Talk:Andrew Wakefield/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New developments

New developments that may provide more content:

• MMR fraud needs parliamentary inquiry, says BMJ, as new information puts spotlight on Wakefield's co-authors. BMJ, Fiona Godlee

• Wakefield's colleagues in spotlight for MMR scare. British Medical Journal calls for inquiry into role of UCL academics who linked vaccine to autism. The Independent, Jeremy Laurance, 10 November 2011

Brangifer (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the actual BMJ commentary:

• Commentary: We came to an overwhelming and uniform opinion that these reports do not show colitis.

Brangifer (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This link that give Wakefields view is important that the article link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l67fWVrw8xU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.199.155 (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470). The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378). (This pertains to *1) 188.220.186.57 (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention in this article of the previously undisclosed potential conflict of interest of the BMJ, which receives money from Merck and Glaxo-Smith-Kline? Even the BMJ has issued a correction to its editorial disclosing this revenue from the manufacturers of MMR vaccines. Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in this article, since alleged conflict of interest on Dr. Wakefield's part is noteworthy enough to mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.179.140 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How do vaccine proponents explain this: Tripedia = autism

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea."

I trust all guilty parties know the consequences. Your names are recorded.

82.127.43.154 (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)vaccine=MURDER

It's explained by next sentence in the paragraph, that you're for some reason omitting:

"Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."

Kolbasz (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It is too bad that you neglected to read, copy, or understand the rest of the paragraph.

"Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."

The events described occurred at some time after vaccination, but that does not mean that they were caused by vaccination. It's rather like saying that "Car accidents often occur after people eat breakfast, therefore eating breakfast causes car accidents." In reality, eating breakfast just happens to fall at the time of day immediately before many people get into their cars and drive to work or school. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like you to spell out the consequences. Also, which names are being recorded, by whom, or for what purpose? I want to understand if this is a threat of legal action or a threat of violence. --Yaush (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yaush I second that. Who are the guilty parties? What are the consequences if found guilty? Is it a threat of legal action or a threat of violence or SOMETHING ELSE? My guess? The legal system is a broken mess - no one is going to try that useless path. We already live under the threat of violence (try not paying taxes or stopping when ordered by police) and we need not mention the ongoing wars - so threats of violence are useless too. Therefore I'm guessing SOMETHING ELSE is in store for the guilty.

But who are the guilty? What is their crime? Who is recording their names?

We all know autism is now 1 in 60 for USA and 1 in 100 for Western Europe but WHAT is causing the increase? And what about the cancer rate increase? Ebola is on the move too!

Is it a deliberate anti-life conspiracy or SNAFU?

We know vaccination has failed - all the diseases that were meant to be stopped by vaccination are roaring back with vengeance.

So what do we do now?

From the peer-reviewed journals I support cannabis oil. What disease can't it cure? http://safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

And Yaush, how can you post when your page states: "This page has been deleted. 15:46, 8 September 2011" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yaush

82.127.43.154 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)w

Having a user page is optional; you don't need one to post. Mine was deleted by an administrator, as a favor to me, when it became the target of a deranged rant.

I suggest you read WP:NOTAFORUM. Talk pages, like this one, are not for diatribes or even for research discussions. They are for discussions of how to improve the associated article, so that it gives the reader the consensus on the topic plus significant minority views in the most useful manner.

The consensus is that Wakefield is a fraud. The article correctly reflects that. --Yaush (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Erase this article

This article are so incorrect,that it should be erased.--213.112.199.155 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We take the accuracy of biographical articles very seriously, particularly when they deal with still-living subjects. (Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons is quite strict in its requirements for robust, reliable sourcing.) Could you identify specific examples of errors in this article? It would be helpful if you could identify specific statements that are not supported by sources, which are supported only by unreliable sources, or which are contradicted by other reliable sources to which we have failed to give appropriate weight. I'm afraid that just saying "this article is so incorrect" is too vague a complaint for us to work with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brian Deer sets the record straight in Boise, Idaho

• His responses to recent comments

Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sub judice

Since Wakefield is testing some of Deer's and the BMJ's accusations in court, would it now be appropriate for us to modify our language, particularly the use of "fraud" or "fraudulent"? I think that might be the prudent and moral course, but invite other opinions. [1] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, lawsuits and their allegations are just that - allegations. Suing in Texas is ridiculously easy. If he wins then changes may be in order. I say may because the overall balance of the evidence should guide our actions not just 1 source. Daffydavid (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly defended "fraudulent" on the grounds that Wakefield hadn't legally challenged the claim. Wakefield has challenged some claims. If one of the claims he's challenging is the fraud claim, I think I'd be more comfortable removing it from our article until it's settled. But, for now, it's not clear that "fraud" is among the claims he's disputing, so I might have opened this thread a little prematurely. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The allegations of "fraud" are a major focus of Wakefield's complaint - see PDF here, so the thread seems relevant IMHO.

In different circumstances I might agree with modifying language for contested allegations. But IMHO, this lawsuit looks very much like a SLAPP. As discussed here, Wakefield has already lost another libel suit against Deer in plaintiff-friendly UK courts, and his chances of winning this one are slim. The point of SLAPPs is not to win a case, but to silence and intimidate critics with the cost and inconvenience of fighting a lawsuit. If that's the game here - and IMHO it is - then I would be very uncomfortable with reward possible abuse of process by modifying the article content in Wakefield's favour. --GenericBob (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree that it is our job, or that we have the competence, to decide whether it's SLAPP or not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, I can understand the need for caution, but fear of a lawsuit isn't one of them. There are only a couple places where those words are used in the Wikipedia voice, so to speak. All other places are direct quotes. Would you please copy the spots that aren't direct quotes and propose alternate wordings right below in this section? That will make it easier for us to make a decision and work on possible alternate wordings. Maybe we'll end up keeping what we have, and maybe we'll tweak things a bit. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't much like anything that involves Wikipedians making subjective judgements, but I think there are times when it's the less bad option. Otherwise we put ourselves at the mercy of those who are willing to game the system. --GenericBob (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Henry Ford sued someone for calling him ignorant, and lost. He got a public, official judgment that he was ignorant. If it was fraud, then there's a good chance Wakefield will get the fraud certified. He must know that. I think we shouldn't accuse him of it in Wikipedia's voice. I'm OK with quotes. I'll propose something soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Henry Ford actually won his libel suit against the Chicago Tribune, though the jury only awarded nominal damages: [2]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"known ... for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of that claim.[1]" This cites the BMJ. What about replacing "fraudulent" with "misleading?"

"Physicians, medical journals, and editors [94][95][96][97][98] have made statements tying Wakefield's fraudulent actions to various epidemics and deaths." The sources are BMJ, Deer, and three news sites. Of the 3 news sites only one, (#47 IB Times) uses "fraud" in its own voice. I propose removing "fraudulent".

But I'm definitely not in a hurry, and would appreciate hearing more views. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See this. It appears Wakefield has to show that the BMJ and Deer knew what they were saying was wrong or were reckless in checking their facts. This is in addition to proving they were wrong and that the paper was pukka and above board. That sounds a tall order. Considering how litigation friendly the UK is, I would have thought those folk would have thought long and hard before publishing, and got expert advice. Colin°^Talk 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus, as that Skeptical Lawyer article notes, even before that he has to convince the Texas courts that a British journal with UK authors falls under Tx jurisdiction. AFAICT, if he loses there, there'd still be nothing to stop him from filing similar suits in the remaining states of the USA one by one, as long as he can pay his legal bills - it would be unlikely to win but it could still suppress coverage for years. I would be OK with something like changing the "fraudulent" out of Wikipedia-voice to attributed quote/s, but I wouldn't be comfortable with removing the word from the article or reducing its prominence in response to this suit. (If Wakefield should win the suit, that would be another matter.) --GenericBob (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Great link, Colin. Since the court hasn't accepted the case, I think any change to this article for the moment would be premature. I'm highly suspicious about it being any more than a PR gesture now, for the reasons highlighted in the blog, and several points in the petition are clearly specious, such as 4.12, where they conflate having autism with having an autism diagnosis. Sorry for wasting everybody's time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Anthony. You had legitimate concerns, and we may indeed need to deal with these issues in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

it´s time to rewrite http://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/--213.112.194.35 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that site probably could use a rewrite - I can see a couple of glaring bloopers in their most recent article, for starters - but you'd have to talk to somebody over there. --GenericBob (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this particular instance was in the article when this discussion took place, but I have removed the word "fraudulent" from "Physicians, medical journals, and editors have made statements tying Wakefield's fraudulent actions to various epidemics and deaths" - I think this is implying a judgement in (to use the phrase above) Wikipedia-voice, and isn't necessary as it's clear which actions are meant. Khendon (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield, FRCS?

The title of the PDF of the BMJ suit is "DR. ANDREW J. WAKEFIELD, MB., B., FRCS V. THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, a d/b/a of BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP LTD, also d/b/a BMJ GROUP, and BMJ, BRIAN DEER, individually, and DR. FIONA GODLEE, individually." A struck-off doctor has still earned his doctor's degree (even if the BMJ's press release pointedly calls him "Mr. Wakefield") - but FRCS is a professional qualification. Does he actually remain a FRCS if he's been struck off by the GMC? - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK - I don't have anything citable (third-party verifiable), but I emailed the RCS to ask, and you won't find him on the public searchable members list because he stopped paying dues in 1996, at which point he should no longer call himself "FRCS". So this would be him claiming something he shouldn't be - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

See this for why the BMJ may have used "Mr". Colin°^Talk 12:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course - they were just showing professional respect! :-D - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo?

