is late. More tomorrow or whenever it appears I expect.

THis space intentionally left blank

Here is a reworked pair of graphs, to oppose the difference in presentation in the article they come from.

You see I've enlarged the UK graph to a similar size, removed the straight trend line in it that was drawn in, leaving the fluctuations more obvious. In the other one, the Wakefield version of the Japanese data, I've taken out the connections between data points, and drawn a trend line through them. It isn't a calculated regression line, because absolute precision is not the point. It really does need its error bars on.

Midgley 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Can see what Midgley's getting at but either he, or I, am confused. In Honda et al's paper: the Cl seems to refer to the confidence that they have in their figure of 88.5 individuals meeting the diagnose per 10,000 etc. (Guess that the same principle is used for the for the UK graph as the error increases in size with the passage of time and the increase in diagnoses) Wakefield uses their calculated incidence per ten thousand, which is based on absolute numbers. This is solid mathematics - the answers are exact- to as many decimal place that you take them to. There is no point in a confidence level about whether 1 in 250 = 4 in 1000. Rather the lack of certainty here would revolve around the accuracy of each diagnosis and whether the team can count properly, and I feel obliged to give them the benefit of the doubt on both of these should any be voiced. Maybe it would have been better if this study had been written up by a PhD, so as to have made it clearer and easier to read, but it wasn't, so we will just have to try and make sense of it the best we can.--Aspro 19:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Confidence limits are confidence limits - it is a while since I looked at this data, but I doubt the publishe dpaper has a different definition of them from the usual one. In two groups of data, if the confidence limits cross then one cannot with confidence say the two groups are different. (For the variable we are measuring etc etc). Small populations of data have wider confidence limits. I'm always intensely suspicious when someon says that they are not doing "statistics" because each of their data points represents an actual event. We might need a statistician to convincingly disentangle this. Midgley 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Three years late, but in case anybody still cares: confidence intervals are relevant, even when we have full-population data, because we're not just trying to describe that data. Nobody needs a graph to tell them whether their kid was diagnosed with ASD in those years; what they want to know is the future - "if I get little Billy vaccinated, is he more likely to develop ASD?"

I'll give a simpler example of the principle: suppose we have a population of 2000 rats, and we dose half of them (randomly selected) with medicine X, and leave the other half as controls. A year later, 100 of the controls and 95 of the medicated rats have developed cancer.

We can say, with absolute accuracy, that 10.00...% of our controls and 9.500...% of the medicated rats got cancer. But that's not really what we want to know - we want to know about medicine X in general. If I want to protect the rats of tomorrow from cancer, should I give them the medicine?

To answer that, we need to know how much random variation you'd expect in those numbers. One way would be to repeat the experiment over and over. If we always saw exactly 100 control rats and 95 medicated rats getting cancer, we'd conclude that the medicine works, and we can credit it with saving five rats each time. If we saw 93 control rats and 96 medicated rats on the second trial - and then 80 control rats and 110 medicated rats - and then 101 control rats and 92 medicated rats - we'd probably conclude that the medication doesn't really make any difference, and the 5% difference we saw first time around was just a fluke.

In real life, we often don't have the option of repeating the experiment. Maybe we need to make a decision NOW, maybe our budget is limited, maybe those 2000 rats are the entire available population. So if you only have the first trial to work with, you need to find some other way to gauge how much effect randomness has on your data.

In this case, probability theory tells us that every time we run the experiment, the random variation in each of the 'control' and 'medicated' groups will be around 20 cases either way, so your underlying incidence rate is around 8-12% for controls and 7.5-11.5% for medicated rats - in other words, the difference between 100 control rats and 95 medicated rats could very easily be chance, and we have no good evidence for the benefits of the medicine. --GenericBob (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Midgley. To save yourself a little effort, you might like to check out the take-up of mumps vaccine in Japan. It's not part of the regular schedule, and has remained flat for decades. It's currently running at about one third of the take-up of MV vaccine. So Wakefield's idea that the kids are getting M-M-R, just like MMR, is more of his usual garbage. His whole assumption is that the kids were all still getting the shots, only not separated by a year as he recommended. Sadly for this tragic character, it's entirely untrue.

86.134.164.219

A reference or pointer to data for that would be really useful/interesting ... Midgley 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Confidence limits: Honda et al give and I quote: "The cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven was 88.5 per 10,000 (95%CI,78.1-98.8)" My point is simply: if we were dealing with inanimate objects in controlled laboratory conditions, with measurements take with equipment certified by the National Physical Laboratory then I would allow myself to consider that I may be looking at a possible 'universal' value. However, with biological systems - al naturel, subjected to human judgement on a spectrum with no discernible start or finish. Then I don't think it is worth at this stage pontificating about what these figures mean. Case in point: enough studies have been done on homeopathy to have some come up with the odd positive results to a 95%CI BUT that is a demonstration of chance rather than proof. Lastly: I suspect we may never know this, the potency of the MMR may have been reduced slightly (may be why a second shot has been introduced and one Chinese body suggesting a third). Slight adjustments are allowed under the regs (without re-licensing) and can pose a potential problem with critical dosage drugs like wolfram where the dosage can differ between brands. (without looking it up I think its been found it could be theoretically as much as ten percent or more.)--Aspro 09:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, mumps has to be paid for so its uptake is low. However, what's the point?

86.134.164.219 has adopted a Logical_fallacy. If you like, it goes roughly like this: The primary 'antecedent' of the 'augment' is that an inoculation with a live (all be it weakened) immuno-suppressant virus given at the same time as another live virus may possible be responsible for an adverse reaction. The suggestion that the MMR may also do the same serves as the 'consequent', so can Me + R . One can not deny the 'consequent' by introducing Me + R - Mu into the argument because it exists outside as a different 'antecedent'. This different antecedent however, can support the original antecedent if the necessary conditions can be made to line up and agree. (which is what Wakefield has attempted to do) However, the Japanese paper did not address this -nor did it say that it did. It simply compared the effect of withdrawal of the trivalent MMR all in one shot. Therefore, the papers conclusions can not be used to either support or deny the 'original' argument -whilst a reanalyses of the 'raw' data can. PR health representatives are hopeless at applying logic and further muddied the waters with their confused rhetoric. Mumps can be ignored without altering the original hypothesis.--Aspro 10:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A puzzling absence

Given that the subject became notable by being one of the authors ("lead author"?) of a paper in the Lancet... is it all strange that the paper in the Lancet is not one of the several references in the article? At least, I looked, and couldn't find it. Midgley 21:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The explanation appears to be quite simple: The original article direct from the Lancet require registration (albeit free). So, another editor changes the link to one of the anti-vac' sites that has a copy of the paper with some POV preamble. Another editor then objects to this so changes the link to biandeer's web page [4]. As this as includes what some might consider a POV preamble, they promptly revert it back to another anti-vac site; and so on. Some where along the line it got left out all together. (It is cited in places like the '12 Aug 2005' version in the very first paragraph : [5])

Here is the citation once again; up dated to today's date of last access. Shall we see how long it lasts this time?

• Wakefield A (February 28 1998). "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children". The Lancet - Vol. 351, Issue 9103. pp. 637–641. Retrieved 2006-07-01. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--Aspro 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, the who discussion about merging the MMRII entry with Wakefields error is an insult to anyone who suffered asceptic meningitis, which some papers count as 32000:1 on Urabe sourced mumps component vaccines. The withdrawal of that 1992 UK vaccine group stands completely independently to anything regarding Autism. By combining the two articles you are merely compunding the injury of "MMRII oh isn't that all about autism or bowels?" ...No it certainly isn't. You should read your research more carefully. Some of the key figures in undermining Wakefield such as Elizabeth Miller were also key in getting the Urabe vaccine banned.

Retraction of an Interpretation

This is a message for the anonymous editor User Talk:81.152.52.115 regarding his/her repeated reversions of an edit to correct the factual accuracy of this page. Regarding your edit here [[6]], you need to read the retraction as published in the Lancet. The authors only retracted an interpretation placed on the paper and not the paper itself. There is no part of the paper called the "interpretation". No part of the paper was retracted. Your edit is regrettably wholly inappropriate and wholly erroneous. I hope this is now clear.

Further, the authors themselves stated specifically that the main findings in the paper had been replicated by others, namely, it was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. They at no time retracted their paper. If you are going to write an encyclopaedia, you have to be accurate in what you say and back it up by referenced evidence.

The full retraction appears in THE LANCET • Vol 363 • March 6, 2004 • www.thelancet.com.

The full text of the retraction is:-

"Retraction of an interpretation"

"This statement refers to the Early Report “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children”, [1] published in The Lancet in 1998. It is made by 10 of the 12 original authors who could be contacted. It should be noted that this statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the other co-authors. "

"The main thrust of this paper [1] was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend these findings. [2, 3] While much uncertainty remains about the nature of these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal problems."

"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent. [4]"

80.4.39.7 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncited text restored

Regarding this edit, text tagged as uncited since November 2007 and removed was readded without citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy, and thanx for the catch. Since a prior version was edited, the extra text you mention was unnecessarily restored along with the addition of a citation for the quote. Ombudsman (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wakefields findings have been confirmed by lots of studies and cliinical experience of the clinics treating austism. The criticisms of his work are political/ not science based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.138.207 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wakefields studies have never been confirmed. Please provide references. --—CynRN ^(Talk) 01:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

WPMED rates articles on individuals as low importance. If you disagree, please take it up at [[Wikipedia talk::WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment]]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

GMC

Given all the information about the GMC and it's accusations brought against Wakefield, et al., how come I don't see a single reference to the actual GMC sources?

Most, if not all, links cite 3rd party news articles reporting the information to readers. Now, we all now that news media is sensationalized and can never be objective, so why is there are prevelance to BBC, CBS, LondonTimes (who, I think Deer works for) and others as real verified sources?

Sorry, but as a casual reader of wikipedia, I would want the "accusations" section to refer me to the actual GMC citation.

Other than that, this whole biography looks like Brian Deer wrote it. I'm new here, so I'm not sure how to fix these and I don't want to stir the pot more than it already has been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradwnomny (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The GMC don't appear to have their findings online yet. Note also that reliable WP:secondary sources such as news articles are preferred over WP:primary sources like the GMCs report Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can find the GMC ruling here, though I'm not sure if a better, more "official" and centralized source of the ruling will be available in the future... — Scientizzle 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I presumue it will eventually be available on the GMC website. [7] At the moment, searching for decisions involving Andrew Wakefield yields no results and the latest press release on decisions is from 8th January Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added Scientizzle's online reference for the complete text of the GMC ruling to this article. Here it is again: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected

DarthRad (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Training

Wakefield was apparently trained in Canada. Newspapers read like straight off the Wikipedia page, which suggests to me that they got their information here first. But in the GMC register, he is listed as a grad of the University of London, MB BS. Does anyone have a source that actually verifies he is Canadian trained (actual registration documents, and which university it was?)

This is the link from the pop up of the register at the UK GMC, which may not work. http://webcache.gmc-uk.org/gmclrmp_enu/start.swe?SWECmd=GotoView&_sn=LcYB.L7GV7a0Ht3nEt9O7n4Vpj-zRZMZuzjeQ0MQi5I_&SWEView=GMC+WEB+Doctor+Search&SWEHo=webcache.gmc-uk.org&SWETS=1265171621&SWEApplet=GMC+WEB+Health+Provider+Search+Applet

One can repeat the same search at: http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/LRMP.asp and clicking on the very bottom: "Take me to the register" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.57.52 (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look him up there it states he had his primary training in the UK. And he currently does not have a license. No mention of any Canadian education, I would remove that from the intro. --71.110.67.204 (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It was apparently a wellcome trust fellowship in Canada. More information is needed.Spidergareth (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

[8] He was a specialist in Gastoenterology. Must have got the qualification from somewhere.... Spidergareth (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The thoughtful house website confirms the Canadian training [9] Spidergareth (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be a lot more comfortable if an independent source was found. Keep in mind that Wakefield started Thoughtful House and his biography there was probably written by himself. It might be true, but it could also contain exaggerations or misleading statements. Due caution must be exercised when using sources controlled by the subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but until evidence is found to the contrary I think the claim should stand. I completely agree that an independent source needs to be found to verify it. Spidergareth (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If there's no reliable source for it, it shouldn't be in the article, regardless of whether there's positive evidence to the contrary. --GenericBob (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would class his CV as a reliable source, although a more independent source should be found. Spidergareth (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional retraction

This 2009 article, on which Wakefield was the senior author, has been withdrawn from NeuroToxicology "at the request of the editor". This retraction should probably be mentioned along with the retraction of the Lancet paper, but to do so might require some restructuring, so I'll propose it here first. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the - supposed- autism/vaccine connection

Also fascinating that they have tried to portray Wakefield as the guy that invented the autism/vaccine connection, despite the fact that Leo Kanner reported that one of his first 11 cases in the 1940's was a regression following a smallpox vaccine, the VCIP has been paying autism cases for 25 years, and I first heard about the connection in my undergrad psych program in 1988 at George Mason University, so that they can use this GMC hearing to declare the vaccine controversy over. (I have forty or so studies on my "no evidence of any link" page supporting the vaccine/autism connection and I have never even had Wakefield's MMR paper up there. to be read at : http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2010/02/anatomy-of-witch-hunt.html--Trente7cinq (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a Biography of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

This is not a biography in any sense of the term. It is a restatement of the case against Dr. Wakefield's research on the possible link between vaccinations and pediatric gastrointestinal disorders, and whether autism is related to this connection. The article repeats charges against Dr. Wakefield without any attempt to present opposing opinions or evidence. Following this statement, "On February 2, 2010, The Lancet retracted his 1998 publication, noting elements of the manuscript had been falsified.[20]" the footnote links to a Lancet editorial article that is missing. I find this very troubling. I recommend taking the whole thing down and having someone write a more rational piece.Peglind (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that this isn't a biography. It's much more than that. Wikipedia articles document every aspect of a subject from all POV if it can be sourced to verifiable and reliable sources. There will obviously be no complete rewrite as that's not how things work here. Whitewashing is not allowed. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the link. You could also have done it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference numbers

When I click on link for footnote 1, it takes me to that one. Same with 2, 3, etc. right up to 24. When I click on 25, it takes me to footnote 26. And so on, right up to the end, where clicking on footnote 64 in the main body of the article takes me to footnote 65 at the bottom? How can this be fixed? Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It was missing some brackets at the start of a ref - I've fixed that and that seems to have cleared it up. --GenericBob (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it seems to be fine now. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did he do it?

None of the information in the article suggests why he falsified research, indirectly leading to many deaths. Is there any informed work by biographers or journalists that could clarify this?173.166.2.17 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because he didn't. He just messed up a bit, and our newspapers leapt on it. The entirity of the media in this country let you down, and one not especially good researcher became the scapegoat for it. User:77.101.140.92

I've moved this section to the bottom of the page, as per convention. I hope you don't mind (I didn't modify what you said).

Wakefield "just messed up a bit" seriously and repeatedly. But if you have a good reason to suggest that any part of [10] is wrong, please let us know what your sources are!

bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not argue with any bit of the charge sheet. It would be foolish to do so. But it seems much more reasonable to accept what happened as laziness than to draw up some evil devil character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.140.92 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of verification of Wakefield's alleged patent

This article twice claims Wakefield had a patent application for a vaccine. But the only link goes to a non-existent page. So this claim needs to be either linked to verification or removed.Idealiot (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

When I click on the link in citation 44, this site, it works fine. Not sure what the problem is on your end... — Scientizzle 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have archived it here just in case. Thincat (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield's autism study declared "an elaborate fraud"

Breaking News: Landmark autism study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was "an elaborate fraud", CNN.

Kathleen and Eliot will talk with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, and JB Handley, the father of an autistic child and founder of Generation Rescue, about the following breaking story:

(CNN) – A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday. An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study - and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible. "It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

It will be interesting to hear what JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue, has to say about this. This wasn't simple carelessness, but "elaborate fraud". Not only has Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine, he should be imprisoned. This probably won't make any difference to those who are involved in the vaccine controversy movement. Facts never do. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BMJ: "a deliberate fraud"

Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school. In an accompanying editorial, Fiona Godlee and colleagues say that Andrew Wakefield's (pictured) article linking MMR vaccine and autism was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud. In a linked blog, Brian Deer analyses the similarities between the MMR scare and the case of the "Piltdown Man."

Editorial: "falsification of data"

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare

Brian Deer series "exposes the bogus data behind the claims"

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, Part 1

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school.

Alleged fraud?

What is important to note here, is that this is alleged fraud. The investigation that claims the study is a fraud was conducted by an investigative journalist, not a scientific source. Wakefield, as well as his colleague Arthur Krigsman, adamantly deny the charges of fraud. Until a complete scientific investigation of the alleged fraud is conducted, WP:ENC would require Wikipedia to remain encyclopedic and unbiased in this matter. Any charges of misconduct on Wakefield's part, should be written as "criticism" or "alleged fraud." GOD is an underachiever [Talk to him] 01:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Multiple investigations including those by different parts of the medical establishments have pointed to him falsifying data, and having a financial incentive to do so, and acting improperly in lots of ways.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheer is absolutely correct. Not only is the evidence of very deliberate fraud strong, RS repeatedly use that word and we must follow the sources regardless of our own opinions. To do otherwise would be to introduce editorial bias, a violation of NPOV. Whitewashing isn't allowed here. There is no problem with BLP either since we have good sourcing for using that word. It's well-proven deliberate fraud. Falsification of data to that degree isn't accidental, especially when it has a huge financial motive that he kept hidden. This is one of the most elaborate cases of fraud I've seen in years. It took planning and was carried on on many fronts, including planning on launching a vaccine. How he thought he could get away with it is beyond me. In other fields it might happen, but in scientific and medical research there are too many ways of discovering fraudulent data. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I find myself exactly in the middle between Incompetence and the Underachieving God. Asher, Incompetence is right, this is just too far beyond what you can dismiss with "allegedly". Unless this somehow goes to criminal court, he'll always be able (under your interpretation) to get the benefit of "allegedly", and that's not likely. But Incompetence, the word "disgraced", while used all over, is--wherever it is used--simply loaded with personal opinion, and therefore, inappropriate here. His fraud is now evident, let readers draw the disgraced conclusion--or not--for themselves. 98.82.21.92 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And, just in case someone thinks I'm a Wakefield apologist, it was I who first changed "discredited" to the much stronger wording here.[11] 98.82.21.92 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the RS-evidence points strongly to Mr. Wakefield having committed scientific fraud, and that some RSs have gone as far as explicitly calling his research fraudulent; disagree that this justifies referring outright to a "fraudulent study" in Wikipedia's own voice at this time. If "apparently fraudulent" or "reportedly fraudulent" is still considered too weak, perhaps "widely criticized study described by the editors of the British Medical Journal as fraudulent." TiC (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No need for using "alleged". It's proven in multiple instances and our sources use very strong wording. We aren't allowed to water it down, but must follow the sources. We can quote the sources wording exactly and attribute it to the BMJ, Brian Deer, and whomever else we wish to use as sources. Brian Deer is a well-known investigative journalist and his work is of such high quality that the BMJ is hosting his series of articles. That's like getting the scientific equivalent of a Papal nihil obstat imprimatur. You can be assured that the BMJ wouldn't lend any support to his conclusions if they hadn't examined his evidence in excruciating detail. While his website is considered a RS here, it's even better that this is on the BMJ website. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a supporter of Wakefield, but the problem here is that there is only one source accusing Wakefield of fraudulent behavior. Wakefield has in the past been accused of shoddy science, but never of outright medical fraud. Brian Deer, the author of the BMJ article, has himself been accused of intellectual dishonesty due to the fact that his investigation into Wakefield was funded by a coalition of British pharmaceutical companies. If there had been more than one clinical and journalistic study into the actions of Andrew Wakefild, I would be more inclined to call him an outright fraud. However, until that happens, this article must remain encyclopedic and not jump to conclusions based on one questionable magazine article. Instead of calling Wakefield a fraud in the first sentence of the article, a few lines in there could be a sentence about the BMJ article and the controversy it started. GOD is an underachiever [Talk to him] 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources have called it fraud, not just one journal article published in a prestigious medical journal. With multiple sources calling it as such, there's no need to mince words here; the encyclopedic approach is to call a spade a spade if the sources call it a spade.Yobol (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

'Disgraced' in lede

While I personally agree that Wakefield's ongoing conduct has been disgraceful – and I have no problem with describing his landmark study as fraudulent, nor with describing his conduct as a physician and researcher as reckless, callous, and just generally appalling – I don't think the recently-introduced last sentence of the lede belongs in the article, and I will remove it after I finish this explanation. For reference, the text is

Before clear evidence of his "elaborate fraud" came to light, many used the term "disgraced" to describe Wakefield.

I see a number of problems with the passage. First of all, the wording is just plain clumsy; it seems like its major purpose is simply as a way to introduce as many negative terms in as small a space as possible, rather than to convey useful information. It's talking down to our readers to include that sort of polemic — it's as if we were to include "Many used the term "evil man" to describe Hitler" in Adolf Hitler. Second, saying "many used the term..." is more than a little vague (WP:WEASEL), and the source doesn't actually support the claim (the only person who explicitly describes Wakefield as "disgraced" is the author of the Times article). Third, it's always a bit sketchy to rely on newspaper headline writers for encyclopedia-worthy adjectives and descriptions; the popular press tend to have a certain fondness for hyperbole, and will use words like 'disgrace', 'scandal', 'stunning revelation', etc. at the drop of a hat. (Had Wakefield been a U.S. physician, the original MMR report would doubtless have been immediately dubbed "Vaccine-gate" in the press; subsequent revelations of Wakefield's misconduct would have left newsman scratching their heads trying to name the new scandal — "Vaccine-gate II", perhaps?) Fourthly and finally, the text is redundant in that the very first sentence of the lede already nails Wakefield for his "elaborate fraud". There's no need to heap additional, older, less-impeccably-sourced criticisms on the pile. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, except that "disgraced" was already there, IOW it wasn't added later as implied above. I was reticent to start doing a total rewrite of the lead, which certainly is needed, so I just brought the wording up to date by tweaking the existing mention of "disgraced" so it was placed in historical/chronological context and harmonized with the tweak of the first sentence I had made.

What TenOfAllTrades has done was very needed. The lead has simply evolved with more and more details added. A total rewrite is the right thing to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tightening up the lede

Looking over the article lede, I'm a bit concerned that it tries to cover too many details. Rather than effectively summarizing our article, the lede tries to give a blow-by-blow point-form summary of his fall from grace. At the same time, the only coverage in the lede relates to his Lancet study and its direct consequences; I wonder if there isn't anything else related to his career or history (positive or negative) that might deserve mention — maybe something about his move to the United States?

I took a preliminary stab at the opening.

Draft of new lede

Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and researcher best known for leading a now-withdrawn 1998 study, published in The Lancet, that suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and childhood development of autism and inflammatory bowel disease. Wakefield's study and public recommendations against use of the combined MMR vaccine were linked to a steep decline in vaccination rates in the United Kingdom and a corresponding rise in measles cases, including two fatalities. A 2002 study by other researchers failed to confirm or reproduce Wakefield's findings. Following a 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identifying undisclosed conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part, many of his coauthors moved to withdraw their support for the study's interpretations. The British General Medical Council (GMC) subsequently announced an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues. The investigation centered on Deer's numerous findings, including that autistic children were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures, including colonoscopy and lumbar puncture, and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board. On January 28, 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found some three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally-challenged children. The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted against the interests of his patients, and acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his controversial research. The Lancet immediately and fully retracted his 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting elements of the manuscript had been falsified, while editors of the British Medical Journal described Wakefield's study as "an elaborate fraud". Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, and may no longer practice medicine in the UK.

This version is derived from the existing lede, but runs about half the length. I think it still captures the essential points of the current text without wandering into details that are properly covered in the article body. Thoughts and suggestions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the lede could be shortened, and maybe even more than this, after the editorial in the BMJ. This scientific fraud is worse than that of Hendrik Schön - this has cost the lives of children. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and installed a modified version of this, with links cleaned up, but bringing the fraud to the first sentence, since that is the ITN issue. Hope it works and I didn't miss anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"including two fatalities". Are you kidding ? You clearly continue to suggest Wakefield is culprit of those two death. I disliked the overall tone of the current article, the intro in particular. One of the less neutral i saw on WP. 85.171.157.78 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like pretty gentle wording considering the bare facts. Wakefield cooks up a fraudulent paper which attributes very unpleasant effects to a vaccine; in the ensuing scare, vaccination levels go down; in the ensuing lack of herd immunity, there are many more cases of disease which the vaccine would have prevented, including some fatal cases. Bearing that in mind, I think the current wording is quite reasonable (and certainly verifiable) - it doesn't even tie Wakefield to the deaths directly. We're not saying that Wakefield stabbed random kids on the street. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about bare facts, what he did or not. I talk about neutrality. Look at articles about high-end criminals like Stalin or Hitler, these articles are neutral. This article is not neutral in it's current state. Neither the new lede. 85.171.157.78 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article about Hitler rightly mentions "the systematic murder of as many as 17 million civilians" in the lede, and has a section on the holocaust. But what does that have to do with this article, which mentions the deaths only once, and indirectly? bobrayner (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't compare people, i compare neutrality of articles. Anyway, the Wakefield article is suggesting he's culprit of two death. Although those death are unfortunately real, there is no verifiable link to Wakefield. You said "which mentions the deaths only once, and indirectly" : why not simply write "including X fatalities" and let readers imagine how much ? This is not serious. And you dare to write "We're not saying that Wakefield stabbed random kids on the street." : it's pretty much the same which is suggested here. In fact, it have the same impact on readers. I am shocked by this lede, and i'm shocked by your arguments. WP rules are clearly not followed here. 85.171.157.78 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep mentioning "neutral", but we write in an NPOV style, which doesn't mean an article is "neutral". NPOV means "editorially neutral", IOW editors do not include their own POV or slant in an article. That doesn't mean that they exclude such POV or slants that RS make. That would be whitewashing. RS mention Wakefield, immunizations rates, epidemics and deaths in the same breath, without implying that he personally "did" it, but they certainly are synthezing a clear impression that his fraudulent actions have resulted in unnecessary deaths. "We as editors" aren't synthesizing anything here. We're not allowed to do that. We use RS that do it for us, and it's completely within policy to use such sources. Because those things are mentioned in connection with Wakefield, they are all very relevant to this subject so we just follow the sources and include the information. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation sytle

Lots of edit conflicts, I'd like to repair the citation style on PubMed indexed articles as soon as I get a window. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting this here so I can get back to it, this version had the correct cite journal templates on medical articles, they got changed to cite news incomplete when NW was cleaninig up, I'll fix back as soon as I get a window. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Attribution to Deer

A lot of this article is cited to Brian Deer; we need to check it for attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• It might be important to point out that Deer is using as source, and summarizing, materials reviewed and reported on (I'm not sure that the correct word is "published") by the General Medical Council, including the medical records of the twelve children, and drafts of the paper, which enabled the Council to see that Wakefield had changed the paper to misrepresent and contradict what was in the Royal Free Hospital's medical records, e.g. changing a finding of normal bowel histology to abnormal and changing the dates when problems were noted from before the vaccine was given, or months after, to just after. —Monado (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, generally attribution needs to be checked throughout-- I haven't done it, for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath of fraud charges