Is there really no free-content photo of Andrew Wakefield in existence? - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Mention of continued fall-out from the 1998 paper

This reliable source mentions the fall-out:

• U.S. travelers to Olympics may bring home measles, CDC warns. Elizabeth Weise, USA Today, 03-19-2012

USA today is not a reliable source. Neither the author nor the CDC spokesmodel Rebecca Martin provide any causal explanation to link Wakefield's paper to unvaccinated people. Wakefield's name is thrown into the article as a guilt-by-association scapegoat. Foamy Latte (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Or the rather large outbreak of measles in the UK. Oh wait….SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the latest contribution to this section (added three colons) because I couldn't at first figure out what was going on, and it hurt my eyes. Thank you. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

USA Today is not considered a reliable source? Since when?74.134.145.218 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Age of autism

In the intro to this article, there is a mention that the findings in the study have not been replicated. This link suggests they have: http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/peer-reviewed-papers-support-findings.html I am not able to see the original material to verify this, however, it is worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.142.56 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

ageofautism.com is not a reliable source, and from what I recall of their previous record I'd be extremely wary of accepting their interpretation of anybody else's research. --GenericBob (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Age of Autism is a vaccine denialist website who denies the firm evidence that MMR vaccines do absolutely nothing to cause autism. I think that the Age of Autism is also trying to find sasquatch, alien abductions, and quantum water.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

General Medical Council hearings: references for Walker-Smith court case

There are two references given for the successful appeal by John Walker-Smith. One is to a news report from the BBC and the other is from a press release issued by an anti-vaccine group named the Canary Party. This press release, rather than being a straight news report, is mostly made up of quoted opinions of members of this group and includes a number of unsubstantiated claims (including baseless and potentially defamatory allegations of "corruption" in the GMC and a "smear attack" against Wakefield). Rather than linking to a biased and unreliable source, would it not be better to replace this reference with a link to the actual judgement? The judgement is available online here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

Prak Mann (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What's written in the article is awfully neutral. I'd argue for removal since it's not directly relevant to Wakefield, who still remains stricken. Not sure your source is as easy to read. If you want to rewrite the section and add a new citation, go ahead.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

IP Complaints about article

I would prefer to let someone in Wikipedia attempt to resolve this issue, not a protagonist who is clearly biased. The pejorative use of words like 'whitewash' is of little help. This is a serious issue, as much a matter of omissions as it is of errors. 174.117.110.164 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC) vpcj

I've moved this complaint that the IP editor embedded in a several month old section. The editor is at 4RR trying to whitewash Wakefield's role in the article that the Lancet had to withdraw because of fraud. So, comment on their complaints. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of fraud in Wikipedia are governed by the laws of libel - they should not be made without some high standard of proof. Merely repeating a libel is no defence, especially in British law, which places the burden of proof on the libeller. Wakefield's case is complex. It is relevant that the co-author of Wakefield's (in)fmous paper, Professor John Walker-Smith, had his medical license restored and allegations of professional misconduct quashed by a British appellate judge in 2012. That fact should be in the Wikipedia page; it is currently being blocked by breaches of the reversal rule by Skeptical Raptor. ~ vpcj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.110.164 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS. You're just saying stuff without any verification. And what has Walker-Smith got to do with Mr. Wakefield? Because their cases were completely different, but you're trying to create a strawman argument that doesn't exist. When Mr. Wakefield, the defrocked doctor, goes before the GMC, to get his medical license back, then you no longer have a strawman argument, but up until that point, your complaints have no validity, and you have no actual reliable sources upon which to stand. And finally, Time Magazine states clearly that MR. Andrew Wakefield perpetrated one of the great scientific frauds of all time. Now, I have a reliable source backing up the claims published on Wikipedia. That's a good thing. Go complain to Time Magazine. If they retract that, I guess, we'll just have to rely upon the retraction from the Lancet, the PNAS tabulation calling Andy Wakefield's article a fraud and dozen's of other articles and news reports that support this Wikipedia article. Your edit warring, and your using this talk page as your personal forum isn't very productive. If you have a valid, sourced suggestion to improve this article, please tell us. But your complaints have no validity whatsoever. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SkepticalRaptor. Numerous reliable sources support the characterization of Wakefield presented in this article. --Yaush (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of Fraud

Briefly, sequence was as follows

• 1. Wakefield publishes Lancet paper based on erroneous or fabricated data while pocketing legal fees and patenting a vaccine that exploits uncetainty
• 2. Deer interviews parents of study participants and reports major discrepancies with Wakefield's paper, also finds financial irregularities
• 3. Wakefield's view unsupported by subsequent research, GMC stike off Wakefield citing study protocol issues.
• 4. BMJ publishes editorial "declaring" deliberate fraud based on inconsistencies identified by Deer and strong financial conflict of interest. BMJ cite failure of GMC to convict Wakefield of fraud as the prime reason for their allegations.

Q&A

• Is the source reliable ? Yes, the BMJ is respected peer reviewed journal. It has a longstanding rivalry with the Lancet but the issue is serious enough for the editors to know better than to play politics.
• Is the article suitable? Probably not, it's written by 3 senior editors but is an editorial and still qualifies as opinion. The primary source (Deer's article) is far more general in it's allegations of fraud.
• Is the allegation potentially libelous ? Yes. The editorial is clear in it's assertion that Wakefield deliberately falsified data. A subsequent Deer article examining the pathology reports in the paper showed confusion over the terminology rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead (BMJ 2011;343:d6823.)
• Could Wakefield sue ? No, he already has 2 failed libel actions and his strongest defense would be incompetence rather than deliberate falsification. The BMJ were banking on this when they published.
• So why does it matter ? At its heart MMR was about a willingness to distort facts to fit a pattern. This is no different. We can say there is evidence of fraud, fraud is highly likely or many senior scientist say he is fraudulent but we can't say " he IS fraudulent " without a judge / regulator verdict. The BMJ don't play to the same standard as a judge / regulator and neither do we so are not entitled to make the same sorts of calls. This is not an article where we can afford to screw up on integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nernst (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before here. Consensus is that the use of the word "fraudulent" is appropriate. Yobol (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for comments and reference. Accusation and rebuttal with appropriate referencing are included in the introduction, so seems strange to use the term is used uncited and in isolation in the opening sentence. I am not sure that this is consistent with WP:BLPSOURCES. What would be the best way or re-examining the issue ? Nernst (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Read again. It is cite to three different sources. Yobol (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Unfortunately unable to find section detailing need to 'cite to three different sources', can you please specify where this occurs. Did however note [WP:BLPCRIME] appears clear that those accused of a crime need a legal verdict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nernst (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There are three sources citing the first sentence of this article. As far as I can tell, he hasn't been legally charged with fraud so BLPCRIME does not apply here. He did, however, commit scientific fraud. Yobol (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This looks familiar, probably because it's been brought up by, and discussed with, the very same editor at Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Role of BMJ in para 1 (and the subsequent section, Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Allegations of Fraud). We're reinventing the wheel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, on MMR Controversy the term 'declared fraud' was changed to ' signed editorial described the original paper as "fraudulent" ' but the discussion went badly and am grateful for guidence on how we can better achieve a consensus here. I misunderstood your refernce to 3 sources ( i thought you meant it was policy to obtain 3 sources to ensure accuracy ). Regarding the references: the PNAS article does not explicity discuss wakefield except to say it continued to be cited despite retraction, the Time article refers (presumably) to the BMJ article and the BMJ article is an op ed.

If we're defining the issue as 'scientific fraud' then the accusation should come from one of the agencies responsible for investigating the fraud, in this case it would be the GMC, the Lancet and the Royal Free. All 3 cited 'violation of study protocols' as their reason for censure. Again, what would be the best way of considering this issue, in a wider context ?Nernst (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientists can and should self-police for scientific misconduct. In this case, one of the most prestigious medical journals (BMJ) found that Wakefield committed fraud, and multiple other sources concur. Nothing else need be said. Yobol (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. I do not believe the BMJ is infalliable or that the opinion of its editor should be seen as fact. The scientist responsible self policing this case (GMC / Lancet / Royal Free) did not declare Wakefield a fraud. On re-reading the PNAS article however I would note that the Lancet paper is classified as fraud in table 3 but the basis for the characterization is unclear and the point remains in dispute. Again, what would be a good way to bring more expertise / experience to this issue ? Nernst (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also be cautious about interpreting 'fraud' as 'scientific fraud'. The term 'scientific fraud' is not used in the first sentence and the articles quotes Deer as saying that criminal charges should be brought.Nernst (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fraud is fraud. What you personally believe is largely irrelevant here. BMJ has an exceptionally high reputation as a reliable source for medical/scientific matters. We can wait for others to see if you can convince others, but I'm at the point of repeating myself, which is a good sign any further attempts at discussion is a waste of my time. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry we haven't been able to achieve consensus. The BMJs reputation is irrelevant, the article is an editorial which does not meet source requirements, the TIME article seems to be citing the editorial and the PNAS classification is based on a broad reading of the retraction statement and a google search ! The allegations and their history are beautifully explained in the first 4 paragraphs, so the purpose of inserting an unclear, inflammatory and controversial term in the first sentence seems odd. Since we are at an impass, how would you suggest we involve other editors to resolve this issue ?Nernst (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we have consensus. Wakefield committed fraud. We have several reliable articles that say so. Any further conversation is kind of ridiculous. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Fraud according to highest quality reliable sources, we've had this discussion before, and nothing has changed since the last time we discussed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. BMJ is a British journal, subject to the very strict British libel laws, yet its editors chose to publish a potentially defamatory statement based on their conclusion it was a true statement. I trust their judgement. --Yaush (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

But then why bother with the GMC, the Judiciary, or any of the other regulatory infrastructure if we can trust the BMJ to sort out the good from the bad. Isn't that the mistake people made with the Lancet ? Remember, the BMJ article failed to disclose it's own conflict of interest.Nernst (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a misapprehension here: that the British General Medical Council did not find fraud. It did find fraud. Not only did it find scientific fraud in the sense that it found Wakefield's paper to be dishonest, it also found fraud in Wakefield's use of money paid to him to carry out the research. His own counsel submitted that the charges were allegations of 'fraud', and those charges were found proven. In any case, there are quite enough references in this article. Marmadale (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the above contributions, as far as I can see the issues can be summarised as follows:

• 1. What type of fraud was committed and should this be made clear in the first sentence ?

• 2. Do we need a judge, regulator, accredited investigator before we 'call fraud' or can we use a journalist / medical / press article ?

• 3. Did the GMC find Wakefied guilty of fraud  ? Allegations of fraud do not appear to be included in SPM ruling. The BMJ article specifically states that it's purpose is to address the misapprehension that wakefield was not guilty of fraud

• 4. Are the sources reliable ? Yes but like the Lancet we need to examine the information presented as well as the context: the BMJ article is op ed, the TIME article seems to be quoting the BMJ and the PNAS article does not seem to distinguish between fraud and suspected fraud as detailed in it's methods section.

• 5. Is there current consensus ? Probably not, since this issue keeps recurring

• 6. Is this an NPOV issue ie. does the first sentence state a seriously contested assertions as fact ?

• 7. Is this a libel issue ? Wakefield keeps attempting legal action but so far there haven't been any verdicts

Please feel free to add anything I've left out. I realise this article relates to a contentious issue. For the fourth time, is anyone willing to advise on how this point can be discussed more widely amongst Wikipedia's editors ? Cheers Nernst (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A British GMC fitness to practise panel, which is a public inquiry, found a whole bunch of dishonesty in Wakefield's paper which constitutes fraud. I have cut and pasted a couple of examples from the very long Findings of Fact. This should help.

In reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project

reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest. The Panel is satisfied that your conduct at paragraph 32.a would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest.

The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in the

Lancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28 February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors. The Panel has found that your statement as set out in paragraph 35.a. does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet.