Many physicians, journals, and editors are making statements, some of whom make direct ties between Wakefield's fraudulent actions and various epidemics and deaths, laying the blame directly at his feet:

• BMJ Lifts Curtain on MMR-Autism Fraud, By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today

More articles of interest:

• The fraud behind the MMR scare, Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ, BMJ 2011; 342:d22 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d22 (Published 6 January 2011)
• Brian Deer: Piltdown medicine: The missing link between MMR and autism, 6 Jan, 11 | by BMJ Group
• Link between MMR Vaccines and Autism conclusively broken, By IB Times Staff Reporter | January 7, 2011 4:01 AM EST
• BMJ Declares Vaccine-Autism Study 'an Elaborate Fraud', 1998 Lancet Study Not Bad Science but Deliberate Fraud, Claims Journal, By Nicky Broyd, WebMD Health News, Reviewed by Farah Ahmed, MD Jan. 6, 2011

Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deaths

"That paper killed four children" in Europe, reported by CBS News and elsewhere, and caused 125,000 children in the US not to receive vaccinations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The study discussed by Michael Smith:

• Smith MJ, Ellenberg SS, Bell LM, Rubin DM (2008). "Media coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism controversy and its relationship to MMR immunization rates in the United States". Pediatrics. 121 (4): e836–43. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1760. PMID 18381512. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The deaths discussed by Offit:

• McBrien J, Murphy J, Gill D, Cronin M, O'Donovan C, Cafferkey MT (2003). "Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000". Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 22 (7): 580–4. doi:10.1097/01.inf.0000073059.57867.36. PMID 12867830. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a long-time critic of the dangers of the anti-vaccine movement who has written a book on the subject, Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. "Study linking vaccines to autism is 'fraudulent'". Time. 2011-01-06. Retrieved 2011-01-07.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vaccination stats in the US:

• Jasek, Marissa (2011-01-06). "Healthwatch: Disputed autism study sparks debate about vaccines". WWAY Newschannel 3. Retrieved 2011-01-07.

Since Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study was released in 1998, many parents have been convinced the measels, mumps and rubella vaccine could lead to autism. But that study may have done more harm than good. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than any year since 1997. More than 90 percent of those infected had not been vaccinated, or their vaccination status was not known.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have prepared a new subsection for this to be added at the end of the Consequences of fraud section. Just fill it up! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All of this is in the article now; can this section be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The first sentence in the article was changed, and is quite awkward now:

• Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher known for his claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps and rubella), autism and inflammatory bowel disease, and for a well publicised 1998 study, that he led, that seemed to show that a connection existed.

Since it's on the mainpage, I suggest we fix it soon, perhaps to something like:

• Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher known for controversial claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps and rubella), autism and inflammatory bowel disease in a well-publicised 1998 study led by him that has been declared fraudulent.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That's much better. I'd add "his" before "controversial claims".

I still think that "former" is too uninformative. There are numerous innocent reasons for why a physician might be described as "former". In this case we need an informative word. I suggested "delicensed", while another suggested the awkward British technical expression "struck off". Whatever we use, it needs to be made plain right at the beginning that he was forcibly defrocked for misconduct (unfortunately that expression is used only for clergy). -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that "former" is sufficient. Remember that we don't need to fit everything in the first few words of the lede. The end of the first sentence notes that the study was fraudulent, the second paragraph covers the highlights of his unethical conduct, and the entire third paragraph (still well 'above the fold') is devoted to the GMC's findings and the (well-deserved) delicensing. We don't need to bash our readers over their heads in order to persuade them of Wakefield's recklessness, and we shouldn't write our article on the assumption that they won't get past the first sentence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with either "former" or "disgraced", but I feel that this may be slightly awkward: "... well-publicised 1998 study led by him that has been declared fraudulent"

How about adding a couple of commas and tweaking a word: "well-publicised 1998 study, led by him, which has been declared fraudulent"

I think that would read more clearly. We might even go a step further and split the "fraudulent" into a follow-on sentence. Comments / complaints? bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has since updated the current lede, new word bolded:

"Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent claims of a causative connection..."

Now, I'm no fan of Wakefield, but even though we have reliable independent sources saying Bad Things about him, we shouldn't try to cram it all into the first sentence. That may tend to make the start of article look more like an editorial or polemic. I'd like to suggest that we have might use either "disgraced", or "fraudulent" in the opening sentence, but not both. Would that be an acceptable compromise to people? bobrayner (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is his fraudulent claims for which he is known, and which underlie his notability. I think it is important at the first mention of his claims to make their status clear. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Duncan is right. Fraudulent should be in the first sentence. That's what he's known for. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No one fixed the redundancies in the lead for the entire first day it was on the mainpage, so I just did. This article really needs expansion-- I'm surprised that being on the mainpage has resulted in no improvement or expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Consequences of fraud" section title

I'm not sure if that is the best title for that section. The events in that section occurred while most people were under the impression that Wakefield was merely wrong and unethical, not fraudulent. NW (Talk) 22:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. He wasn't struck off for fraud, and AFAICT the Lancet didn't quite allege fraud either ('fraud' implies intent to deceive, whereas 'false claims' can be the result of gross incompetence). I've changed the title to better describe the section. --GenericBob (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is the nature of Wikipedia articles that they are updated to keep up with the latest evidence and sources. We now know that there was fraud all along, so the heading should say so.

The subheadings break it down and show a progression, with the last subheading (hidden until the content is provided) providing the ultimate consequence, the deaths and injuries to children. The main heading only limits it to consequences to him personally. That's too limited. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the hidden placeholder until now. For my money it makes better sense to separate out discussion of the consequences to Wakefield from the broader consequences; certainly until that section is actually written it doesn't have a bearing on article structure.

We know now that his work was fraudulent, but it's misleading to say that he was struck off as a consequence of the fraud. It was in large part a consequence of his failure to disclose interests, mistreating his patients, bypassing hospital ethics rules, and buying blood from kids at a birthday party (seriously, wtf?) We already note the fraud in the article lede and in the BMJ's findings; it's not like it's being hidden from readers. --GenericBob (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Okay, carry on. The article is being developed and updated nicely. This isn't finished yet since the story is being covered by even more sources and Brian Deer's three articles aren't all available yet. It will be interesting what his investigations reveal. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Call for extradition

I'm not sure of the status of this Forbes blog. It may be rated as RS if it's Whelan's column and he's a respected journalist:

• Extradite Andrew Wakefield To Face Fraud Charges In The UK, David Whelan, Jan. 5, 2011

Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just one guy calling for it. Might be worth including if there's more pressure from others. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It will be interesting to see how this develops. Wakefield is vulnerable to criminal charges, as well as lawsuits from parents, especially those whose children he (ab)used in his "research". -- Brangifer (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The parent's lawsuits would be a civil matter, and I doubt extradition can occur for that. The lawyers that paid him could theoretically have a case, but I doubt it. The journals like the Lancet might have a case for the loss of reputation, but again, I doubt that extradition would occur over it. I've never heard of someone being extradited for something like this.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He may be liable for criminal charges relating to the unethical and unnecessary procedures on children. The payments he received from the Legal Aid Board could also conceivably result in criminal proceedings, as could any statement he made under oath in his failed libel action against Channel 4 et al.. We should also remember that extradition from the US to the UK is much harder to get than extradition from the UK to the US. However, this is all speculation at this stage, and in the absence of anything more concrete should stay off the article. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree-- we need to give due weight to sources, and we don't yet see a number of secondary reliable sources raising this issue. Further, do we even know what kind of residency Wakefield has in the US? If he's in the US on a Green card, and is found guilty of something, extradition wouldn't even be necessary-- he could be deported. For now, it's all speculative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct categorization, please

Please don't add "2011 scandals" or similar categories to this article. There are two types of categories: set categories and topic categories. Set categories are generally in the plural, such as "2011 scandals". To fit into that category, the article has to describe a scandal. It desn't, it describes a person, and people cannot be categorized as scandals.

However, the article on Mr. Wakefield fits into the category of "MMR vaccine controversy", since it is a topic category. The article on the controversy fits both in its namesake category and the "2011 scandals" category, since it both is part of the topic and can be categorized as a scandal.

See WP:CATEGORY.

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I read that page (which is only a guideline) and can't decipher a reason for removing useful categories from this page; please quote the exact portions referenced, and explain why the guideline should overrule common sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume you don't mean to say that the guideline contradicts common sense (would not be good news if it did). For an article to fit into a set category - such as the "2011 scandals" - it has to be an occurrence of what the category name indicates. Mr. Wakefield isn't a scandal (other than colloquially), the vaccine fraud is one. If we categorize all kinds of people, both purps and victims, into categories like this, first it wouldn't make sense, for reasons already stated above (and in the guideline), second it would clutter the category with people articles (since most of the time more than one person is involved in a scandal), making it hard to distinguish the scandals themselves.

What do you expect when you view a set category? You expect occurrences of what the category name indicates. Try the set category of "Olympic ice hockey players", for instance. You have to be one to fit into it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to say that-- assuming isn't usually helpful, common sense frequently overrules guidelines, which are not policy. You haven't quoted the portion of the guideline that backs your assertion, and I can't locate it-- please do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Academic scandals contains a number of individuals. __meco (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless the HandsomeFella can explain his cat deletions, they need to be re-added, per common sense and no guideline negating them. GorgeousBabe. 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that when there exists a separate article on the scandal, these categories go there. In many cases, however, the scandal is discussed in one or more sections in the biographical article, and then they must go there or otherwise the scandal doesn't get categorized at all. __meco (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

GorgeousBabe and HandsomeFella....amusing.  :) LeftCoastMan (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, categorization in WP is probably not an exact science, but I think bullet point 1 proves what I'm trying to say: "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs."

In categories such as "2011 scandals" you'd expect events, because that is what scandals are by nature. Persons are not events. That's where logic comes into it, if you ask me.

Yes, there are probably pages that aren't categorized along this way of reasoning, but the cause could be that no-one (so far) has been "enforcing" this with any vigour. It does not disprove my point.

Check this category for a parallel: Category:Political scandals in the United States. Wouldn't you say that it's much easier to find what you search for in this category than it would have been if it had been filled with all persons significantly involved in the scandals listed there?

This is the best way I explain my cat deletions. But if there is a majority against me, then I will not delete them again. Btw, GorgeousBabe, would asking for your telephone number be going too far? ;-)

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why I left WP a while ago. People pushing illogical and silly agendas, pretending to be one thing, but really not. You're obviously here to clear Wakefield's name. If I had my way, I put him on the Mass Murderer category for all the deaths he caused by parents not vaccinating their children. Technically, he's one of the worst serial killers ever. So there. If we're going to push agendas, may as well push one that makes some sense. LeftCoastMan (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to to clear anyone's name. That is an insult. I don't know the guy, and I have no reason to believe other than what is reported in media. If you continue with argumentum ad hominem, we will not miss you in WP. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so we have no guideline-based or common sense reason for deleting the categories, they should go back. We do know who's gorgeous at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that common sense is subjective. And guideline-based or common sense reasons would go for both adding and deleting cats, wouldn't they? Did you read the quite nuanced discussion on the talkpage of the category I mentioned above? It's good reading. Category talk:Political scandals in the United States, section "Inclusion Criteria".

As far as I've understood, Wakefield isn't involved in any other scandal, is he? And he's already placed in the category "MMR vaccine fraud", so what's the point of putting him in the "2011 scandals" category?

Maybe this discussion could be continued elsewhere, on a "higher" level (I mean in a broader context, WP-somewhere)? HandsomeFella (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Struck from record

Were Murch and Walker-Smith (co-authors) also struck after the investigation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to read up, but several of the co-authors have retracted their "authorship." LeftCoastMan (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at our article on the MMR vaccine controversy, the GMC decided to strike off both Wakefield and Walker-Smith. (The GMC's Medical Register web site confirms this.) The full Determination by the GMC regarding Murch is here, the statements from page 6 are particularly relevant:

The Panel acknowledged that Professor Murch’s status within the department at the time of events in 1996, was that of a relatively junior consultant and that he would attach significant weight to the opinion he was given by Professor Walker-Smith.

The Panel accepted the expert evidence of Professor Booth, that a colonoscopist would have a low threshold for carrying out a colonoscopy that had been requested by a more senior colleague who had many more years of experience in assessing children. The Panel also accepted that it could not criticise Professor Murch for making an assumption that an investigation was clinically indicated if ordered by Professor Walker-Smith as it is appropriate to “respect the skills and contributions of your colleagues”, as indicated in the 1995 edition of Good Medical Practice.

The Panel concluded Professor Murch acted in good faith albeit it has found he was in error. His actions, although comparable to professional misconduct in respect of undertaking procedures which were not clinically indicated, were mitigated by the fact that he was under a false impression that they were clinically indicated and this could not reach the threshold of serious professional misconduct.

In relation to the Lancet paper, Panel has found that Professor Murch was not a senior author of that paper.

The Panel noted that in the press briefing held at the Royal Free Hospital immediately prior to publication of the Lancet Paper, Professor Murch spoke to the findings. Professor Zuckerman, the Dean of the Royal Free hospital at the time, in giving evidence to the Panel, testified that Professor Murch vigorously presented the view that the findings in this research were not sufficient to advise discontinuation of the MMR vaccine. Professor Murch was also instrumental in the retraction of the interpretation that had been placed on The Lancet article by the media. In dealing with the repercussions of the Lancet paper and their possible impact on public health policy, the Panel considered that Professor Murch behaved professionally and responsibly.