The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be

considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96 for research purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmadale (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent contribution, many thanks. Could you provide a link to the full judgement. Couldn't find it on Google. 'dishonest' would be a reasonable alternative to 'fraudulent' (as would: retracted, discredited, false etc...) but they not same since fraud normally suggests deliberate dishonesty with a view to gaining personal advantage. The distinction is small but important. Can anyone suggest a way to open this up to a wider group of editors (fifth request) ? Nernst (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nernst. This appears to be the full corrected findings. If we don't already, perhaps we should either link to this via a footnote in the #General Medical Council hearings section, or under the #External links section. For the record, I'm comfortable with the present wording of the article, at least as far as our use of "fraud" and "fraudulent" goes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I've added a link to #External links. 11:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you.Nernst (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nernst. This issue has been discussed numerous times, all you have to do is scroll through numerous threads here. Mr. Andy Wakefield's activities were fraudulent and supported by numerous articles. You are using this page as your personal forum for your beliefs that have no support in reliable sources. I will not hesitate to hat these comments, if you continue to use it as complaint forum. Either provide us with a proposed change, with supporting citations and gain consensus here. Or stop babbling. Your choice. This is NOT A FORUM. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice would be preferred to threats. Not sure what 'hat' means but it sounds ominous. 4 alternative suggestions were provided in the previous post (dishonest, retracted, discredited, false), could also leave a gap or use 'erroneous'. Citation should obviously be the GMC finding of fact or the Lancet retraction statement. Fraud is a serious allegation and nothing else is good enough. 6 requests for advice on the mechanisms for resolving these sorts of problems were ignored in favour of parroting 'consensus achieved' so naturally the discussion will not always be clear and flowing. Lot of effort for one word but like ' please and sorry' it's an important one.

Summary as follows, help requested on NPOV and BLP noticeboards. NPOV tag added but hopefully will be removed shortly

• Problem: First sentence of article states a seriously contested assertion (fraud) as fact

• Issues: Libel and NPOV

• Definition of Fraud: would a lay reader interpret the first sentence as relating to scientific or criminal fraud ?

If criminal, then Wakefield has an over-riding presumption of innocence until there is a verdict regardless of his approach to litigation. If scientific, then we can use the ORI definition (http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct) which would fit with the Lancet / GMC statements. Would therefore recommend existing 3 citations removed and replaced with GMC FOF / Lancet statement with explanatory note linking to ORI. Would also recommend 'fresh' editors take a look and decide whether inference is scientific or criminal Nernst (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The fraud label is clearly appropriate for the lede as this is a well-documented case of scientific fraud. a13ean (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly fraud is appropriate. Multiple sources cited, including editors of internationally renown medical journal. Public inquiry verdicts cited. Wakefield did not appeal the inquiry verdict. Wakefield submitted to inquiry that the allegation against him was of "fraud", and that was found proven. This is in keeping with all cases of fraud and misconduct in science. Editor claims assertion is "seriously contested". It is not seriously contested by any Wiki-reliable source. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nernst says "we can't say " he IS fraudulent " without a judge / regulator verdict." Sorry, Nernst, but the consensus is that Wikipedia can say this. The whole legal vs scientific fraud distinction is a red herring. Nernst has been banging this drum (on MMR vaccine controversy) since October. Enough. Colin°^Talk 19:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Relax, all sorted (see NPOV noticeboard). All it took was a 3 line explanation. Cheers Nernst (talk)

Allegations of Serious Misconduct

I don't want to cause trouble or open a can of worms but if we're using secondary sources, i think the term 'fraudulant' is better. There is more room for interpretation in the primary sources but the secondary sources are clear and deliberate in their use of the word 'fraud'. The blue linking can be sorted out later or even omitted. Alternatively, if everyone is happy with scientific misconduct i don't want to rock the boat. Nernst (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. The sources use the word "fraud". "Scientific misconduct" is an understatement. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did we remove fraud? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it was an EGGy link redirecting serious misconduct (see NPOV noticeboard)Nernst (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored "fraudulent" to the lead. It is clear enough from the noun it is modifying - "research paper" - that we're talking about scientific fraud. I don't see consensus here, or on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andrew_Wakefield, for any significant change in the way we present this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that discussion is not at the NPOV noticeboard (forum shopping to multiple fora); it is at the BLP noticeboard. The issue was an WP:EGG (scientific misconduct was linked, but "fraud" was the word used). I believe that was resolved and WLU acknowledged that an EGG wasn't the best solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: For the record, I support Anthonyhcole's removal of inappropriate material from this page. Colin°^Talk 08:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So do I, but I suggest leaving a link to the removed content,[3] along with a reminder to editors to stay on topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the use of the word "fraud" to describe Wakefield's research in the lead, it's a good summary word of a situation that doesn't need a lot of nuance in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support the use of "fraudulent" in the lead. It's an accurate reflection of the reliable sources. (Are we !voting?) I think we have 100% agreement now, mystery solved, everybody back into the Mystery Machine? Zad68 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Of interest?

"Golden Duck" award, for a lifetime of "quackery". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

While I cannot dispute that the award was richly deserved, I am not sure that it (at this point) is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant mention in Wakefield's Wikipedia article at this time. (There just isn't space in this biography to cover all of the organizations who have condemned Wakefield's misconduct.) Though Simon Singh is (deservedly) mentioned by Wikipedia, his newly-minted Good Thinking Society (and its Golden Duck) are not—either in their own article or within Singh's biography. I do wish them all the best, and mayhaps they will become Britain's answer to the JREF. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this particular "award" should probably develop its own reputation before we use it, especially in a WP:BLP. Yobol (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added it in as the Guardian is notable for a secondary source, and Simon Singh is surely notable enough for a mention on Wakefield's page. Besides it takes up very little space to mention this. I don't see a problem with more organizations being mentioned if they "award" something to Wakefield, I doubt that there are that many giving out awards as there is so many Wakefield like people out there to award to.Sgerbic (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind Sgerbic's brief mention alongside Wakefield's Pigasus Award. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not everything mentioned in the newspaper (even in a national newspaper) is fodder for article content, though. My feeling is that we should only be mentioning these sorts of awards – 'negative' awards, particularly in a BLP – when the award is at least of roughly comparable notability/notoriety to the recipient. (In this situation, it feels like we're promoting and advertising the award, rather than conveying important information about a notable happening. Both the JREF and the Pigasus award – with its 30-plus-year history – have extensive third-party coverage and their own Wikipedia articles. Singh's foundation and its award just aren't there yet.) Even though each individual 'award' mention only takes up a little bit of space, it would look sloppy and unprofessional for us to invite a 'laundry list' of criticisms and attacks rather than being more selective in our editorial judgement. I think it also distracts from the core point – that Wakefield's actions were widely recognized as abhorrent, by the most-reliable sources – if we don't confine ourselves to a smaller number of highest-importance, highest-relevance organizations.

A failure on our own part here to be selective in the 'awards' that we include may also be taken – with some justification – by the anti-vaccination crowd to mean that it would be appropriate to include a tit-for-tat mention of trivial anti-vaccination 'awards' of this sort in the articles of doctors, scientists, and organizations who are doing good, honest, competent work. Suppose Andrew Wakefield were to found an anti-vaccine group next year that handed out Golden Assholes, and managed to get the story mentioned in the back pages of the Washington Post—would that need to go into Brian Deer's article? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well put. You're right about it's present noteworthiness. I've reverted for now. Please discuss further before restoring it, Sgerbic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No bearing on Wakefield

Considering Walker-Smith was one of three people included in the charge and subsequently absolved, it has a great deal of bearing on the case. Besides which, is there a graduated Wikipedia criteria for 'bearing` that a subject has to pass before being deemed suitable for a mention in an article.

See revision history: Undid revision 550406431 by Dgharmon .. This has no bearing on Wakefield

Dgharmon (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the biography of Wakefield, not a discussion about the MMR vaccine case or a broad discussion about the GMC investigation. Walker-Smith's appeal is already discussed in MMR vaccine controversy, where this information belongs. Agree with Anthonyhcole that this particular piece of information is inappropriate here. Yobol (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For reference, it appears that Dgharmon added the following paragraph to the article's lead section with this edit.

The findings by a Fitness to Practice panel comprising of a consultant psychiatrist, a retired consultant physician, a GP, and two lay persons was appealed by a college of Wakefield, Professor John Walker-Smith. Following the appeal Walker-Smith was reinstated and the charge of serious misconduct was struck out. This voids the majority of the 'found proven' clauses of the original verdict. Walker-Smith is also quoted as stating “we are prepared to take full responsibility for the outcome of this treatment.” The Judge stating that the GMCs decision contained "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion". The GMC choose not to challenge the decision.

The paragraph was subsequently removed in this edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it not mentioned after "The Sunday Times reported that some of the parents of the 12 children in the study in The Lancet were recruited via a UK lawyer preparing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers" that he cant have be trying to get compensation money from the vaccine companys as he knew long in advance that the manafacturer had complete indemnity overe adverse reactions??

Gripes without suggestions for improvement

Gripes without suggestions for improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page is a sick joke and is full of utter rubbish and lies 2.221.30.239 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC) This whole article should be re-written. This is a scary example of modern scapegoating and I expect better of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.238.44 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Both IPs fail to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and why our content must be based on reliable sources, not the babblings of true believers. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

edits- does this article need to be locked?

I noticed edits by cwaldman that removed reference to the fraudulent Lancet paper and made madethe claim that the repudiated study had been reproduced. I undid these edits. Perhaps it would be better to post potential edits to talk page. Should this article be locked? 50.16.171.104 (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Things need to get more hectic than this, though, before page protection is used. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit in Texas

Andrew J. Wakefield is suing Brian Deer, the British Medical Journal, and its editor Fiona Godlee for slander and defamation in the Texas courts. A jurisdictional appeal hearing was held on May 22, 2013 in the Texas Third Court of Appeal. The lawsuit concerns articles published in the British Medical Journal by Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee on or about January 6, 2011, alleging that Dr. Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper was fraudulent.[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaldman (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

CWaldman, we are aware of these developments. When RS report on the findings, we may include that information in the article, but not until then. When we do, article content will reflect what the sources say, regardless of our own opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Literature about Vaccines and Autism Disorders

• Med Hypotheses. 2011 Dec;77(6):940-7. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.08.019. Epub 2011 Oct 10.

Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders. Conjugate vaccines fundamentally change the manner in which the immune systems of infants and young children function by deviating their immune responses to the targeted carbohydrate antigens from a state of hypo-responsiveness to a robust B2 B cell mediated response. This period of hypo-responsiveness to carbohydrate antigens coincides with the intense myelination process in infants and young children, and conjugate vaccines may have disrupted evolutionary forces that favored early brain development over the need to protect infants and young children from capsular bacteria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250

• J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011;74(14):903-16. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2011.573736.

A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535

• J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 07:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As you must know, it is possible to find scientific papers supporting nearly any claim. These three papers are not terribly compelling and clearly represent a fringe view. Medical Hypotheses is by design a fringe journal. The Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health is probably legitimate though it has a low impact rating. However, one study (a poster abstract actually) and the other study are by partisan authors, are highly suspect and represent horrible research. Still, on WP, we are simply summarizing what RS say. If the J Tox Env H is a RS, then it is theoretically valid, but those two papers represent a very small samples, and some sketchy claims, as compared with some of the large studies on autism and vaccination. To trumpet these fringe claims would be undue weight. We are not obligated to mention every dissent to the consensus, especially if it is as execrable and trivial as these papers are. Michaplot (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Cannot follow your rhetoric in regards to scientific literature. Also without evidence to the contrary i cannot follow your claim that PubMD which is known as RS, to feature fringe theories is certainly a new claim. Another interesting article on fundamentals = Study raises red flag for universal flu vaccine; may explain 2009 'Canadian problem' http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/study-raises-red-flag-for-universal-flu-vaccine-may-explain-2009-canadian-problem-1.604465 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for a general debate about vaccines and autism (there is not much credible debate anywhere on that red herring). So, unless you are proposing these nugatory sources for inclusion in this article, I will refrain from explaining my "rhetoric". Michaplot (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Autism Epidemic Linked to Epidemic of Vaccine Induced Diabetes

July 12, 2013, The new data shows autism is strongly linked to type 1 diabetes another epidemic inflammatory disease where the epidemic has been proven to be caused by vaccines. The new paper is authored by immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD."We have been publishing for many years that vaccine induced inflammation is causing an epidemic of type 1 diabetes and other diseases. Our new data, as well as the extensive data from others regarding the role of inflammation in the development autism, leaves little doubt vaccines play a significant role in the autism epidemic," says Dr. J. Bart Classen, MD. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130712-904463.html Prokaryotes (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

From your source this is a press release ONLY. From the article - at the bottom "The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content." The Dr. is the president of an Anti-Vac site. Not exactly a glowing endorsment of his studies. VViking_TalkEdits 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And even if the paper has or will yet come out in a reliable source, it is still not worth our attention. The following isn't a reliable source for WP, but check out http://webspace.webring.com/people/il/lmorgan/fearmongers/classen_credibilty.htm to get a sense of what sort of quack Classen is. As I said above a few papers contesting a strong scientific consensus are not worthy of inclusion on WP.Michaplot (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

MMR doctor wins High Court appeal

A doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct over the MMR controversy has won his High Court appeal against being struck off. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17283751 Prokaryotes (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

From your own link:

Chief executive Niall Dickson added: "Today's ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism.

"As Mr Justice Mitting observed in his judgement, 'There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked'."

Nor are we going to reopen the debate here. This is not a discussion forum. There are plenty of places elsewhere on the Internet to rail against the clear scientific consensus.--Yaush (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the article mentions co-workers it should include related developments. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Old news. --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me the story is newsworthy, but the issue of what happened to this doctor is not discussed in article, so it does not seem to have a place here.Michaplot (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Serious illness and fatalities

I would like to ask something regarding this article, as well as MMR vaccine controversy. Are we blaming Wakefield for these serious illnesses and fatalities because he questioned the safety of vaccines in the scientific literature, because he was later disproven, because he was a fraud, or some combination of the three? Jinkinson (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are asking or if you are proposing any changes. The article says that because of Wakefield's study there was a link "to a steep decline in vaccination rates in the United Kingdom and a corresponding rise in measles cases, resulting in serious illness and fatalities." If you are proposing a change or disagree with the way the article is written, can you please provide specifics? If you are just asking the question of are we blaming Wakefield this is not really the place for that philosophical discussion.VViking_TalkEdits 12:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Viking. The sources cited in support of the article content seem satisfactory. To ask in what manner "we" are the ones doing the blaming seems misguided. Zad68 12:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I mean, I agree that his paper is indirectly responsible for a number of vaccine-preventable deaths, I just thought it was unclear exactly why. However, it seems as though the thing Wakefield did that caused these deaths was when he said we should stop using the MMR vaccine and start using single vaccines. However, what if he was right? What if his paper wasn't a fraud? Would we still be blaming him for vaccine preventable diseases, given that even if vaccines did cause autism, the benefits of the vaccine would still outweigh the risks? I think the article should make this more clear. However, if you don't want to respond in this section, you don't have to. Jinkinson (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wakefield wasn't right and his paper is a fraud, but that's irrelevant anyway. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lack of balance

The article seems extremely biased. Official documented concerns such as this one from the US national library of Medicine, the National institute of Health , that more than suggestes that there could be severe adverse side effects to be had from too many vaccines, and makes it clear that it is _difficult_ to find out _which_ factor/vaccine (if any) is to blame, but it most _certainly_ does _not_ rule out that vaccines could have serious side effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.239.201 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, vaccinations can have serious side effects. This is besides the point, which is that there is clear and convincing evidence Wakefield committed scientific fraud. --Yaush (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The original post is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The NIH and National Library of Medicine did not "officially document" their concerns over vaccines. The paper in question was the work of two individuals (Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman), neither of whom is affiliated with NIH/NLM. In fact, they apparently operate out of a P.O. box in Santa Fe, according to the corresponding author information. The National Library of Medicine indexes much of the biomedical literature and provides a search engine (and, in many cases, free full text) for that literature. But attributing the paper's claims to the NIH/NLM would be like doing a Google search for 'bigfoot exists' and then claiming that Google Inc. supports the existence of bigfoot. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying Bigfoot doesn't exist? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Age of Autism criticizes this article.

The virulently anti-science and anti-vaccination website, Age of Autism, just published an article in support of Wakefield, and mentions this Wikipedia entry. You can expect that a number of editors will try to sanitize the statements about Wakefield's fraud soon. Just a warning. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If AOA is on the case, I suggest that the article must be pretty well written. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wakefield ballyhoo is a convenient smokescreen for an epidemic of gigantic proportions caused by experts on vaccination who were asleep on the job. I am sorry to see Wiki not up to the mark here.Laplumedematanteestdanslejardin (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Which epidemic is that then? We should report a gigantic epidemic - have you got reliable sources? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I just got a Tweet about this. This is posted as well connecting the paid editing question with this. Also, it appears by this posting, that there IS some information about some sort of confirmation from reliable sources that Wakefield was cleared and that WP is not allowing it? I don't have a dog in this fight but wanted to mention this other AoA posting http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/03/internet-bullies-wikipedia-admits-it-has-a-problem.html24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wakefield has not been cleared. Your sources appear not to be reliable. Given that they're from AoA, that's understandable. --Yaush (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have reliable source, and AOA is like the mirror image of a reliable source, that Wakefield has been cleared of anything, please provide it. Oh, and usually when someone says "I have no dog in this fight", they actually do. It's the old passive aggressive "I don't mean to verbally kick you in the nuts, so sorry that your nuts hurt so bad." SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that my statement was misunderstood. What I am trying to say there is that the article "makes it appear that there are reliable references",--not that i have any references at all about the topic. The only dog that I have in the fight is that I received a (very misleading in my opinion), Tweet which said something like "Wikipedia admits it was wrong--and then connected that statement which turned-out to be a few paragraphs about the paid-posting amendments question with this article topic, where I could not see where they actually made ANY connection between the 2 (separate I think) topics24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I love that ClueBot did the revert. It occasionally misses some of the more clever vandalism and penis jokes but it picks up this in under a minute. I also like that AoA's "Aussie Dad" apparently chose to go by ZackieGirl25. Cannolis (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree Roxy. This epidemic about which they speak? Did I miss the news? Oh wait, Big Pharma, the CDC, Illuminati and we Wikipedia editors are in a vast conspiracy to control the news about Wakefield, and hide the truths he uncovered. Now I'm off to polish the gold bars shipped to me by Big Pharma. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no fair! All I got was a tee-shirt! --Yaush (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

T-shirt is just the first payment. The armored car is probably just delivering to other shills. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I got my shipment this morning, but it turned out to be iron pyrite. And the Tshirt was the wrong size. It's amazing how many people have opinions that are simply immune to facts. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The article needs to be updated to refer to this result: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/5/872.full.pdf+html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.48.242 (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You are going to have to make a specific edit suggestion. Simply linking an article that appears to have nothing to do with Wakefield is unhelpful. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The BMJ references

The second last paragraph of the introduction/summary of this page heavily references the BMJ for disclosing Wakefield's fraud/conflict of interest in the original Lancet Research.

However I think it is important to mention somewhere here that the BMJ itself has since revealed a broad conflict of interest (it would apply to any article where they comment on the MMR controversy).

To quote the BMJ (BMJ 2011;342:d1678: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1678 (Published 15 March 2011),

"The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee (www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470)."

I'm happy to let someone else figure out how to include this information but it seems to be an important detail to maintain objectivity of the page :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.205 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This content needs to be framed properly and then restored. The context and reason (why?) for making the statement (editorials don't normally declare a conflict of interest, only research papers contain such statements) should be stated, followed by the quotation. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know; is it actually important or relevant for an encyclopedia article on the topic? The 'competing interest' in this instance is rather less specific and personal than Wakefield's, and it was acknowledged and disclosed promptly—unlike Wakefield's. In contrast to Wakefield's publication, there's no indication that BMJ engaged in any falsification, misrepresentation, or misconduct (beyond their initial failure to report their competing interest). While BMJ should be suitably chided and chastened by their omission, it appears that their misbehavior starts and ends with the omitted disclosure.

To spend any text on it here strikes me as playing a distracting game of gotcha! that principally serves the interests of Wakefield's staunch-but-horrible enablers. The purpose would be to invite and encourage a perception of false equivalence between Wakefield and BMJ ("They both failed to disclose competing interests, so both have equal credibility!"), with a follow-on tu quoque ("BMJ didn't disclose a competing interest, therefore they cannot criticize Wakefield for doing it!"). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I do too. First, every medical journal accepts ads from vaccine manufacturers; so what? Second, the original Lancet article had already been thoroughly discredited by multiple authors in multiple journals (not just BMJ) over the previous 12 years, and it had been retracted by Lancet before Deer's articles were published in BMJ. Second, the numerous epidemiological studies conducted during this period, all of which found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, were published in multiple journals, not just BMJ. Deer's contribution was showing that Wakefield's conclusions weren't just wrong, they were fraudulent as well. And it was Deer (who was not conflicted) who did the disclosing, not BMJ, per se. BMJ editors felt the need (belatedly, as they admitted) to reveal their own potential COI not because they published Deer's articles, but because they had editorialized about them, and added their own opinion. So BMJ 's potential COI was basically irrelevant, because it had already been established beyond reasonable doubt that Wakefield's assertions were totally lacking in merit, long before BMJ ever weighed in with its editorial. All of that said, I would not object to a parenthetical sentence, immediately after the quote lifted from the BMJ editorial, pointing out BMJ's admission of potential COI. It might calm down some of the kibitzers who think the article is "biased", in spite of all the evidence pointing in one direction only. I'll be happy to make the change if we reach a consensus. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am reluctant to add undue weight to a minor point solely to try to appease individuals who a) represent a very tiny minority; b) are clearly and conspicuously out of step with the published literature and scientific consensus; and c) are mostly still going to call Wikipedia and its editors Big Pharma shills no matter what we do.