In other words, there is every indication that Murch was a competent and responsible doctor who trusted too much in his mentor, Walker-Smith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I read in one source that Walker-Smith was also struck, but don't recall which. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The footnote in the MMR vaccine controversy article cites Sanchez, Raf; Rose, David (2010-05-25). "Dr Andrew Wakefield struck off medical register". The Times (London). Unfortunately, as with most Times links, the URL seems broken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw it in one of the sources on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Found this, adding now, but should switch it to a more enduring source when one is found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we actually need any additional sources – beyond the official GMC determination – for Murch not being struck off? In addition to being 'straight from the horse's mouth', as it were, I would expect that the public record of a GMC hearing is much less likely to disappear behind a paywall or other hindrance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And, for convenience, the GMC determination which did erase Walker-Smith from the Register: [12]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Like many sources originally used in this article, the GMC documents are primary sources; secondary sources that discuss primary sources are preferable, although we can also link the primary sources. The way this article was built over the years, before secondary sources were available, it probably overrelied on primary sources. Since secondary sources are now available, they should be used. NPOV requires us to present all sides of the story according due weight to reliable secondary sources-- the General Council/Deer story is the main story, but we should still reduce reliance upon them as primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

POV Junk

One line reads, "The Institute of Medicine (IOM),[54] along with the CDC, NIH, and Food and Drug Administration (and their British counterparts) continue to deny that any link has been found between vaccines and autism." Denialism is the world of the anti-vaccination nutters. This should read "...have found no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism." They are not denying a link exists. No peer-reviewed journal has shown one. Nothing to deny.

Denialists are trying to conflate skepticism with denialism. Shouldn't be allowed here. LeftCoastMan (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree (but have to check the sources to reflect what they say). And by the way, the article includes no response from Wakefield, someone should find and add something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't take the default position of accepting what was written and trying to debunk it. The FDA and CDC are certainly not denialists, so I doubt they would use that language. I have yet to read anything by Wakefield, just TV spots. Usually he's stammering because he's being attacked, so I suppose he might write something. LeftCoastMan (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a response here, and I imagine more can be found at CNN. Someone should add something: I have a cold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

More here; I don't feel well enough to add any more content today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a small amount about Wakefield's response; it could be built up from there if need be. NW (Talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at what I could in the Google snippets of his book, Callous Disregard, and naturally, he refutes every point, but I can't read much of it on Google. Does anyone have the book or want to get it? We need to discuss which portions of his response need to be represented, for neutrality (and how do we do that, considering fraud has been shown? What weight do we give to his word?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a decent article on a non-violent criminal who pleaded not-guilty or denied charges against them despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? (I'm thinking Bernie Madoff, but I can't remember properly what he did in response to the investigations). If so, we could try to do what that article did. If we don't have anything to go off on, I'm thinking perhaps two paragraphs in the response subsection—one on his book and one on other responses? NW (Talk) 05:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll snoop and ask around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Video inline

The link added (incorrectly) here hangs my computer-- anyone else? We don't place links inline; if it's any good, it belongs in External links, but I can't see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's back, now as a Youtube, but still as an external jump within the text. If we're considering Youtube a reliable source these days, at best, it belongs in external links, but not as an external jump linked within the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Washington Times copyvio

In verifying Wakefield's birthdate, I found two sources that indicated 1957, and updated the article.[13] While continuing to look for bio info, I found that The Washington Times appears to have lifted its text from Wiki's version with an unsourced birthdate.

See Washington Times and around this version of our article.

We've had similar wording for a very long time (July 2007 and January 6 this year when I started editing to add new news), and many of us have tweaked it here many times-- I've no doubt we didn't take it from them, they took it from us, without proper attribution and licensing.

And now, their information is wrong, according to other sources, which say his birthyear is 1957.

Andrew Wakefield Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and researcher best known for his discredited work regarding the MMR vaccine and its claimed connection with autism and inflammatory bowel disease. Wakefield was the lead author of a 1998 study, published in The Lancet, which reported bowel symptoms in twelve children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, to which the authors suggested a possible link with the MMR vaccine. Though stating, "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described," the paper adopted alleged parental allegations as fact for the purpose of calculating a temporal link between receipt of the vaccine and the first onset of what were described as "behavioural symptoms".

Also, the Washington Times entry only recently showed up on Google, and was apparently created after the January 6 revelations, and includes only that info. Their Google entry when I found it showed a January 6 date:

Andrew Wakefield - Bio, News, Photos - Washington TimesJan 6, 2011 ... Latest news and commentary on Andrew Wakefield including photos, videos, quotations, and a biography. www3.washingtontimes.com/topics/andrew-wakefield/ - Cached

In case someone is inclined to contact them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, our article when created had a 1957 birthdate, that was changed by an IP in 2006 to 1956. I find no discussion or attempt to source the birthdate before I sourced it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

us:

Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher best known for controversy over his claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease.

them:

Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and researcher best known for his discredited work regarding the MMR vaccine and its claimed connection with autism and inflammatory bowel disease.

While close paraphrasing, the copied elements are hardly creative and it is only a single sentence. What would you want achieve by contacting them? Yoenit (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You missed the most important-- they copied unsourced, incorrect info (birthdate is 1957, not 1956, according to other sources). I'd think The Washington Times would want to know which of their esteemed journalists did that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure they do. So this is actually more about them not checking their facts rather than a copyvio problem? Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to verify the accuracy of our article and improve it and expand it; do you have something useful to add here? For example, whether anything else printed by the Washington Times is an unverified mirror? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Medical Interventions for Autism (MIA)

Some of Wakefield's bios say he serves on the board of the charity, Medical Interventions for Autism. The only thing I can find about that group is this; I wonder if it's still alive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield's response and reactions to it

We should include Wakefield's own explanations for his innocence against the accusations that have been proven against him. "Wakefield called Deer a hitman" fails to elaborate Wakefield's specific explanations for the individual charges that have been laid against him. Timeofmind (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a response written by Dr. Wakefield to Deers specific allegations: http://www.rescuepost.com/files/wakefield_press_release_bmj-deer1.pdf . Including Wakefield's responses to Deers proven allegation of "data fixing" seems rather fitting for this section of the article. Timeofmind (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting but would need to be from a RS. Can you find this anywhere else than a fringe website? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's unusable, but we should just note that it's from April 16, 2010, addressing previous allegations. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is an interesting situation. Since the only question of reliability here is whether Wakefield himself actually issued the statements that were cited; the most reliable source for such statements would be Wakefield himself. It seems the fringers that follow him are the most likely one's to spread his statements around and so are the most likely sources to find statements issued by him... Does Wakefield have his own website? Would that be considered a reliable source to cite Wakefield's own statements? (I would think so, since I find it rather impossible that he could issue a statement that he doesn't support) Timeofmind (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You can find some of Wakefield's own words, in his defense, in a page on whale.to called "Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words". The blacklist won't let me post the full URL, and I'm not surprised - much of the rest of that site is a profoundly unreliable source. However, if you can see a Youtube video of Wakefield saying stuff (and it's not heavily edited), plus a transcript, and it's on a site that supports Wakefield, I think that's a perfectly good source for Wakefield's own comments on the subject. Alternatively just go straight to youtube, or here. bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If Wakefield has his own website, it is considered a RS for his own POV and we could cite it here. It wouldn't necessarily be considered a RS in other articles. I'd be cautious of Youtube. Yes, whale.to is blacklisted for good reason and I think its webmaster is banned here. He was very active. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I too would normally share your caution about youtube, but if it's a video of Wakefield facing a camera and talking for a few minutes about these issues, I think that's a good source for Wakefield's beliefs on these issues. The usual concerns about youtube are eroded in a situation like this - how could it be an unreliable source unless somebody has knocked up a CGI impersonation of wakefield and painstakingly dubbed it with plausible-but-false words in an appropriate accent? :-)

But, hey, if the community doesn't accept the youtube videos, I'll just stand back. I'm not aware of any other good sources on the subject. Any bio page hosted by an organisation that supports Wakefield is likely to gloss over or distort the fraud allegations, and I can't remember (offhand) any direct quotes in mainstream newsmedia. bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this Lancet article MMR—responding to retraction by Andrew J Wakefield, Peter Harvey, and John Linnell. It provides good insight into Wakefield's reasoning behind his defense. It should definitely be cited and included here. Timeofmind (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That is seven years old, and significant findings have emerged since then; does anyone see anything useful in there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

An article for comparison - Charles Smith

While the cases are by no means identical, it may be instructive – or at least constructive – to compare our handling of this article with our biography of another disgraced physician, Charles Randal Smith. Smith had a 20-year career as a pediatric forensic pathologist working out of a prestigious Canadian hospital, but had a rather nasty habit of interpreting ambiguous or even exculpatory physical evidence as signs of abuse or shaken baby syndrome. Smith's dubious conclusions in twenty cases led to at least thirteen convictions. He resigned (presumably under pressure) in 2005, but insists to this day that any failings of his were unintentional, and that his life's purpose remains "finding out the truth for parents who have lost babies" ([14]). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Smith article reads like a hit piece. We need to remember our ethical responsibilities when it comes to BLP articles, "Do no harm." It's not appropriate for us (and I'm not specifically referring to any one editor) to try to use Wikipedia to bring people "to justice." Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One should be very careful in attempting to "do no harm" (interesting that we would allude to primum non nocere in dealing with unethical physicians...). It does not mean that we do not report openly and honestly negative facts about biographical subjects, nor does it demand that readers of our biographies must always leave an article with a positive impression of the subject. Where appropriate, we should give the subjects the benefit of the doubt, but we do our readers and our project a disservice if we misrepresent the level of doubt regarding an individual's (mis)conduct. With both Smith and Wakefield, Wikipedia is not being used as to bring individuals "to justice", nor as an instrument of vengeance.

In Wakefield's case, when his actions came to light they were condemned in the strongest possible terms by his peers and by organizations most qualified to make such evaluations, in terms that left no room for doubt. His science was harshly criticized by two highly-respected journals (The Lancet and BMJ); his medical ethics were found grossly wanting by the UK's governing body for physicians. Medical licenses are not withdrawn lightly. In Smith's case, his dubious pathological findings sent more than a dozen innocent people – often traumatized parents who had just lost a child – to prison. His irresponsible actions were reviewed by colleagues, the provincial attorney general's office, the province's chief coroner, and as part of a public inquiry; he was reprimanded by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and is currently under suspension by the College, awaiting a final disposition. To borrow your colorful phrase, these people have already been "brought to justice"; we now have a responsiblity to straightforwardly report on that. In pursuit of balance, we must be careful not to trip over Okrent's Law. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield's side in the lede

An editor removed the addition of Wakefield's side from the lede. This article is biography of Wakefield, so why wouldn't his side be notable enough for the lede? It was only a single sentence stating that Wakefield has continued to defend himself. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That one statement didn't do much to tell his side of the story (and fraudulent as it may be, it still needs to be here); I'm not sure how it helps our readers, since many charged with criminal conduct continue to assert their innocence. Our readers need to know how and why. For those who asked above, I'll add again-- his side of the story is told in his book, Callous Disregard, which has only minimal snips available on Google. Someone needs to get the book so we can discuss how much due weight to give to a story that has been shown to be fraudulent and that contains multiple contradictions, but we still need to include something somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When I read the lede with its long list of harsh criticisms of Wakefield, my first thought was, "So, what does Wakefield say or what has he done about all this?" Perhaps one sentence isn't sufficient, but in a bio about the guy I would think that his side is notable enough to be summarized in the lede along with others' opinions of him and his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One sentence isn't enough, but it will have to suffice until 1) someone gets his book, or 2) an online reliable source produces something. I agree with this addition for now; we can't just completely fail to say anything about his side of the story. But I question this; he was stripped of his medical credentials because of the fraud, so why is it only "accused"? It's proven?? Who else would prove it besides the governing board that struck him from the medical register? And he is known for this ... how can we meet in the middle here-- alternate wording suggestion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, can we get some discussion here? The difference isn't really significant enough to edit war over; some middle-ground wording should be possible, talking would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cla68's removal of the reference to fraud in the lead seriously unbalances the article and has the effect of biasing it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a huge difference, it's semantics, and suggest our time would be better spent in finding wording acceptable to both, or at least discussing it. In fact, until we add something about Wakefield's side of the story-- even if his story is fraudulent-- the article is unbalanced anyway. I found some text here (search on "Wakefield, however, denies", which I will begin to add shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that this wording gives a false impression of the case, and will be read by many as though Wakefield was only accused, when in fact a statutory tribunal has made very clear findings of fact about the study and his behaviour in it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See my suggestion below. It's important to attribute statements like that about people. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