I will note that we are doing nothing particularly unusual in this instance. It is normal Wikipedia practice not to specifically report or call attention to competing or conflicting interests when we cite publications. This is the case even where a conflict of interest is significantly more direct and substantial than the one the BMJ addressed here; for example where a publication reports on the results of an industry-funded clinical trial. We don't typically discuss corrections or errata associated with published articles unless they significantly alter the data, interpretation, or conclusions—none of which are in question here. In Wakefield's case, we mention his undisclosed conflicts of interest only because they were a part of a larger, long-term, extensive, and egregious pattern of misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

hear hear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, is there a guideline somewhere re: this "normal WP practice"? I do try to mention conflicts when the sources do -- but I do basically agree with you on this one, as mentioned. BTW, there's a new source, a fairly comprehensive synopsis of the whole fiasco, in this week's Newsweek, here. Incredibly, Wakefield continues to stick to his story. Then again, once you've dug a hole that deep, I suppose it's difficult to stop digging. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's specifically codified anywhere, but general practice I've noticed both on Wikipedia and in academia is that – absent any particularly compelling reason to do so – writers don't specifically extract quotes from the 'competing interests' sections of articles whenever the articles are cited. As to what Wakefield is thinking now, and how closely his public statements actually align with his personal beliefs and motivations...well.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have stricken my comment above. I totally accept the wisdom expressed above by TOAT, and others, especially the pandering to false equivalence which inclusion would unfortunately honor. It also borders on OR use of a primary source. If mainstream secondary sources discussed this, there might be a better case for inclusion, but I don't know of such sources. Leave it out. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Editor of Dr. Andrew Wakefield Wiki Page Clearly Has an Agenda

I have tried to edit the page on Dr. Andrew Wakefield, but the editor is not allowing it. The problem I have with this is that the editor has incorrect information stated throughout, including in the very first sentence. The editor states right out of the gate that Dr. Wakefield paper was fraudulent and that it was an attempt to prove the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. This is totally inaccurate.

Here is the retracted actual paper that is in question. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/fulltext

Dr. Wakefield NEVER ONCE states an attempt to prove a link between Autism and the MMR vaccine. His paper talks about consistent patterns of “gut problems” among this group of autistic children who had the MMR vaccine. He NEVER states that he proved or is even attempting to prove such a link. This wiki statement is flat out wrong and needs to be changed.

Further, here is a research study from Wake Forest University, from 2013, which actually supports Dr. Wakefield’s findings of gut problems following the MMR vaccine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592909/

I have been told that Wiki likes to say that anyone can edit information, but the truth is that the editors work for lobby interests or big business, and the entire system is rigged to allow for companies and interests to control the message. If true, that goes against Wiki’s entire mission and rules.

I hope I am wrong about this and that you actually take the time to look at what the editor has and correct the truth on this.

209.163.150.104 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There are many editors in the recent page history so it's not sure which "editor" you are referring to, and many sources backing the fraudulent claim. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We have discussed this before, at some length, more than once (see above, and archived materials). Wakefield and his apologists have repeatedly made this specious argument, that he is blameless because autism was never mentioned in the original Lancet article. Like most specious arguments, it contains a grain of truth -- autism was indeed not mentioned in the article itself; but during a press conference two days before the paper’s publication (the only time I can ever recall the author of a scholarly medical article announcing it with a press conference), Wakefield did mention it. “We need to know what the role of gut inflammation is in autism.” And he continued to mention it, every chance he got, from that day on. To this day he is doing it, despite a mountain of evidence that it's not so. At a press conference only a week or two ago, he was asked whether he still believes the MMR vaccine causes autism, and he responded unequivocally. “Yes, I do. I think MMR contributes to the current autism epidemic.” In short, Wakefield has advocated the now-thoroughly-disproven MMR-autism link everywhere EXCEPT in the original Lancet article -- and even then, he implied it in the press conference two days before its publication. So to argue that he "has never attempted to prove an autism-MMR link", using the original article as evidence, is just silly. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

DoctorJoe: I think maybe you need a refresher on this one. The paper does indeed 'mention' autism, and it does 'mention' MMR. It identifies 8 of 12 children has having autism and says that the 'apparent precipitating event' was immunization with MMR. 'Precipitating', of course, means causing. It also says that the case hadn't been 'proved', but, of course, in science 'prove' means conclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.247.80 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Split hairs all you wish. Unless I'm mistaken the word "autism" does not appear in the paper, only "regressive development". And it doesn't argue for a cause/effect relationship -- which is the gossamer thread that Wakefield and his apologists continue to cling to -- despite the fact that Wakefield HAS argued for a causal relationship numerous times since then, and incredibly, continues to do so. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not splitting hairs. The paper repeatedly identifies autism, including in a table that gives the diagnoses of the children as 'autism', and cites the 'apparent precipitating event' as MMR immunization in eight of the cases. If you are a doctor and you write as if you know about all this, then you ought to at least read the paper and understand what it says. It does argue for a cause-effect relationship, but acknowledges that the he did not 'prove' it. So, yes, you are mistaken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.247.80 (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is splitting hairs. I've re-read the article (it has been quite a few years), and you are correct, it does mention autism. But you are incorrect that it argues for a cause-effect relationship; it implies an association -- and then even backs off from that. {"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.") There is a big leap from two factors being associated to concluding that one causes the other. Multiple subsequent studies, of course, looking at thousands of kids (as opposed to 12 in Wakefield's paper), have failed to show any association, much less cause/effect. But you are certainly correct that there is even a smaller amount of truth (microscopic to begin with) in the Wakefield apologists' revisionist argument. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking generally, we – as Wikipedia editors – are strongly discouraged from cherry-picking individual primary studies to try to debunk or counter the conclusions of high-quality secondary sources (review articles). This is a broadly-accepted Wikipedia guideline (see WP:MEDRS), not something unusual that happens at this article. Still speaking generally, that guideline serves very well to keep small, unreplicated studies from polluting Wikipedia articles with misleading information.

Speaking specifically to the paper which you've linked— well, have you actually looked at it? The paper makes no mention of MMR, vaccines, vaccination, viruses, viral proteins, or makes any whisper of a connection between MMR and autism. About the only connection I can see is that the senior author, Arthur Krigsman, is a fellow traveller and sometimes coauthor of Wakefield's who also pushes the dubious "autistic enterocolitis" line. Did you cite the wrong paper by mistake? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is being controlled by pharma paid editors

Not once does Dr. Wakefield say in his retracted paper that74.192.154.84 (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC) he set out to prove a link between autism and the MMR, and not once does he say he did. You are supporting false accusations, which you are likely receiving money to do. Unfortunately, this happened with Wikipedia before, and it continues to happen.

http://www.cnet.com/news/wikipedia-honcho-caught-in-scandal-quits-defends-paid-edits/

In fact, you won't even change something when the author of a book tells you what you say about his book is wrong. Ridiculous.

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.154.84 (talk • contribs) 20:14, February 14, 2015‎ (UTC)

And this is why we won't take a subject's claims at face value. In this particular case, why would Wakefield actually come clean? There's no value in it for him or his cause. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF. You are - in the very heading here - assuming that everyone who edits this article according to the scientific consensus is a "pharma paid editor". This is, of course, patently ridiculous. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and instead raise concerns based on Wikipedia policy. Kolbasz (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, please read my response, above, from the last time (yesterday?) that someone raised this specious argument. Wakefield has been trying to make that link for years, and continues to make it now (see the direct quote above from only a couple of weeks ago), in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is no such link. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

74, do you have one shred of evidence to support your assertion that "pharma paid editors" are controlling this article? If you do, please provide it so we can all see. Otherwise, such accusations tend to backfire and make the person making unsubstantiated claims look bad. I would advise you to keep that in mind for the future. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

2013 Study Concurs with Dr. Wakefield's study and should be included in this Wiki page

A 2013 study from Wake Forest University, scientists demonstrate same findings as Dr. Wakefield. the conclusion is that there is measles virus in the gut of a large number of children who have regressive autism and bowel disease.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.005805874.192.154.84 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Got a WP:MEDRS linking this study to Wakefield's falsified, retracted study? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) So, are you the same person who commented above, or a different one? Whichever blog or website keeps sending you guys here really needs to actually read the link you keep posting, since the paper actually has nothing whatsoever in it about measles. (And see also above where small, individual primary studies are not appropriate for making these sorts of medical claims in Wikipedia articles anyway.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same person. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't even see the word Measles mentioned in that PLoS article (as I now see Ten mentioned above). Besides, one study like this (even if it did say what you claim it did 74) would not uproot the preponderance of evidence showing that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. It's just not true. There are studies that have examined >1 million vaccinations and the authors found no such link (because it's not there). Scientists have been examining this question for over a decade and agree that this is not a true association. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Helpful source?

A reader contacted Wikimedia to note that the following article may be helpful to editors: http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/ --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A triumphant report on an anti-vaccine web site, and one of many similar reports on similar sites. If one consults a less biased report on the same ruling -- say, from the BBC, here -- one learns that the jubilant anti-vaccine people conveniently omitted a pivotal comment from the court: "Today's ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism. As Mr Justice Mitting observed in his judgement, 'There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked'." DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also note that the above Health Impact News report contains several bald falsehoods. For example:

• "The verdict today raises questions about whether or not the Lancet should have retracted the paper after the GMC decision, as the reasons for its retraction have now been contradicted by the judge’s decision." (See quote from judge, above; the verdict was reversed on procedural grounds only.)
• "Dr. Wakefield...has filed a defamation lawsuit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal for falsely accusing him of 'fraud.' " (That suit was thrown out long ago, and Wakefield was ordered to pay everyone's court costs.)
• "...the findings reported in the Lancet paper have been replicated in numerous scientific publications and reported by thousands of parents all over the world.” (Quite the opposite, actually; nobody was able to replicate their findings, which was why the paper was retracted and charges were brought in the first place.)

DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When did the WMF start acting as a go-between for fringe websites looking for more exposure? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing! The Health Impact News story carries today's date, as if the ruling just happened; but according to the BBC report, it happened almost 3 years ago -- on 7 March, 2012! So this is very old news, being regurgitated and distorted by the revisionists. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! I think it's actually hard to fail WP:RS worse than that site. A conspiracy-mongering, rampant antivax, anti-science ("we have lifted up “science” to a whole new platform that results in “scientism,” and a new set of beliefs that are not scientific at all. The Arts and Humanities are seen as inferior, and we have produced a highly technical culture based on modern technology, which can never produce true health") alt-med "news source" that actually manages to one-up NaturalNews by being straight-out creationist:

"We publish articles in this category from the senior editor of Health Impact News, Brian Shilhavy, that look at the ancient cultures in the Bible and how they viewed health. We also feature writers and articles from the Discovery Institute and other places that view science from an Intelligent Design perspective."