After I finish adding the portion mentioned above, I'll begin to add this; is the next BMJ report out? I can't find the source of this text in the BMJ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Found; I'll also begin adding this next, so if anyone wants to continue edit warring, could you hold off 'til I'm done :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not lead off with, "Andrew Wakefield was a medical doctor and researcher who was removed from the general medical register in the UK for fraud after his conclusions and research into the MMR vaccine controversy was called into question." Or something like that? This way, we're making it clear who is calling him a fraud, and that it's not Wikipedia doing so. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "...his report and conclusion... were shown to be falsified." - They weren't just called into question, they were very thoroughly debunked, and by a statutory tribunal too. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"His report and conclusions...were shown to be falsified by...[name names]." Attribute who is saying these things about him and his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The GMC, when they struck him from the medical register. Try reading the article. We don't usually cite in the lead if cited below. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations can be quite useful, though, for controversial ledes. Personally, I think the lede is supposed to summarise the article, and the first sentence of the lede itself should only give the basics - otherwise we end up with rather stilted text. I'm not convinced that we need to stretch the first sentence to mention the GMC if it already mentions him being removed from the register - who else would remove him from the register? I think the notability and media coverage touches on much more than just his being defrocked; so I'd prefer to see a bit more of that mentioned upfront, even if only briefly. The GMC is not the only body to call wakefield a fraud, I believe. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But there are problems with this article (it's organization, flow, and attribution), and I raised the attribution issue days ago here on talk. The article is not in terrible shape, but it's not in great shape either, and needs to be reworked once it's off the mainpage. The underlying problems are that: 1) the article was built over the years as Deer's investigations unfolded, under problems with ownership and tenditious editing and before all evidence was out in reliable sources as it is now, so the flow and organization is all off; and 2) Deer was the primary driver for the investigation, so there are attribution problems and problems with overreliance on Deer's own sources rather than sources that independently analyze Deer's work. Correctly attributed, many of the statements in the current article would have to look something ridiculous like: CNN reported that BMJ reported that Deer said that the General Council found". Attribution needs to be looked at so that we're not relying entirely on Deer, and it's clear who is saying what, and that it's not Wiki that is saying these things. A comprehensive story is now told by numerous reliable sources, which was not the situation as this article was built over the years, often with tendentious issues at play, as anti-vaccine and pro-science editors used sometimes Deer's primary sources to build the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still working to add the new text-- will catch up with y'all in about half an hour so we can fix it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done expanding for now, have at it, but addressing the points above. Cla, first, this article was mired in a walled garden of POV disputes for years, Eubulides did his best to stay on top of it but it was tendentiously owned and hard to improve, so what was there when I started on it a few days was quite a mess to say the least. I've struggled just to keep it clean; it's not well written by any means, and the flow is all off, and lots of attribution needs to be checked, and it is stilted, was written by many different authors-- all the usual problems. Honestly, the article is not in good shape-- I've kept up as much as possible so it would at least be mainpage worthy. Yes, the article needs the kind of attribution you are suggesting above-- I'm done for now, but hope you'll all work something out on that, my prose stinks, but Cla is right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, whatever the case, you've been doing an amazing job. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated, but I don't think so :) I'm barely keeping up, and all too aware of the problems we still have in these articles. All hands on deck :) You're all doing great, and the collaboration here has been very nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone can make use of this Lancet article defending Wakefield? MMR—responding to retraction by Andrew J Wakefield, Peter Harvey, and John Linnell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeofmind (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the same seven-year old article you already listed here-- no need to list it twice. Considering new revelations, how much of that is relevant today? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't sure where it belonged. I will remove the other copy of it. 216.232.255.81 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield has made a statement in his defense. There's a copy here and here. Might be useful for this article. bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the 7 year article is a useful reference for statements made by him in response to accusations that were made against him. I'm surprised at your attempt to disregard it on account of it being old, unless you can somehow show that he has changed his mind since then. Timeofmind (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Retracted publications

I think it would be most proper to list the retracted publications with the others since he really did have them published, and then note that they have been retracted. We could place RETRACTED in front of the listing and then strike it through. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The retracted publications are listed (below the publication); we have to follow correct citation guidelines-- the articles were published, and later retracted, and the retractions have separate DOIs and PMIDs. It's not up to us to alter the titles of reliable sources with strike throughs, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've actually never been crazy about the practice of listing a person's publications at the bottom of their Wikipedia article. It makes the article sound a bit more like a C.V. or resume and less like an encyclopedia article, and it seems like a function more appropriate for PubMed, Google Scholar, or a similar search engine rather than us. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

MC, I agree, and I'm not sure how to overcome this, but I was trying to make the article more neutral by adding his most cited (100 to 200 cited by according to Google scholar) articles before the scandal (and to leave a record of the retracted/withdrawn articles, to eliminate confusion); it seems that he did some good work before he moved into MMR territory. I've been looking for reliable sources, but all I can find is various bios submitted by him (amazon.com and the like) which mention that he has over 130 published journal articles. I was concerned that the BLP was overfocusing on the scandal while excluding his work before the scandal; how can we, or should we, address this? If I've done more harm than good by introducing some Google scholar "cited by" text, we should fix that, but my bigger concern is that we not open the door here to allegations of POV against Wakefield, since the entire story relies so heavily on Deer's investigations and the General Council findings. Open to suggestion-- do whatever is best-- but I don't like linking to PubMed or Google scholar either-- not sure how to solve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Date for Deer's acquisition of copy of patent application

Does anyone know about this?

• Although Deer said he possessed a copy of the patent application, a letter from Wakefield's lawyers dated 31 Jan 2005 said: "Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine." diff

If Brian Deer obtained the copy after the date of the letter from the lawyers, we could write it this way:

• Although Deer later obtained a copy of the patent application, a letter from Wakefield's lawyers dated 31 Jan 2005 said: "Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine."

Right now, by writing that Deer "said he possessed", we are introducing a possibility for doubt about whether he was lying or not. He DOES posses a copy and has posted it, so it's more just a matter of WHEN he got it, so I think that should be changed to:

• "Although Deer obtained a copy...." and can add "later" if we find documentation for the date. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, and have similar questions; from the sources, I haven't been able to sort this yet, but I suspect we could find this info if someone can dig into Deer's and the Medical Council sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the hairsplitting about when Deer obtained the patent application. You can go to Patentscope: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/search.jsf and, from the ID/Number tab, search for WO1998055138. click on the description tab, and you see the following: "The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prevention and/or prophylaxis against measles virus infection and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (inflammatory bowel disease)." BINGO! When Wakefield says it wasn't a vaccine, he's a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.98.65 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

OTC nutritional supplement?

Per this addition, I'm wondering about something:

• According to CNN, Wakefield said the patent he held was for "an 'over-the-counter nutritional supplement' that boosts the immune system". Diff

It's possible that he holds more than one patent, so is this different than the vaccine patent or was he lying (again!)? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, this needs to be sorted, suspect digging into the sources will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield is referring to Transfer factor. Colostrum is rich in it. The FDA class this stuff as a nutrition supplement. The patent is about tailor making it so that it would (hopefully) rid a persistent infection, were the individual's own immune system has been unable to do so. Not suitable though, for mass immunisation of the population -no way. However, Deer is not a doctor, so perhaps this point has gone over his head. --Aspro (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But are there two different patents? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield is a researcher, so his name will appear on numerous patents. The patent in question is just the TF one (we looked at them years back when this first surfaced). If you can wait until tomorrow, I will request the medical librarian to dig it out and I'll post it's patent number. --Aspro (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I really can't keep up with every aspect here, and haven't sorted this piece at all, don't know how to fix our wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got it and have found the US filing of patent is now freely available online, so here it is. Apparently, some people immediately pointed out this lack of basic fact checking to the British Medical Journal when the story broke, as can be seen on some of these letters [15]. The reason being that because TF's act on a different part of the immune system it should be immediately obvious that any benefit of this oral treatment will be of a short term nature and therefore unsuitable to replace any existing injectable vaccine. If it could have been made to work, it might have also been invaluable for treating Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis for which there is as yet no cure. A great shame. Anyway. This is supposed to be a biographical article, so I am not going to discuss this patent thing further or stick around here to wait for replies, other than to end with the observation that it does appear this story has taken on a life of its own, with most people mindlessly repeating what they have read in the press whilst presuming that everybody else has checked all the facts properly, a.k.a. Argumentum ad populum. Its all got far too silly for words but as some Wikilawyers like to point out: Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth. Still, I suppose the article serves as a demonstration to psychology students everywhere, on how hot blooded rhetoric can out pace slow methodical reasoning. Happy tenth birthday Wikipedia. --Aspro (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well if someone else can sort this, I'll work on Wakefield's response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You can go to Patentscope: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/search.jsf and, from the ID/Number tab, search for WO1998055138. Click on the description tab, and you will see that "The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prevention and/or prophylaxis against measles virus infection and to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (inflammatory bowel disease)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.98.65 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy responds

• Jenny McCarthy: In the Vaccine-Autism Debate, What Can Parents Believe?, January 10, 2011

I'm not sure how much, if any, of this is relevant here, or is more appropriate for the Jenny McCarthy and/or Generation Rescue articles, or all three. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure how much weight to give here to those characterized by a reliable source as "nincompoop celebrities", but I note that:

• "Dr. Wakefield did something I wish all doctors would do: he listened to parents and reported what they said."

That isn't what the evidence reveals. And,

• "For some reason, parents aren't being told that this 'new' information about Dr. Wakefield isn't a medical report, but merely the allegations of a single British journalist named Brian Deer."

That's not entirely true, considering the Medical Council's investigation, but that is what we must avoid in this article, with correct attribution (and I think we're doing OK on that, but we still need to review for attribution). And then we have this:

• "I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son."

So, we see the Huffington Post continuing the same kind of journalism that has been soundly criticized-- giving a platform to a celebrity to continue the scare. I don't think this belongs here, but I'm not sure how we should treat it, or in which article, probably her article, since it's her lay opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I updated her article, but don't think we need to add here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with SandyGeorgia's position; McCarthy's uninformed opinions aren't relevant to this article at all. Doc Tropics 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In The News page view stats

• page view stats for Wakefield
• for MMR vaccine controversy
• for McCarthy

So, "nincompoop celebrities" pages get more views than the scientist involved in the controversy (her Jan 1 hits are due to the Super Bowl her New Years appearance on TV). Even subtracting the Super Bowl New Years hits, McCarthy has gotten more hits this month than either Wakefield, on the mainpage, or MMR vaccine controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Posted to The Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More to come

• Deer in The Guardian

Next week in the BMJ, I will go further, showing how the old boys' network of the medical establishment was mobilised to protect him. Are you getting the picture yet?

But times are changing. Wakefield's fall from grace is now slicing another scalp. One of the most insidious cartels at the heart of British science is being torn apart: the two top journals in medical science.

The Lancet once championed him. The BMJ has now nailed him – and commended my contribution. "It has taken the diligent scepticism of one man, standing outside medicine and science, to show that the paper was in fact an elaborate fraud," they wrote in last week's editorial.

Let battle commence, I say. Let doctors expose each other. Let journals compete to get the truth out first. Because 13 years passed before I slayed the MMR monster. And although a single, severed hand may yet come crawling across the floor, for science and public safety 13 years is still too long.

So, another aspect of this story, and why we have to watch for POV and attribution, is that we have a battle of two prominent, competing journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What Drives Irrational Rhetoric? The Case of Childhood Vaccinations, Seth Mnookin

A relevant article which also briefly mentions Andrew Wakefield:

• What Drives Irrational Rhetoric? The Case of Childhood Vaccinations, Seth Mnookin, The Atlantic, Jan 11, 2011

It's based on his book (linked), which should have much more information. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another call for prosecution: Berezow

Vaccine-autism researcher should be prosecuted, By Alex B. Berezow, Special to CNN, January 14, 2011

Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Publications

Are those all his publications or merely selected ones? NW (Talk) 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Retracted publications; they are his best known, most-cited publications (we can't list all 130+ journal papers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the section not be titled "Selected publications" or something of that sort then? NW (Talk) 03:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure-- I was surprised I got no feedback above. Whatever you think. What I did was list those that have the highest "cited by" other articles per Google scholar-- we can't list all of them, I can't find an RS discussing his other work, but felt it was POV to leave out his earlier work, but also feel what I did is OR. Don't know how to solve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling it "selected publications" is probably best; we don't want to give the impression that is all he wrote, nor are we going to list all of them, either. Yobol (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing that list of publications, I just noticed that Hewitson (presumably another British import to the US?) also works for Thoughtful House. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Former Lancet editor accused of cover-up.

Former Lancet editor accused of cover-up. The British Medical Journal has published a detailed account of the failure of The Lancet editor Richard Horton to properly investigate the complaint made by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield's now infamous 1998 article. [Deer B. "Secrets of the MMR scare: The Lancet's two days to bury bad news." BMJ 342:c7001, 2011] This is the third article in the BMJ series about Wakefield's misconduct. Casewatch has posted the transcripts from the General Medical Council's hearings that ended with the revocation of Wakefield's medical license.

Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

An IP has been changing "fraudulent" to "un-proven" [sic]. "Fraudulent" is a pretty strong term, but his 'work' was proven fraudulent, wasn't it? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I have restored the term and added a citation in the lead to the BMJ editorial of January 5, as a number of editors have tried to change it over the past week. NW (Talk) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 194.145.60.134

An IP 194.145.60.134 tries to add a text and link to a www.naturalnews.com/031117_BMJ_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield.html naturalnews] article claiming that Wakefield is innocent. Thrice now. When you follow the article to the source, you get to the site vaccinesafetyfirst.com, which was created on 15. Jan. 2011 and registered for 1 year(according to whois). The pdf containing the proof, was written by Wakefield himself. Doesn't look like a very reliable source to me... Crabel (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the assesment above and have warned the IP for edit warring. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor has been blocked for 24 hours. If they resume edit warring, please report them to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring, citing this case: [16]. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please look at recent edits to Brian Deer? Somebody has added very similar material there, along with some extra sources, but I don't have the time just now to check it (work calls). --GenericBob (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

user:178.78.80.157 has just reinserted the disputed information. I am treating it as vandalism. If more IP's pop up consider requesting semi-protection. Yoenit (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The people at skepdic.com have written an article about the site/information the IP(s) try to insert into the article: http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia122.html About the supposed evidence: is a transcript of testimony by John Walker-Smith given at the Wakefield hearing conducted by the General Medical Council (GMC) on 16 July 2008. Walker-Smith states that he had data on 7 of the 12 children in the original Wakefield et al. study that found a pattern of children with both IBS and autism. Walker-Smith was also found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the GMC and struck off the medical register for his role in carrying out procedures on the children. There is nothing new here. Crabel (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Press complaint still pending

According to this document ( http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/BRIAN%20DEER%20IS%20THE%20LIAR%20.pdf ), the complaint to the UK's Press Complaint Commission is still pending : should'nt this be mentionned in the article ? Trente7cinq (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com may not be a reference (I mean : according to wiki ): could this complaint be documented elsewhere ?Trente7cinq (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, have you tried looking for it? Yoenit (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yoenit ! Here it is : http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTgyNA== The PCC has received a complaint from Dr Andrew Wakefield about articles published in the Sunday Times on 8th February 2009, headlined “MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism” and “Hidden records show MMR truth”. Having examined the case, the PCC has indicated that it will temporarily stay its investigation until the conclusion of the GMC inquiry, which is likely to clarify information which is relevant to the investigation of the complaint by the PCC. No substantive ruling in relation to the complaint has been reached by the PCC at this stage.The newspaper – having initially removed the articles at the request of the PCC without any admission of liability – has reinstated them with an annotation to reflect the fact that the PCC complaint is outstanding. Will you insert a comment in the article ? Trente7cinq (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That post is from 1,5 years ago. I doubt the complaint is still outstanding. Notice that it also claims the newspaper reinstated the articles with an annotation, but I don't see such an annotation in the articles in question [17], [18]. Yoenit (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's ancient history and events have caught up with Wakefield. The GMC found he was deceptive and stripped him of his right to practice medicine. His colleague also suffered the same fate. Wakefield's complaint is a moot point now as it was proven false. In the present situation, after the recent BMJ articles which go into very precise details of the "elaborate fraud", Wakefield has again protested his innocence (what else would he do?), and Brian Deer has invited Wakefield to sue him. Wakefield's "evidence" is only old stuff that has already been debunked. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is not if this is an ancient story or not ( after all the 1998 paper is quite old isn't it ?), but: wether this proceedings are still pending ...and could have an impact - whatsoever- on the controversy . If so , it may be legitimate to comment briefly . Still pending : yes or no ?( from the Press complaint commission's site I understand it is "yes" )Trente7cinq (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

More exactly : I fear this point won't be settled now : it is not sure the page is still valid .(As for "Notice that it also claims the newspaper reinstated the articles with an annotation, but I don't see such an annotation in the articles in question" / "The Sunday Times of London, a Rupert Murdoch News Corporation paper, has defied direction from the UK’s Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to remove from its web site controversial stories it has failed to substantiate..." http://gryffins-tail.blogspot.com/2009/07/sunday-times-defies-press-complaints.html )Trente7cinq (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me that the easiest route to get a definitive answer would be to just ask the PCC. A quick check finds the complaint is not listed as resolved by mediation or adjudication ([19], [20]), so I suspect Wakefield has simply let it lapse. Unless the PCC upholds the complaint (very unlikely) I don't think there's anything article-worthy here. We already know that Wakefield attempted to suppress criticism by filing a vexatious libel suit; in comparison a spurious PCC complaint (that he can't be bothered to follow through on) is pretty small beer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"It strikes me that the easiest route to get a definitive answer would be to just ask the PCC" : I agree with you ( I did write to the PCC for clarification; did you too ?). You then write "I suspect Wakefield has simply let it lapse" : did you read the document I referenced ealier ( http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/BRIAN%20DEER%20IS%20THE%20LIAR%20.pdf )which reported Fiona Godlee's mail : "If as you say, you now intend to pursue your complaint to the PCC of March 2009, which we understand to have been suspended almost a year ago, we will follow that development with interest. ?" Trente7cinq (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you received your response from the PCC? Wouldn't it save us time and effort to wait for that definitive response? From the 'source' you linked, it seemed that Wakefield and Godlee had very different views about whether or not the complaint was still active and being pursued. I see no need to investigate this msyelf because as I said, unless the PCC remarkably and improbably finds in Wakefield's favour (something which I am sure we would hear about very loudly), there isn't anything encyclopedia-worthy about the fact that Wakefield filed a complaint. His libel SLAPP suit was in the same vein, in a more important venue, and was much better covered by reliable third party sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't received any answer yet .More important : the PCC page hasn't been updated yet either : wait and see . Trente7cinq (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the answer of the PCC :"...I can confirm that the position with the Sunday Times case is that we suspended our investigation pending the outcome of GMC proceedings. At their conclusion, we were informed that Andrew Wakefield was pursuing a civil appeals process. As a result, the investigation remains suspended. If Andrew Wakefield asks us to reopen the matter in due course the Commission would of course then consider what action to take." The page will be updated as soon the PCC knows the position of Andrew Wakefield ... [ this is not verifiable ,for the moment : let's say I take a bid ]Trente7cinq (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fiona Godlee of BMJ Responds to Wakefield Questions

An interesting letter from Fiona to Age of Autism:

• Fiona Godlee of BMJ Responds to Wakefield Questions

While the Age of Autism website isn't a RS for other than its own opinion, the letter is interesting. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud

Another interesting one including podcasts:

• Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud

Brangifer (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gates quote

There appears to be an incipient edit war about the inclusion of a quote from Bill Gates, a major donor to vaccination programmes. You can read the quote in this diff. I have reverted the article to the pre edit-war state, and invited the two editors involved to discuss this content issue here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed surprising. I'm the one who added it, but I'm not part of any edit war. We have a rather militant newbie (look at his short contribution history) who deleted the image twice without using any legitimate policy-based reasons, ergo the quote should remain. That's pretty standard practice. Vandalism should not be rewarded. I'm going to restore it. One needs a policy-based reason for deleting something as signifant as this. The fact that he's a major donar isn't really relevant, but that he's so notable is certainly relevant. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have left warning tags so they can't claim ignorance. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder why it belongs in Wakefield's article. MMR vaccine controversy, sure, but what is the relevance here? It would be like putting a quote by <liberal United States legislator> into John Yoo. NW (Talk) 15:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also leaning towards leaving it out. This is a WP:BLP and prominently featuring one person's opinion, with some fairly heavy allegations, seems to be on the wrong side of WP:UNDUE. At most, Gates' criticisms can be mentioned, but that doesn't even appear to be necessary given the weight of all the other criticisms already in the article. If that whole quote was placed into MMR vaccine controversy, however, I don't think I'd have a problem with that... — Scientizzle 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I restored the quote, after one of the occasions that the "militant newbie" removed it. I think it would be very helpful to have something like that in the article, to broaden it a bit, and I agree with Brangifer's point that vandalism should not be rewarded. This is a controversial subject, and there are plenty of folk out there who find that factual content doesn't fit their POV, but I doubt that it would be WP:UNDUE to have an 82-word quotebox halfway down a 64k article! One theme I've noticed in defences of Wakefield is the idea of a conspiracy by the medical "establishment", he's a lone hero pioneering new approaches &c. Bearing that in mind, it's very helpful to have a quote from somebody who is not part of the medical "establishment" - and yet is one of the world's most prominent supporters of vaccination campaigns. Who better than Gates? Looking at the quote, however, I do have concerns about the "thousands of kids" thing; that might be exaggeration. Could we, perhaps, compromise? I'd suggest that we keep the quote but replace the "so it's an absolute lie..." sentence with an ellipsis; this would also tone down the criticism somewhat. bobrayner (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I do think there is a middle ground. Practically, the way the quote was presented here does a few things that concerned me:
→It had the effect of presenting Gates' quote in approximately the size of three full paragraphs of cited text (beside it)
→It gives a platform to Gates, who doesn't have any relevant scientific/medical (or legal) expertise beyond his generous donations; I think it would be similarly inappropriate to similarly present a defending quote from Jenny McCarthy
→It doesn't critically examine Gates' claims (some of which are debatable enough that I'd be concerned about British libel laws getting involved...)
I can appreciate your point, bobrayner, about presenting criticisms from outside the "medical establishment", but I think Wikipedia is better served to keep something like this within the relevant controversy article rather than this man's biography, which already paints a substantially negative picture of Wakefield's activities. Maybe it's worth making reference to in the "Epidemics and effects" section...perhaps a single line such as

Bill Gates heavily criticised Wakefield in 2011, after pledging $10 billion for vaccinations, asserting that the Lancet publication's "fraudulent data" contributed to lower vaccination rates that resulted in vaccine-preventable deaths of children.^[ref]

I do still think it's best used in MMR vaccine controversy. Cheers, — Scientizzle 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed this discussion. For some reason, I didn't have this page watchlisted. The quote was added to the MMR vaccine controversy article on the 5th and I removed it on the 7th. There's some discussion on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Bill Gates. I don't think we should use it here or there, or even paraphrase it. It is a celebrity interview, not a MEDRS. If "Bill Gates on the MMR controversy" is itself a topic discussed widely by the press, etc, then the quote might have a certain notability, but at present we're just name-dropping celebrities that agree with our opinion. And as noted above, that's no better that the "other side" quoting some model or actress. Colin°^Talk 22:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand some of the concerns above, especially those mentioned by Scientizzle. His solution also seems to be much better. It doesn't draw any special attention to Gates. There is no demand for a MEDRS source in this case as it's obviously his opinion in referring to what MEDRS sources clearly state. His quote has received enormous attention in the press and is very notable, so it's not just name-dropping. Per WEIGHT it's also justified because it's a mainstream opinion. Simply adding the sentence as formatted by Scientizzle shouldn't be controversial. It actually belongs in both articles since he's directing the focus of his attack on Wakefield, while also emphasizing the importance of vaccination and the foolishness of the anti-vaccination position. Both articles would benefit.

For all those reasons, I believe Scientizzle's version should be used:

• Bill Gates heavily criticised Wakefield in 2011, after pledging $10 billion for vaccinations, asserting that the Lancet publication's "fraudulent data" contributed to lower vaccination rates that resulted in vaccine-preventable deaths of children.

That's the version I think I'd vote for. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But that information doesn't really give the reader more information about Wakefield's life or the impact that he has had, which this biography should be about. Even a single sentence is really too much; the information is not really that significant. Currently, we have the GMC, Sunday Times, Brian Deer, BMJ and its editors, and The Lancet criticizing Wakefield. All of those people have a primary connection to Wakefield's work. Gates doesn't. NW (Talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As much as I personally like the quote, I have to agree that it really isn't appropriate here, though the trimmed down paraphrase might be incorporated in some way in the "media role" section of the MMR controversy article. It adds no further information other than the fact that Gates agrees with his critics, not something that is especially relevant in this article. Yobol (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd support something along the lines of Scientizzle's suggestions. Gates is important enough that it's reasonable to mention that he's weighed in on this, but using the full quote is excessive weight. --GenericBob (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dobyblue (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Gates has contributed massive amounts of money to both the vaccine industry and the GMO industry (ie - Monsanto). If there was ever a conflict of interests on what to include on this page it would be this quote. The man has donated 10 billion, what would you expect him to say, "Vaccines kill"? It doesn't belong in the article at all.

Misrepresented citation

First sentence, second paragraph of the lead: "Four years after the publication of the study, the findings of other researchers failed to confirm or reproduce Wakefield's."

The conclusion of the cited study: "No evidence was found that children with autism were more likely than children without autism to have had defined gastrointestinal disorders at any time before their diagnosis of autism."

Notice the "before their diagnosis of autism" part. The Wakefield report did not speculate on the presence of gastrointestinal disorders *before* diagnosis. The findings in this report did not attempt to reproduce Wakefield's findings, which were on children who had already been diagnosed. This cited study attempts to find a correlation which was never suggested in the Wakefield study.

Can we find a study to cite here which attempts to find a correlation between gastrointestinal disorders and autism *after* diagnosis? Timeofmind (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Did a quick search for studies and found that one: "Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study. Hornig M et al. PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9):e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140 *Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)". But I think that the first study is not a bad citation either. Maybe the sentence could be reworked and both studies factored in? --Crabel (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that we should change the sentence to reflect the findings of this study you have found and scrap the old sentence and citation (Black C, Kaye JA, Jick H (August 2002). "Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database"), unless you can explain to me how that study attempted to reproduce "Wakefield's findings", then the study cited is totally irrelevant, and the corresponding citation should be removed. Timeofmind (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the study authors do think that their findings are relevant and make several references to Wakefield's. They also reference other studies like this one: Fombonne E, Chakrabarti S. No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism. Pediatrics. 2001;108:E58. They conclude: Our results are consistent with those of other studies in providing evidence against a substantial association between gastrointestinal illness in children and the later development of autism. While the wording might be discussed, these studies did at least cast doubt on the results Wakefield had produced and are relevant because of that. Crabel (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Selective Hearing Documentary: Brian Deer and the GMC Trials

This documentary has not seen much of the light of day, but it is available on a few sites. I think it presents a very interesting view of the man who is solely responsible for collecting the evidence against Wakefield. In it you'll note that he describes one of the children in the Lancet paper as "not having bowel disease" but rather "having diarrhea" despite the child's rather obvious ileostomy bag. Video is here - http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1 Dobyblue (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Watched it yesterday. Nothing new, it's from 2009 as far as I can tell. Footage of Brian Deer is used to present him in a negative light. Problem is: Even if the view the video presents of Brian Deer is correct, it doesn't matter. This article is about Andrew Wakefield, not Brian Deer. Crabel (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The video is quite clearly a hoax. The GMC transcript is quite clear that no child in the study had any surgical procedure. The person posing in the video as one of the Royal Free patients was in fact seen at another hospital, and reported in the Sun newspaper. Deer was plainly talking about the children whose cases were being reviewed in the hearing and not the hoaxer who stood outside pretending she was something to do with it. 81.108.171.172 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Searching for truth in published research

An interesting article that deals with other studies that have cited Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent "research", questions about the retraction of such articles, and about the worth of "review articles" (subjective opinions):

• "Searching for truth in published research", By Stephen Strauss, CBC News, Apr 7, 2011

• There is a description of Strauss at the top of this article.