Kolbasz (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not just conspiracy-mongering, anti-vaccine, anti-science, creationist, etc, etc. -- but also, at least in the case of the article in question, deliberately deceptive. They should be ashamed of themselves. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to be tedious about all this, but I've just read the entire 2012 UK Administrative Court ruling on Walker-Smith, along with some legal commentary on it, so let me share some facts and then I'll shut up:

• Walker-Smith was not exonerated. The GMC panel’s findings were quashed because the panel had failed to set out the reasoning behind its decision to revoke his license. The judge stated that the panel was entitled to reach its central conclusion – that he had conducted unauthorized research on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason – but that it had failed to explain its reasoning on numerous matters -- largely due to inadequate input from the panel's legal advisor. In short, the decision was vacated on technical grounds.
• The judge made clear that the GMC was entitled to send the case back to the panel (or a new panel) to set out the reasoning for its findings, but since Walker-Smith was long since retired, the GMC decided there would be no public interest in doing so.
• Among other things, the judge affirmed that a claim of IRB approval in Wakefield’s Lancet paper was false; and as noted above, said that there was “no respectable body of opinion” which now endorses Wakefield’s claims linking autism and bowel disease with MMR.
• My point -- and I do have one -- is that this 3-year-old story is irrelevant to the Wakefield article. 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. Wakefield’s case involved numerous different charges, including four proven counts of dishonesty, and the fact that, unlike Walker-Smith, he was not a clinician.

Okay, I'll shut up now. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still curious about the WMF acting as a go between for out there whacko websites... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: Where are you getting WMF? The reader probably contacted OTRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"A reader contacted Wikimedia...." above. I must be misunderstanding something. Sorry. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick is a member of OTRS and OTRS is a meta-wiki organization hosted by Wikimedia. That's how I reached my conclusion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there are no BLP issues involved in this thread, I suggest that, in the future, OTRS volunteers tell the person to make the suggestion themselves, just like any other editor can do here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Absent specific clarifying information, the usual assumption is that people referring to "Wikimedia" mean the Wikimedia Foundation, and not one of the other subsidiary organizations (operated by the Foundation) that use the Wikimedia name. I mean, Wikimedia is even a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. If OTRS volunteers are not conveying information from the Foundation, it behooves them to make that clear. I've been quite direct with Sphilbrick on his talk page, where I've noted that confusion about the origin and importance of this type of suggestion from a Wikimedia (if not the Wikimedia) is problematic. Hopefully this sort of confusion will be avoided in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE's information on Walker-Smith is incorrect. From his own link he provided:

• Walker-Smith was exonerated. Quote: "the panel's overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion."
• The judge made it clear that the GMC was NOT entitled to send the case back to the panel. Quote: "Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination." (Emphasis is mine)
• The paper was not a hypothesis testing paper.
• Wakefield did not appeal because he did not have a $750,000 deposit to pay for the appeal.

Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the "link" you're referring to is the one from the anti-vaccine site (not provided by me), which, as several of us pointed out, is riddled with errors and outright misstatements. Please read the actual court decision, which I have linked elsewhere. Walker-Smith's conviction was vacated on technical grounds; the judge stated that the panel was entitled to reach its central conclusion – that he had conducted unauthorized research on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason – but that it had failed to explain its reasoning adequately. That is long way from "exoneration". The judge did leave open the option to convene a new FTP panel, but did not order it because GMC had already said that since Walker-Smith had been retired for years, the point was moot. The "not a hypothesis testing paper" argument is a distraction. The paper proposed a hypothesis; multiple subsequent groups tested it, and found absolutely no evidence to support it. Wakefield did not appeal because his own defense team advised him not to, and that was because the charges against him were far more serious than those against Walker-Smith, and were established beyond doubt. For example, Wakefield stated in the paper that he had IRB approval, when he did not. He lied. What's to appeal? There were at least three other examples of proven dishonesty, plus at least one serious ethical breech, making appeal a futile (and expensive) exercise. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, wrong again. I used YOUR link to the actual court ruling and quoted from YOUR source. Why do you insist on being blinded to the actual facts?

Now, read the above again and actually read the goddamn court ruling, because you clearly don't know what it says!

58.160.151.225 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. I posted a link to a verbatim transcript elsewhere on this page, and if you had read the entire thing - instead of what some anti-vaccine site cherry-picked out - you would realize that your argument makes no sense. The hearing was about the GMC panel's procedure only. Justice Mitting found that the panel's procedure was flawed. He did not find that Professor Walker-Smith's actions were medically necessary or ethical. The ruling does not exonerate Walker-Smith. That was not what the hearing was about. Mitting was only ruling on the decision-making of the panel, and he found aspects of it to be flawed. He was quite clear about that. He wrote that the panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith did research rather than medical practice, and may have used the wrong standard to do so. The problem, and the reason for overturning the panel’s decision, was incomplete explanation. (In contrast, there was no ambiguity about Wakefield’s intent, since he was not a clinician, nor his dishonesty, which was clearly demonstrated.) Justice Mitting did not remit the case to a new panel for redetermination because the GMC itself (represented by "Miss Glynn") advised him that Walker-Smith had retired, so there was no point in wasting the time and expense of doing the exercise all over again. And once again, Walker-Smith's case is irrelevant to Wakefield's case, for the reasons already given. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read and quoted from the official court decision from the high court. The court case describes that the GMC did not listen to the expert evidence provided, or mis-stated it. I do not believe you have read the entire thing. Goddesofmarshmellows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.49.124 (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this article

This is going nowhere. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. When the reliable independent sources change, so will we, but not before. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are several inaccuracies which highlights heavily biased views. The paper should be referred to as the "retracted paper", as Wakefield and the paper was never proven to be fraudulent and therefore should not be referred to as a "fraudulent" paper. Wikipedia says: "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease." The facts: The retracted paper ACTUALLY says "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. ... If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. ... We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine." Note that the paper specifies that the parents reported a link between the MMR and the child's onset of symptoms (and in some cases the GP), not Wakefield or his team. Retracted paper: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext Wikipedia says: "Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps, resulting in serious illness and deaths" The facts: The increase in "deaths" is not supported by the evidence. In the UK, where Wakefield had the most influence, there is zero evidence of an increase in deaths following the 1998 paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-deaths-by-age-group-from-1980-to-2013-ons-data/measles-deaths-by-age-group-from-1980-to-2013-ons-data The increase in the "incidence" is also not supported by the evidence. In England and Wales, there was no significant increase in the incidence of measles following the publication of the paper in 1998. The incidence in measles was on significant decline just before the 1998 paper, and continued to decline or remain steady until an increase in 2008 and 2009 after which the rates declined again to lower than pre-1998 rates. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192945/http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733802298 Wikipedia says: "After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, or autism and gastrointestinal disease" The facts: Wakefield's retracted paper was a "Case Series", which is not a hypothesis testing paper. He simply took the doctors referrals, treated the disease and reported the information provided by the parents, the referring doctors and the outcomes of his investigations. Also, his 19 other papers were never retracted and still stand today. Wikipedia says: "most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations." The facts: His co-authors withdrew their support for the media's incorrect interpretations of the paper (which was not a study remember). Wikipedia says: "As recently as February 2015, he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions,[32] despite the fact—as stated by a British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—that "there is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Dr. Wakefield's] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked."[33]" The facts: The retracted papers says "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. ... If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. ... We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine." Wikipedia says: "In spreading such fear, acted dishonestly and for mercenary motives in that, although he improperly failed to disclose the fact, he planned a rival vaccine and products (such as a diagnostic kit based on his theory) that could have made his fortune" The facts: The patent was for the "treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and regressive behavioural disorder", not a rival vaccine. http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2328503/summary.html?hc_location=ufi Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Do you have any suggestions for improving the article, with WP:RS. I cannot see any suggestions above, nor in your noticeboard posting. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I have provided references direct from the sources. These are high quality references. Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC) What do you want to say, using the references you have suggested? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, I'd like to know that too. There's hardly any point in refuting this stuff yet again, but I feel obliged to make a few point-by-point comments: The paper was indeed proved fraudulent, and no amount of quoting from the fraudulent paper itself argues against the fact that it was. If you want to assert that the claim of fraudulence is incorrect, you'll have to quote a reliable source to that effect. The decline in vaccination rates and increased disease incidence is well documented. There have been epidemics in Wales and the US already. I've cited sources to that effect in a section above. The article doesn't say anything about an "increase in deaths" -- only that the increased number of cases of measles and mumps has resulted in serious illness and deaths. The claim that Wakefield's other papers have not been retracted may or may not be true; but so what? 10 of 12 co-authors published a direct retraction; the source is cited in the article. Wakefield keeps repeating that he didn't assert a causal relationship between MMR and autism, but he certainly did during the press conference two days before the paper’s publication (how many scientific papers have press conferences?) and he has done so numerous times since then, right up until February of this year. Did you read the patent application that you linked? The first sentence under "Description" begins, "The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prevention and/or prophylaxis against measles virus infection ..." (Emphasis is mine.) He now asserts that the "invention" was not a vaccine, but his own patent application says otherwise. Yet another fib. And regardless of what you want to call it, it still represents an undisclosed conflict of interest, which is a serious ethical breech. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC) @ DoctorJoeE, "The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prevention and/or prophylaxis against measles virus infection ..." You should know that this is what Patent Lawyers do to cover everything when submitting a patent. Transfer Factors are of most use when there is no vaccine or when a vaccine proves ineffective. Stop your pseudo-medical-science gobbledy gook and nit picking based on solely your main-steam ideology - it makes me cringe to read though some of your comments here.--Aspro (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC) @Aspro: Read the patent application. In the Claims section Wakefield specifically states that the two intended uses are “as a vaccine for prophylaxis against persistent measles virus infection” and “as therapy for IBD and/or RBD.” These claims are spelled out in detail in the Descriptions section. He first states that MMR “has been shown to be instrumental in the development of Crohn’s disease and other forms of inflammatory bowel disease … and … also results in ileal nodular lymphoid hyperplasia, chronic colitis, and regressive developmental disorder including autism in some infants.” (He had not, of course, “shown” any of this, nor has he since, nor has anyone else.) He goes on: “What is needed, therefore, is a safer vaccine that does not give rise to these problems … I have now discovered a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer to neonates and others by way of vaccination, but which also can be used to treat IBD, whether as a complete cure or to eliminate symptoms. The compositions of the present invention have the ability not only to condition the recipient to raise a specific immune response to MMR and measles virus when used as a vaccine, but also to reestablish the appropriate antiviral immune response of the immune system to persistent measles virus infection in IBD.” Later, to be sure we get the point: “The compositions may be particularly adapted for use as a vaccine, or for use as therapy for IBD or RBD.” (Emphasis added.) This is all painfully clear – and yet Wakefield has continually denied characterizing his “invention” as a vaccine. If you need further proof, in his business plan he stated, as one of his objectives, “Establish the potential of the high specific active preparations as a potential measles vaccine.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Whether transfer factor can work as a vaccine - or works at all - is a whole other discussion. (Short answers: probably not, and maybe/inadequate data.) If the truth makes you cringe, so be it. What makes me cringe are ethical lapses committed in the name of treating disabled children. Everything I have written here is verifiable with a rudimentary literature search. Most of the sources are already linked, either on this page or in the article, or both. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 06:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Woo, hang on there buster... Read what I said above about patent lawyers covering every possibility! That is what they are paid to do. TF can be a godsend if no vaccine is yet available (as in embola). Yet, for you to suggest that a doctor was suggesting (sans patent lawyer) that his TF could displace vaccine as a main line prophylactic is is a joke. That's why your misunderstanding make me cringe. How could TF be considered as an alternative to vaccine – how does one get enough TF to satisfy the Number needed to treat. A third year med student could read through that paper and and make sense of it – that is why your naïvety make me cringe. As for ethical lapses, it was found in a court of law (not on technicality as you put it but by a discovery of whom did what and when – which is if you don't know is called forensics). Result - the GMC's claims of ethical lapses all fell on stoney ground. Sit on the bottom of the stairs and think about it. Do you want to spend the rest of your life as a mere technician, that mindlessly goes through the motions, doing what you have been told to do and blame your failures on the short comings of your patients not to respond to orthodox treatment or do you really want to discover and advance medial knowledge. Can you step out and see the wood from the trees? Your previous replies have already lead me to a conclusion. --Aspro (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Aspro, have you a suggestion for improving the article? Allow me to gently remind you that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the subject, nor of making disparaging comments about your fellow editors. [[]]Chihuahua 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC) @Killer (aka Chihuahua) I was replying to DoctorJoeE comments. Take it up with him not to use this talk page as his forum. Then I would not have had any reason to reply.--Aspro (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC) @Aspro From my perspective, DoctorJoeE was answering someone's questions, and doing so in an accurate way based on the documented facts. Whereas you appear to be trolling on ideological grounds in a manner that's inappropriate for a Talk page. What's the point? DaveSeidel (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Aspro has responded to the issues regarding the patent better than I ever could have. The fact remains that the patent continues to be written about incorrectly in the Wikipedia page. Wikipedia should not make interpretations, and can only merely report the accurate truths. What Brian Deer has done with the patent application is hgihlight the bits that suit him, and leave out the rest that changes the context completely. TO address @DoctorJoeE other points: The GMC hearing does not prove him to be fraudulent, these notes are linked from the Wikipedia page. It found him to be "dishonest" because he failed to disclose info and they found a loophole in his ethical approval. The loophole in the ethical approval is discussed at length in the GMC notes, and Walker-Smith was later exonerated. Despite the fact the article DOES allude to an increase in deaths, there also is no evidence of an increase in the incidence in England and Wales either: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192945/http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733802298 If you continue to claim that measles did rise following the 1998 paper, you'll have to help me find where this is that contradicts the evidence i have provided to you? The focus is 100% on his retracted paper, while no mention is made of his other papers. Omitting this information is heavily biased. The 10 co-authors did not issue a retraction, they issued a retraction of an interpretation. This distinction is quite important if you want to be unbiased. Wakefield issued a concern about a relationship in the media between MMR and autism, but NOT in the paper. Reporting otherwise in Wikipedia is misleading and incorrect. Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Well, if you really can't come up with a better response to the patent question than a blind ad hominem, that's rather unfortunate. Please tell us exactly what the article "writes incorrectly" about the patent application, and what content you consider inaccurate. There's a description, with sourcing, and a verbatim quote, one of many, discussing transfer factor as a therapeutic agent and as a prophylaxis -- a treatment and a vaccine -- and a link to a PDF of the entire application, so that readers can judge for themselves whether the quote is out of context or not. Wakefield's denial is also quoted. Day 31 of the GMC hearing went into great detail about the patent: "Those were the matters encompassed in that patent -- the actual pharmaceutical composition itself and its use as a vaccine and its use as a treatment therapy." (page 29) That "accurate truth" should probably be added as well. To the other points: What in the world is a "loophole in his ethical approval"? I've read the entire GMC transcript. (Have you? If not, you can download a zip file of the entire thing here.) The committee certainly discussed his numerous ethical violations at length, and BMJ and others concluded that the research was not just unethically financed but also fraudulent (timelines were misrepresented, for example, to suggest direct culpability of the vaccine). So that's what we've reported, with appropriate citations. I've already explained several times why Walker-Smith was not "exonerated", and why his case is not relevant to Wakefield's anyway. I've cited documentation (above) of the rise in disease incidence following the decrease in vaccination rate. How many more do you want? Here is one, and another, and another, and another . Lots more, if you want them. WebMD reported that "in 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales. The BMJ says hundreds of thousands of children in the U.K. are unprotected as a result of the scare." And one more: "What are the repercussions of Wakefield's false hypothesis? Perhaps most important is that we have seen a drop in the rates of the MMR vaccine in a number of places, no more so than in the UK. Two boys have died of the disease, and the number of cases of measles has skyrocketed from just 56 cases in 1998 to nearly 1,400 in 2008 (Health Protection Agency, 2009). These rates are even more alarming given that measles had been nearly eradicated through vaccination." Doesn't get much clearer than that. Why do you think Wakefield's other papers are relevant? If I published 100 perfect, elegant, meticulously researched articles and one stinky, fraudulent, unethical, totally unsupported one, they would be after my license too, and deservedly so. But beyond that, your statement simply isn't true. As noted (and sourced) in the article already, a 2010 paper in Neurotoxicology was withdrawn while it was still in press (but published online), and the American Journal of Gastroenterology retracted another one, also in 2010. The status of the rest are unclear; the few I found on PubMed looked okay -- but the basic point is that publishing a few honest papers doesn't grant you license to write a dishonest one. I’m not sure what your complaint is about the “retraction of interpretation”. When Lancet found out that Wakefield had been paid by a lawyer who was filing vaccine injury litigation, and that the parents of some of the children in the study were plaintiffs, it contacted the co-authors of the article and asked -- given this massive undisclosed conflict of interest -- whether they still stood by the study’s interpretation. Ten of the 12 said they did not. The article says, specifically, that those co-authors retracted the article’s interpretation. It then quotes the interpretation that they retracted: “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.” It then quotes the rest of the co-authors’ statement: “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) 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.” That’s the current content, word for word. What is your complaint? Here's a direct quote from the article: "Although the paper said that no causal connection had been proven, before it was published, Wakefield made statements at a press conference and in a video news release issued by the hospital, calling for suspension of the triple MMR vaccine until more research could be done." Anything "misleading and incorrect" about that? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC) @DoctorJoeE I have clearly provided evidence of primary sources that refute and prove wrong the news articles you have posted. Please read each of my points in detail, they explain it clearly. To answer your question regarding the "loophole in ethicial approval", if you had read the GMC hearing notes, you would have discovered that the doctors felt they were conducting medically indicated investigations and therefore did not require ethical approval. The GMC concluded otherwise from a clause that was decidedly vague. This is discussed at length in the GMC notes. I have already made it perfectly clear why Dr Walker-Smith WAS exonerated, either on this page or on the complaint I put on the "Biography of living persons noticeboard" (which I can no longer find). I am highly concerned at your lack of willingness to accept clear evidence that contradicts your claims. Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) You are not "perfectly clear". Context means everything, so show us your proposed rewording, with the sources you'd use. That will make it easier to judge whether it would be an improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Agree with BR - please show us your proposal, bearing in mind the comments above. I asked you this question ten days ago, and you have continued to not answer. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 19:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I agree as well; please do that. And while you're at it, please explain why there is any validity to the lame excuse that they "thought" they didn't need IRB approval, when they specifically stated in the article that they had approval. If they thought they didn't need it, why would they include the demonstrably untrue statement that they had it? And by the way, any clinical study involving patients, whether it is "medically indicated" or not, requires IRB approval, and they of course knew that. (The reason they did not seek IRB approval is that they knew full well that they wouldn't get it.) This is all covered at length in the GMC documents, but not at all in the manner in which you state it. And there is already a link, above, to the complete transcript of the Walker-Smith hearing, wherein you can read for yourself why he was not exonerated. I am concerned by your unwillingness to read the actual documents that contradict your assertions. You seem to be relying on the information on the anti-vaccine web sites, which we have repeatedly demonstrated are grossly inaccurate. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) And one other thing: You did not answer any of my specific questions about what statements you consider inaccurate. Please do so. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I don't know how you continue to think Walker-Smith was not exonerated, when I clearly proved you wrong with a quote directly from the judge's determination. Since I think that quote has disappeared, here it is again: "Conclusion For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel's overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion. Miss Glynn submits that the materials which I have been invited to consider would support many of the panel's critical findings; and that I can safely infer that, without saying so, it preferred the evidence of the GMC's experts, principally Professor Booth, to that given by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch and by Dr. Miller and Dr. Thomas. Even if it were permissible to perform such an exercise, which I doubt, it would not permit me to rescue the panel's findings. As I have explained, the medical records provide an equivocal answer to most of the questions which the panel had to decide. The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously. The GMC's approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary – an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel's determination flowed. It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination. The panel's determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed." http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html You are requesting that I rewrite the parts that I think are incorrect, but this is an extremely time consuming tasks. Before I undertake a mammoth tasks, I would like to see changes to the following statement: "Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland and a corresponding rise in measles" which I have clearly proven is wrong with concrete, irrefutable evidence from a primary source (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192945/http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733802298) If I cannot see willingness to edit this page in the face of hard concrete evidence, then please do not request me to waste my time. Goddessofmarshmellows (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Here is why you are misinterpreting the "ethical approval" thing, and why it is irrelevant to this article: In Walker-Smith's appeal hearing, the GMC argued that he was conducting research which required Ethics Committee approval; he argued that he was conducting medical practice, which did not. Justice Mitting ruled that the original panel failed to explain adequately why they concluded that it was research. And that's too bad, because there were a ton of reasons; for example, it’s hard to imagine what clinical indications existed to subject those children to lumbar punctures. (As a clinician, that's what I focused on immediately.) But let's give Walker-Smith the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was duped by Wakefield and actually believed (lumbar punctures notwithstanding) that he was treating the children, and was therefore not a party to Wakefield’s research misconduct. That is completely irrelevant to this article on Andrew Wakefield, and to Wakefield's case: Wakefield could not use that argument -- that he thought he was doing therapy, not research -- because he was a researcher, not a pediatrician like Walker-Smith. He had no authority to treat anybody. He KNEW he was doing research, and unapproved research at that. Plus, Wakefield’s case involved numerous different charges, including four proven counts of dishonesty -- one of which was stating in the Lancet article that he had Ethics Committee approval, when he did not. As to your "primary source", take a look at it. It's a chart of measles notifications, meaning that clinicians notify the government by phone whenever they suspect a measles case. They are required to do this immediately, before any lab confirmation -- and many suspected measles cases turn out to be something else that resembles measles (of which there are many). There is a big difference between measles notifications and documented measles cases. I have given you a half-dozen secondary sources (which trump primary sources on WP), that clearly demonstrate the drop in vaccination rates and resultant surges in measles cases, which continue to this day. By the way, the vast majority of those measles cases are occurring in children who were not vaccinated, so there is no doubt of cause and effect. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Addendum: Another point that should probably be in the article - if it can be properly sourced - is the fact that children who cannot be vaccinated -- because of immune system issues, chronic illnesses, congenital HIV, etc. -- rely on healthy kids being vaccinated. This is called "herd immunity"; the higher the vaccination rate of healthy kids, the safer it is for the sick kids who must go unvaccinated, and for whom measles and other so-called "childhood diseases" carry a substantially higher risk of pneumonia, or encephalitis, or worse. The drop in vaccination rates has significantly compromised herd immunity, thereby further endangering sick and immunocompromised children (and secondarily, immunocompromised adults -- HIV victims and others -- as well). That's an important and often overlooked consequence of the anti-vaccination hysteria. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Props to Docjoey for his contributions here regarding herd immunity, and this page generally. As an adult who cannot use any live vaccines, as they are a danger to my own health, I rely on herd immunity for my own well-being. BTW, I know that wikipedia doesn't do health advice, but nevertheless, our coverage in these areas is good. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry I honestly do not have the time at the moment to continue refuting your statements, but just quickly popping in to point out the "fact" that there is zero scientific evidence that "herd immunity" can be replicated with vaccines. The age groups that are now vulnerable have shifted because of vaccines. But honestly, I'm not asking you to make this article anti-vaccine. There are extremely strong arguments against vaccines, but I'm not asking for this to be published, because I recognise that the mainstream is strongly pro-vaccine and all doctors are very heavily taught (brainwashed) to believe that vaccines are safe and effective, and the benefits outweigh the risks. I recognise that plenty of others will have argued, and failed, so I'm not stupid enough to bother with that debate. All I'm saying is that you can still have your pro-vaccine view and not lie about Andrew Wakefield. Yes they are "lies". You are well aware of the facts, but choose to distort the facts to present a view that is heavily biased. You can do the research yourself, as I have a full time job and family to attend to. goddessofmarshmellows PubMed: herd immunity + vaccines. Go nuts. Kolbasz (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Yes they are "lies". You are well aware of the facts, " For the record, this is an actionable libel. --Yaush (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Calm down, everyone; name-calling is what people resort to when they've run out of cogent arguments. So is "I would show you the truth, but I don't have time" (as if this is a full-time job for any of us). We've done our due diligence, spelled out the hard science, and cited references; some people's beliefs are simply immune to facts, and there's little we can do about that, other than calling out the distortions as they come up. Speaking of which, one need only skim the herd immunity article, and a few of its 70 or so citations, to understand how ridiculous it is to say that "there is zero scientific evidence that herd immunity can be replicated with vaccines." DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Yeah I'm confused by that as well. Vaccines are a means of achieving herd immunity, and a far better one than the natural route of infecting everyone with a disease. Cannolis (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Of course they are. "Zero scientific evidence" infers that the IP who made that astounding proclamation has perused the entire world body of scientific literature, and somehow missed every one of the thousands of ineluctable herd immunity papers dating back to Pasteur and Jenner. In all likelihood, however, he or she simply parroted it from Blaylock's delusional "herd immunity is a myth" screed that makes the Facebook rounds every so often. Don't get me started on Russell Blaylock. I would also point out to that IP — before you leave us to "do our own research", since you can't be bothered — that one of the legions of prominent physicians and research scientists who would challenge your equally unsupportable statement that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits is ... Andrew Wakefield. According to the 2013 letter published by his brother-in-law, "...at no time has Andrew Wakefield advised parents not to get their children vaccinated against measles, mumps or rubella. He advised single vaccinations rather than 'all at once'." Reconcile that. It's also interesting to note that even Wakefield's fiercely protective brother-in-law has seen the writing on the wall, and admits that "...his views on the link between autism and MMR are probably incorrect." DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Let's make this clear. I do not have time to re-write an accurate unbiased article on Wakefield, BECAUSE, the evidence is clear that the facts will be denied. I have pointed out several clear indisputable facts, yet illogical and incorrect reasons have been found to dispute them. For this reason, I am choosing not to compromise my day job when it is clear it is a waste of my time. Somehow, I have managed to be "banned" from posting actual facts on Dr Andrew Wakefield with my account. And you call this legitimate? It is clear that this is all a complete facade. I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, so when I find out how to do so I will be lodging a complaint. Also note, that Wakefield's brother is of zero relevance here. Last note, update yourself on Wakefield's opinion on the mumps vaccine. goddessofmarshmellows