Brangifer (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible source

New York Times Magazine article, which may have some good info on the popular/societal reaction to Wakefield, as well as some conspiracy-like talk on the part of Wakefield. Money quote: “To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one,” says J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a group that disputes vaccine safety. “He’s a symbol of how all of us feel."(italics mine) [User:Yobol|Yobol]] (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Generation Rescue labelling as "anti-vaccine"

Labelling the Generation Rescue website as "anti-vaccine" is not only irrelevant to this page, but dismissive of all the autism resources and help they provide parents that has nothing to do with vaccines. Should we also label them as "anti-blender" because they advertise the "magic bullet" for making single-serving shakes on their website? They are a great resource for parents who have suddenly found themselves with a child diagnosed with autism and they help thousands of parents find support just like Autism Speaks. Do you cite Autism Speaks as "pro-vaccine group Autism Speaks" all the time? I don't think so. Dobyblue (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Generation Rescue is decidedly anti-vaccine. They devote an enormous amount of effort (and vitriol) towards attacking vaccines, including those that clearly cannot possibly have a relationship to the development of autism spectrum disorders (e.g., [21] or the objections to Gardasil). There are also a number of reliable sources that back up the claim that GR and its most prominent individuals fit this description well.[22][23][24][25][26] — Scientizzle 13:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also NY Times and NewsWeek have characterized them as anti-vaccine. Yobol (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your language is interesting. By listing Gardasil in that description you're implying that there are other vaccines that "can possibly" have a relationship to the development of autism spectrum disorders? Nevertheless, if it is irrelevant that James Murdoch and Sir Crispin Davies both received US$100,000k/year+ non-executive director positions on the board of GSK at the same time as the Lancet article was "retracted" and the GMC trails began, which most people familiar with peer-reviewed science would see as a conflict of interest that should be noted, I fail to see how a) describing GR in such a vitriolic manner is relevant and b) how that quote is relevant at all but as a redundant "jab". Given that their work with children with autism and support of families is ALSO well documented it should either have BOTH descriptions/adjectives, or neither. Have either of you received any useful information that has helped with your children that have been diagnosed with autism? Dobyblue (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into my language...I'm merely pointing out that a brand new vaccine for teenagers couldn't possibly have any causal influence on the epidemiology of ASDs, yet GR has targeted it repeatedly for attack. I'd assert that the hypotheses of a vaccine or vaccine component contributing to developmental disorders had a low, but non-zero plausibility a decade ago; however, multiple lines of independent research have iteratively and collectively reduced the likelihood of these hypotheses being correct to effectively zero such that they can be confidently regarded as falsified.

That said, I would not be opposed to re-wording to include both adjectives and have done so here. — Scientizzle 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just taking a look at some of your "reliable sources". 1) Science Mag - Jennifer Couzin-Frankel - Staff Writer since 2002 - Studied history of science at Harvard. 2) Seth Mnookin - journalist 3) Newsweek - owned by Rupert Murdoch, massive conflicts of interest to pharmaceutical companies including his own son sitting on the board of GSK, MMR manufacturers.[27] 4) Discover Magazine blog - Phil Plait - astronomer 5) KQED blog - Apologies, but the page you requested could not be found. 6) Michael Specter - journalist 7) Jennifer Steinhauer - journalist, mostly political contributions Not that any of this is relevant to this particular discussion, but showing how the mainstream media works by repeating everything they're told to say by other mainstream media networks and affiliates seems rather irrelevant. Dobyblue (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think it does a gross disservice to everything else the group does and to any familiy that is affected by autism, but I suppose it's a start. Dobyblue (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that it does a disservice to readers to not properly identify an organization that actively eschews scientific evidence and promotes a variety of medical nonsense. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; the present version answers both your concerns and mine. — Scientizzle 16:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more neutral to call GR an antivaccine advocacy group and blender vendor. bobrayner (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes let's label them as a blender vendor and completely ignore any of the programs and information they offer parents of children with autism, what a great idea. By this token I presume you would agree that it is okay to preface the Autism Science Foundation and Autism Speaks with "pro-vaccine group" where they are noted on Wikipedia right? Put anything they have to do with autism as secondary, or not mentioned at all? Dobyblue (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You've gotten what you asked for - Generation Rescue's autism focus is now mentioned in the text. Given how tightly you've closed your worldview, I don't think there's really any entry point for further reasonable discussion. If your first instinct, when confronted with material from Science, Newsweek, the New York Times, Seth Mnookin, Michael Specter, and Discover, is to dismiss them all as part of a conspiracy, then you should perhaps consider whether Wikipedia is a good fit for what you hope to accomplish. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by anon

See diff]. I initially reverted, and have invited the IP to discuss his changes here, but the IP has chosen to ignore the Bold-Revert-Discuss process. As I don't want to be blocked for edit-warring or 3rr I've brought it here myself. DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can see the anon is dealing with two issues in the lede (1) Wakefield's claim of a causal link between "autistic enterocolitis" (followed by a claim that this phrase is Wakefield's neologism) and (2) that Wakefield's research is known for being fraudulent.

For (1) the article later says itself that no causal link was claimed (but Wakefield's behaviour was as if there were a causal link claim). Only a "possible link" was formally claimed. Hence I think the anon may be in order to remove "autistic enterocolitis" from the lede, at least as it is included at present. Hence the neologism sentence might need to be removed too.

For (2) the BMJ has, in 2011, issued a correction to its "Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent" article, not to withdraw the claim but to belatedly admit they "should have declared competing interests".[28] So far as I can see the press has little interest (because Wakefield is discredited) and my personal view is that there is no need to remove the "fraudulent" claim in the lede though the article should state that the BMJ articles have been criticised on non-disclosure grounds. The press reports of fraud have been (mostly or entirely) based on the original BMJ report.

I see edit warring is going on and I am not going to participate at the article itself. Thincat (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias against Andrew Wakefield

The bias is obvious, using decisive, definitive and emotive terms instead of dry logic and comparison of findings. Pages like this make me wonder about the neutrality of sites like Wikipedia and if you can ever get to the bottom of real truth or nuetral debate without agenda'd representatives dominating the website. This article should be locked and cleaned up of all emotive wording and forgone conclusions. 76.98.250.164 (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield has been called fraudulent by an eminently reliable source, the BMJ as well as other news sources (see ref 13,14), his paper retracted, and he's been struck off the medical register. Edit warring over this neutral wording is not helpful. It is clear there is consensus that the current wording is neutral and appropriate. Yobol (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The present wording leaves me wondering about its meaning, and whether it could be clearer. This from the cited article, the BMJ editorial, explains the nature of the fraud:

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.13 Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal. Who perpetrated this fraud?

The nature of the fraud was misrepresentation or secret altering of the facts of the 12 cases reported. Our article

Andrew Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent[1] claims of a causative connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, autism and autistic enterocolitis.

represents the BMJ editorial as saying that Wakefield's hypothesis of a causal connection is fraudulent. It does not. Wakefield is a fraud. But his fraud was misrepresentation of the cases in his report, not the hypothesis that underpinned it. I believe this would more clearly reflect the source:

Andrew Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent misrepresentation of evidence in an article contrived to support the hypothesis that there is a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine, autism, and autistic enterocolitis.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this explains in more detail the nature of the fraud. However, it is also quite a complicated sentence and readers may be put off by technical and legal sounding phrases like "misrepresentation of evidence", "support the hypothesis" and "causal relationship" in the lead sentence. Additionally, the "fraudulent misrepresentation of evidence in an article" isn't what he's best known for. I suspect most folk don't know (or care about) the details of the fraud, just that he committed it somehow when he published that paper. So those details are best explained in the body. The dictionary defines "fraudulent" as "characterized by, based on, or done by fraud" (my bold). His claims were based on fraud. So the current sentence is accurate and succinct. Colin°^Talk 06:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the problem I identified above, and made the introductory sentence more readable than before. [29]

Andrew Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper that implied the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism and autistic enterocolitis.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough above.

In its first sentence, our article cited the BMJ to support the use of the word "fraudulent" as a modifier for the noun phrase "(Wakefield's) claims of a causative connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, autism and autistic enterocolitis." But the authors of the BMJ editorial use "fraud" and "fraudulent" only in relation to "article", "the paper", "research", and, after defining "fraud", expressly state the nature of Wakefield's fraud: "not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and ... in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal".

The BMJ editors applied "fraud" to the Lancet paper, and to the research it described. Our article made the bolder, vaguer (in fact, impossible) assertion that Wakefield's "claims of a causative connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, autism and autistic enterocolitis" were fraudulent.

You may want to say that the hypothesis that there is a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and a “new syndrome” of autism and bowel disease is a fraud, but you can't. An hypothesis cannot be a fraud. A paper can be. Events around the publication can be. I have no problem with a person being described as such, and I believe the BMJ editorial gives us license to do so here, if we so choose.

But having the first sentence in this article proclaim (a) that an hypothesis can be a fraud and (b) the BMJ says so just makes us look sloppy and ignorant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A hypothesis can be a fraud if you pull it out of thin air. BMJ is not the only one critical of Mr. Wakefield (yes, mister, not doctor) as he struck from the register. Why we are quibbling about this is beyond me. His data does not support his hypothesis and subsequent studies have failed to replicate his work (not just this paper but others as well). His paper was a fraud (does not require a conviction, this is wikipedia, not a court of law). If I did a study on Homeopathy and forged my results to indicate a better than placebo response, could I then claim that one should use homeopathy at the frequency of 1 remedy at a time? No my results as they are would not support my hypothesis and thus it would be fraudulent. Canonizing a man who is not above falsifying data is questionable at best, but more correctly, absurd. Probably easier to understand is -- I study the Earth and all my data indicates it is round. I then go on TV and declare the Earth to be flat. From my data I cannot prove this, nor can I forward my flat Earth hypothesis based on the evidence I have myself generated. To declare to the world that it is indeed flat, I fully understand that my hypothesis is a fraud. I don't need to be convicted to be labelled as a fraud. Wakefield is a charismatic man, this does not mean he can hope to receive special treatment here. Bad science is bad science.Daffydavid (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper that implied the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism and autistic enterocolitis. This sentence troubles me because - papers don't imply anything, they present data, and - it wasn't his paper that caused the uproar, but rather his press conference where he made his unsupported claims. I realize that this has become an edit war - thus, please respond here. I realize it's longer but I suggest something along these lines -- "Andrew Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his unsupported claims made at a press conference (for his 1998 paper) (insert title and link here) where he stated that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism and autistic enterocolitis."

"The bias is obvious, using decisive, definitive and emotive terms instead of dry logic and comparison of findings." Anyone else confused by this sentence? Emotive and the preceding terms are not compatible. Isn't wikipedia all about using decisive and definitive terms?Daffydavid (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Pulling an hypothesis out of thin air does not make it a fraud. Fraud, as the BMJ uses it here, must involve fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. The cited source says: "... the 1998 Lancet paper that implied a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and a “new syndrome” of autism and bowel disease." That is, my formulation reports what the source says. Apart from that, I agree with everything you said, I think. Because of what the source actually says, though, if it is to be retained as the source for the first paragraph of the lead, then that paragraph must reflect what it says, not what you, I or anyone else wants to say. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, although the BMJ can claim the credit for being first to squarely name the research as fraudulent, with Deer's various tables and suchlike, the GMC had already established that it was fraudulent, only it didn't specifically use the word. The GMC proved that Wakefield had manipulated and concealed the admissions criteria for the study, and misreported what he had done. In four instances, he was found to have acted dishonestly, including in admissions to the study (research fraud), the funding of the study (financial fraud), and in his speaking to the study after it was published (common lying). So legally, Deer and the BMJ were on pretty safe ground. Wakefield did not appeal, so the case is closed.81.108.170.125 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this? It avoids having to explain about his posited new syndrome in the lead, by using the language of the BMJ, and flows better into the following paragraph that discusses the paper and its unfolding controversy.

Andrew Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known as an advocate for the discredited claim that there is a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, autism and bowel disease, and for his authorship of a fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of that claim.

This is the version from 02:36, 18 September 2011 for comparison:

Andrew Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent claims of a causative connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, autism and autistic enterocolitis. The latter controversial term was created by Wakefield to describe an unproven form of inflammatory bowel disease.

They're about the same word count but I think the former is more accurate and readable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs with your analysis of BMJ's meaning of the term "fraudulent" and the restrictions on how we can phrase it. Regardless, I quite like your proposed text. I like the "discredited claim". This is much better than "controversial claims" which the current lead sentence says. These claims aren't controversial among reliable sources. They are thoroughly discredited. The word "controversial" is abused by POV pushers because it implies the jury is still out. I'd tweak the second clause to drop the "his authorship of a" to leave "and for his fraudulent 1998 research paper..." Colin°^Talk 16:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree; so I've tweaked the lede accordingly, from "controversial claims..." to "discredited claims...". bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying "the claim is fraudulent" is illogical and imprecise but, mainly, it'll irritate believers and spur them into trying to correct it. I believe careful attention to this kind of hair-splitting yields a more stable article and saves everybody time in the long run. And yes, that was my rationale behind "discredited." Done --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Discredited is better than controversial (I used that word due to the title of the piped wiki-link, but agree discredited is more accurate). I hope you are right about the less need for reverting changes, but somehow I doubt it was imprecise wording that was spurring the problems IPs jumping in to defend Wakefield... Yobol (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I roughly agree with Yobol on this point. I think that "discredited" gets to the point much better than "controversial". I would happily go along with the latter if it were less provocative and hence meant less editwarring - however, I fear that any neutral accurate article on Wakefield would get the same kind of attention from drive-by Wakefield fans, regardless of how we word it. bobrayner (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I mean the closer we hew to precision in our language, the less wiggle room, the fewer openings for contention. Anyway, I hope we've at least begun to address your concerns about the accuracy of the article, 76.98.250.164. Please let us know if there is anything else you believe needs to be made more explicit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So much for my stability theory. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, points for trying :-/ --GenericBob (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The current wording of his introductory paragraphs is much more succinct and honest, especially with the accusations of legal fraud removed, even though there are still 'accusations' present, in that he 'committed fraud' and the use of the word 'fraudelent' to describe his research article. There have been no criminal convictions and fraud is not the proper terminology, discredited would be better. I still believe that these claims are controversial and not scientifically verifiable either way. Lack of any quotes by Wakefield or pieces written by him. He has advocated that vaccines in general cause a multitude of effects, so many that it would impossible to describe other than that he believes that vaccines are a malignant and unscientific treatment for various disease. I think this should be mentioned, for the biographical aspect of his webpage, as well as the aspect which covers the controversy of his research paper. Thank you 76.98.250.164 (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The fraud does not need to have been determined by a criminal court. That would have required proving the deception was for financial gain. The General Medical Council found against him and the BMJ accused him of an "elaborate fraud". The claims are not controversial among reliable sources. Colin°^Talk 07:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the first paragraph should say that the paper contained "falsification within the meaning of the Definition of Research Misconduct of the Office of Research Integrity", as I think that is what the BMJ article, the only source cited for that paragraph, actually says of it. The Definition of Research Misconduct does not, as far as I can see, use the word "fraud", so I don't see how the BMJ can say that it defines that word. I suppose that one could say that the BMJ have equated research misconduct, so defined, with fraud, but that would be their definition, not the ORI's. I don't think one should use the word "fraudulent" without explaining precisely what one means by it, since it does have another meaning (the one given by Welham v DPP and subsequent cases), and I think ambiguity should be avoided as far as possible. James500 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield's paper contained falsifications. The BMJ says the ORI defines "fraud" as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism," but the ORI defines "research misconduct" as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism."[30] "Fraud" is actually the BMJ's word. So do we point out this discrepancy in the article? The UK has very strong libel laws, so I believe if there were any doubt about the aptness of "fraud" the BMJ would not have published, and Wakefield would have challenged it legally. I'm happy to stick with the present wording. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield is not known for his "falsification within the meaning of the Definition of Research Misconduct of the Office of Research Integrity"! This is the lead of a biographical article. Not some obscure legal document. The word usage satisfies any common dictionary definition. What the legal profession define words to mean isn't relevant to this article. Colin°^Talk 14:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers sue lawyers

I'm wondering if there is anything we can use here, maybe as fallout from the scandal:

• MMR vaccine: lawyers sued for pursuing claim based on link to autism. Man claims Hodge Jones & Allen was negligent in litigating a hopeless claim while profiting from part of £15m legal aid funding. The Guardian

In fact, who were the original lawyers who worked with Wakefield? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Seth Mnookin's book, the Panic Virus, spoke of a lot of people who were convinced to file lawsuits specifically that vaccines caused autism, when they could have won other, more reasonable claims. The Omnibus Autism trial is a perfect example of that. One of the main plaintiffs had a much better case (though hardly scientific) by not going down the autism path. If I were them, I'd sue NVIC or one of those organizations. This might end up being the same thing, but missing the statutes of limitation on a toxic tort is not good.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

CDC / Thompson

A quick note to anyone passing by, before you try to advocate including the "vindication" of Wakefield by Hooker based on Thompson's comments.

1. The Hooker paper has been temporarily withdrawn pending review. It is therefore not available as a source at all, let alone a reliable one.
2. Thompson has made a statement rebutting most of the Wakefield claims around Hooker, and noting that Hooker did not have permission to record, quote or name him.
3. Even if Hooker's work were reliable, it does not vindicate Wakefield because it clearly shows no association between MMR and autism other than in African-American males.
4. This post-hoc subgroup analysis does not seem to have used the correct statistical tools to avoid the "green jellybean problem".
5. The problems with Wakefield's analysis are more than the false link, they also include concealed conflicts of interest and unapproved invasive procedures on vulnerable children, which would lead to any doctor being run out of town at the point of a pitchfork.
6. Back in the real world, genetic markers for autism are detectable in utero, making vaccine-triggered onset even more unlikely than we already know it to be thanks to the consensus from analysis of over 20,000,000 subjects published in the peer-reviewed literature to date.

In short, we will change the article to say Wakefield is vindicated when reliable independent sources make that specific claim, not when antivaxers make it based on misrepresentation of a study that mainly refutes Wakefield's work.

TL;DR version: Check Snopes. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you repeat that in English?--Aspro (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This coverage by Snopes makes this event notable enough for mention. Just 1-2 sentences, with Snopes and SBM as references. The public deserves to know to what depths anti-vaxers will stoop to deceive the public. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sauce_for_the_goose_is_(not)_sauce_for_the_gander --Aspro (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice essay, but it doesn't govern how we source and write articles. Our job is to document the "sum total of human knowledge" as it is found in RS. This conspiracy theory just got covered by a good RS, and there are likely others. We don't need to say much at all about it, and we can source it quite nicely. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wakefield fires footgun shock. Pictures at eleven. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's so amusing at what lengths Mr. Wakefield's sycophants will go to whitewash these articles. Oh, BTW Guy, you're missing a fairly important point. DeStefano, the lead author of the article whose data Hooker went to great lengths to manipulate to support his beliefs using like n=5 population, has said nothing about this controversy. In other words, the lack of comments seem to indicate that Hooker is way off base. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears this story is getting mainstream, RS, traction, and this one apparently exposes the nonsense for what it is. Look beyond the title:

• Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link. The claim, however, may just be more unsubstantiated fuel from the anti-vaccination movement., Time (magazine), Alice Park, Aug. 28, 2014

I'm thinking we really should mention this, since we've got several RS, and especially since they expose this nonsense for what it is. The Streisand effect should be effectuated. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. It's a significant event in the bogus MMR-Autism manufactroversy, I am less convinced it's a significant event in Wakefield's life (he has a long history of promoting this fraud, after all). Guy (Help!) 09:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless Wakefield has gotten significant mainstream attention for his comments on this nonsense, I'd leave it out. It belongs in the MMR-Autism article instead. --Yaush (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think it may belong in the MMR-Autism article, but not necessarily here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It likely fits best at the MMR vaccine controversy article. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment here: Talk:MMR_vaccine_controversy#How_to_include_this_in_this_article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

John Walker Smith Vindicated

The other lead doctor on the Wakefield paper, was vindicated and the high court said that the lower court's decision to pull his license was a joke. The high court said that the entire lower court methods need to be overhauled. Brian Deer's evidence was a joke and he was proven a liar. Wakefield could not afford to appeal, as it costs $750,000 US to take it to the high court. None the less, John Walker Smith, the other lead on the paper, has his reputation returned and the evidence of fraud is no longer correct. Please add and/or edit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/9128147/MMR-doctor-wins-battle-against-being-struck-off.html74.192.144.88 (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems:

• You haven't suggested a specific edit to this Wikipedia article, supported by relevant and reliable sources.
• Most of the assertions that you make in your comment above aren't actually supported by the single news article you have supplied. (Most are probably not true, either.)
• Walker-Smith's case has been discussed previously in the talk page's archives, and is described in MMR vaccine controversy, which seems a more appropriate place than Andrew Wakefield's biogaphy.
• Specifically addressing Wakefield, I am hard-pressed to identify any legal, quasi-legal, or professional proceeding where he has achieved any substantial success, whether initiated by Wakefield or others. (And he's not been shy about filing suit when it...suits him.)

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't even have to hit the archives to see discussion on Walker-Smith, and what the court ruling actually was. It's just two sections up. Kolbasz (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. To reiterate briefly (in case, for some reason, you're unwilling to read the detailed response above): (1) Walker-Smith was not vindicated; (2) Walker-Smith’s case has no bearing on that of Wakefield, who, on advice from his own legal team, did not appeal the panel's decision; and (3) Wakefield’s case involved numerous different charges, including four proven counts of dishonesty, which the Administrative Justice reaffirmed in the process of vacating the Walker-Smith decision on purely technical grounds. So please stop repeating these ridiculous "vindication" claims. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy about Wakefield being Anti-vaccine

There is a large inaccuracy in this article I would say, for it states that Wakefield was anti-vaccine. When in fact, whether he was right or wrong about the MMR, he was only saying that multiple-vaccines which had not been tested together (but instead only as single-vaccines) needed more testing, as he claimed that there was evidence that this particular multiple-vaccine had links to autism. So he said that parents should vaccinate their children with single-vaccines instead of multiple ones which according to him needed more testing. But then it was the Department of Health which withdrew single-vaccines which forced many parents to either vaccinate their children with a multiple-vaccine, which may have side effects linking to autism, or to not vaccinate at all. I have taken this understanding from reading this Guardian article, but please correct me if I am wrong: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/16/andrew-wakefield-and-mmr --The Dumpling of Doom (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't actually an article in the Guardian; it's a letter to the editor written by Wakefield's brother-in-law. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wakefield's brother may be trying to claim that he isn't anti-vaccine now, but history suggests that this is inaccurate. Wakefield appeared at several conferences of the National Vaccine Information Center, advocating against vaccinations in general. He encouraged parents not to use any thimerosal-containing vaccines (despite them being proven safe). The end result of his actions was a drastic drop in vaccination rates, which continues through today. Whether he then claims he isn't anti-vaccine at that point is irrelevant if he's become the public face of the anti-vaccine movement. Also, the altered vaccine schedule is another type of quackery- there is no autism link to any vaccine or vaccines, no matter the dosage or timing. Schnabeltiere (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is all part of a revisionist campaign by Wakefield and his apologists, and it's nonsense. Fifteen years ago, at the press conference that he called when his paper was published (note that very few scientific papers have press conferences) Wakefield called for the suspension of the MMR vaccine in favor of single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. He did not explain why the single vaccines would be more safe in his mind, making it very difficult for parents to accept how the single vaccines were, in his faulty opinion, safe. So many parents refused to vaccinate their kids at all, and we now have a growing epidemic of measles and other preventable diseases among children. He then compounded the problem with further accusations -- all unfounded and all since proven wrong -- as pointed out by Schnabeltiere above. By Wakefield’s current logic, it is the government’s fault for not allowing the importation of single vaccines. Ignore the unfounded fear that Wakefield created; blame the government. Sure, the government can take some blame -- but without Wakefield and his assertions (which multiple studies have now shown were false), there would have been no scare. And yet he still does not admit that he was wrong, nor does he call for everyone (including the parents who followed his erroneous advice) to vaccinate their children. Instead, he spends his time telling us all about how it isn’t his fault that children are getting infected. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment that "we now have a growing epidemic of measles" is not supported by the evidence. In the UK, where Wakefield had the most influence, the evidence shows no significant increases in measles following the 1998 paper. See the stats for England and Wales: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192945/http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733802298 Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is. In the U.K. MMR vaccination rates among 2-year-olds fell to 80% in 2004, compared to 92% in 1997 -- and it can take quite a few years before a drop in vaccination rates translates to increased incidence of the disease. There has already been a significant epidemic in south-west Wales -- 1,219 people, between November 2012 and early July, compared with 105 cases in all of Wales in 2011. (See: "Fifteen Years After Autism Panic, a Plague of Measles Erupts." http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323300004578555453881252798)

In 2014 the United States experienced the largest number of measles cases since the disease was declared "eliminated" in 2000, according to the CDC; 644 cases from 27 states were reported to the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD). From January 1 to March 13, 2015, 176 new cases were reported from 17 states and the District of Columbia, most as part of an ongoing multi-state epidemic that began at Disneyland, and has only in the last few days been reported "controlled". The CDC now estimates that one-third of children in California between the ages of one and three are insufficiently immunized, so this will be a growing problem for some time to come. (See: Measles and outbreaks. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html CDC.gov.) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Good review of "Callous Disregard"

• Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, Wrong About Vaccine Safety: A Review of Andrew Wakefield’s "Callous Disregard", The Open Vaccine Journal, 2013, 6, 9-25

This review of Wakefield's book sheds light on many things, including how Wakefield chose not to appeal the decision to disbar him, but instead wrote the book and released it on the day of his disbarment. The book contains what should have been in his appeal. He apparently chose to make a career of being a martyr, since his conduct was indefensible. It also sheds light on several deceptions in his book. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this paper is a succinct demonstration that not only every major claim Wakefield makes, in his book and elsewhere, concerning vaccine safety is wrong, but that he continues to make demonstrably false and deceptive statements. One would think that he would have chosen a defense that was less checkable. That Wakefield still has any supporters at all at this point is completely incomprehensible. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that his method of defense in this case is itself evidence of bad faith (or great self-deception); he knew (or believed) that his actions were indefensible (or that he couldn't win), so he planned, already before losing his case, to get future support among the gullible and ignorant. He knew they existed, because he had already been working with them, exploiting them, and grooming them for years. That explains why he still has a following. I still don't understand why he isn't languishing in jail.

Do you have an idea of how we can use this source in the article? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It qualifies as WP:RS -- I don't see any reason not to use it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 08:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Update on Wakefield and Colleague

Might want to include this, as courts will continue to decide if there was actual "fraud", which you apparently have already decided, but not actually shown.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/74.192.154.84 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)