@Goddessofmarshmellows: I see that Guy has hatted this thread, and perhaps he is right. I thought - naively, I guess - that we had cited enough sources to demonstrate that each of your points was pretty much the opposite of indisputable, and I don't know any other ways to say that the clinical evidence speaks for itself.

I couldn't find anything new from Wakefield on the mumps vaccine, so please help me out. I'm curious, because MumpsVax hasn't even been available as a monovalent vaccine since 2009. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know we are allowed to further comment on this, but you asked a question, so I'll answer. My issue with your "proof" is that you use news articles to prove your statements. The primary sources provide evidence that the mainstream news has it wrong. I'm not asking you to exhonerate Wakefield, however I am requesting that less bias is published and only succinct facts are included. Still shame Wakefield how you wish, but don't make random statements that can be clearly proven false (eg. Deaths from measles increased after the 1998 paper came out). Deaths did not increase, so do NOT imply that it did.

Wakefield's online statement on mumps can be viewed here: (oh lol and behold the link is on a block list. Bias in action. YouTube id: BASKGep-CH0)

goddessofmarshmellows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.49.124 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

FAQ

I think we've all seen enough well-intentioned newcomers trying to "balance" this article, I have put together a draft FAQ, please feel free to wordsmith it.

• Talk:Andrew Wakefield/FAQ

I will sprotect it for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I've been working on something similar, so with your permission I'll add some things as time permits. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am skeptical this will make much difference, but I like it. --Yaush (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Great initiative! Personally, I'd like a small change of A1 from

A1: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. The article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Wikipedia, and the balance must accurately reflect the balance in those sources according to their reliability.

to

A1: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. While the article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Wikipedia, the balance must accurately reflect the balance in those sources according to their reliability.

IMO, this makes the due weight issue clearer from the get-go. Kolbasz (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

call me naive or new or even "stupid", but since when is mainstream media "reliable". Please find additional non-media sources that prove your defamatory statements about Wakefield, especially when the primary sources contradict several claims in this page. Goddessofmarshmellows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.49.124 (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, we can take that as another endorsement. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor?

Hello. It is gratifying to see that this article is being shepherded so conscientiously. A quick question: the subject is referred to in the article as "Dr. Wakefield". Since he is no longer a licensed physician, should it not be "Mr. Wakefield"? PPP 21:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No. He lost his license but not his degree, so he is still entitled to be addressed as "Dr. Wakefield". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any place in the article where he is referred to as "Dr. Wakefield" (instead of just "Wakefield") in Wikipedia's voice? I only looked quickly, but it seems that instances of the former usage are generally where we are directly quoting text or referring to document titles from outside sources. We don't usually elide or emend direct quotations to match our own house style, and obviously we can't change the titles of documents that we cite. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can think of one, in the last paragraph of the lede -- but I believe that one is indeed part of a direct quote. I'll do a quick copyedit when time permits to see if there are any examples outside of quotes or titles. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For editors reverting my edits, please discuss here

Thanks. Realskeptic (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

See Historical revisionism and Talk:Andrew_Wakefield/Archive_2#Helpful_source.3F. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, it's pretty obvious that Realskeptic is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to push fringe opinions. They have been warned about discretionary sanctions, but have not heeded them. It's time for a block to prevent them from wasting more of our time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

They've been blocked for 1 week by another admin. Those who wish to change the narrative of the article have to know by now that unilateral edits won't stick. Either propose smaller changes on the talk page and get consensus or start a RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, this latest disruption and edit warring has happened immediately after returning from their block, so a longer block is warranted. Maybe a topic ban as well, all under discretionary sanctions. There is no need for any longer process. You have the power and right to do something to protect Wikipedia. Otherwise "discretionary sanctions" has no meaning at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I cannot act as an admin on this page. My prior edits and talk page posts make me involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The ratio of constructive to counterproductive edits in Realskeptic's history doesn't fill me with confidence, and I expect that after his current one-week block Realskeptic will almost certainly return to making tendentious edits to this page and others related to vaccination—but I am always willing to be pleasantly surprised. Right now we're enjoying at least a one-week reprieve from his disruptive editing, and if he resumes it when he returns, the WP:AE filing will be very straightforward. In the meantime, carry on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I now see that you were referring to a second block. I didn't notice that. I also understand your "involved" situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mail as source

Firstly, I don't think people should get sniffy about the London Daily Mail, whose website I believe is the number one news source in the world. That may not appeal to you, but I think it's true. The organization has a street address, staff, and so forth. But, more important than this, the paragraph to which I have added the source states what Wakefield is "known for". That is the purpose of my putting in this source. If you read it, the article directly refers to the Wakefield fraud, evidencing better than any of the other sources what he is known for. It's not there a question of what he did, but what he is known for. And he is known for his fraud.Dallas66 (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dallas66, you may be interested in going through the Daily Mail-related discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem with people getting stuck in the rut of these things. The Mail is clearly an impeccable source on someone's reputation. Arguably, it's the best. Plainly much better than any other source in that paragraph. Dallas66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I never ever thought I'd see the words 'impeccable' and 'The Mail' in the same sentence. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement was adequately referenced already. The Mail story doesn't make any special comment on his reputation, and given its redundancy and what is already at RS/N I don't think it should be used. Brunton (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the relevant passage, which I think is making clear what Wakefield is known for', as opposed to some editor who wants to insert that Wakefield is known (to his sister) for playing banjo: 'Fears about vaccines and autism began to spread after the publication in 1998 of an article by Andrew Wakefield that purported to find a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in 12 children. It was later found to be fraudulent and was retracted by the journal that published it.' If he is known to the Mail for that, then I would say he's known to the world for that. Which is not sourced as well anywhere else. Dallas66 (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As noted, the statement was already referenced, no need to add something from the Mail (ever....). No consensus for this addition. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Wakefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with that last edit

This was just removed from the extant article

After a nearly three-year hearing, Britain's General Medical Council found Andrew Wakefield guilty of "serious professional misconduct" in the way he carried out his research in the late 1990s. The council struck his name from the U.K.'s medical register. ref Whalen, Jeanne. "U.K. Bans Doctor Who Linked Autism to Vaccine". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-02-08./ref

With the comment that the text already exists elsewhere. I do not agree, I believe that the proposed change should be reverted. Anyone else care to weigh in? Damotclese (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That Wakefield was struck off the register is already mentioned at the end of the 3rd paragraph of the lead. Why do you propose repeating this material? Yobol (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting "repeating the material." Begging the question Damotclese (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the adding of that text would, in fact, be repeating the same point about being struck off the register in separate paragraphs in the lead, I ask again, why it would be useful to do that. Yobol (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

it is covered here in its own section, and already summarised in the lead, so no, that edit is redundant, re-inserting it would be silly, and tautology. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Wakefield was struck off the register, and a more-detailed description of the gross professional misconduct which caused it to happen, is already covered in the third paragraph of the lede:

"On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.[12] The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.[13][14][15] The Lancet fully retracted the 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified.[16] The Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton said the paper was "utterly false" and that the journal had been "deceived".[17] Three months following The Lancet's retraction, Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register, with a statement identifying deliberate falsification in the research published in The Lancet,[18] and was barred from practising medicine in the UK.[19]"

There's no need to restate the same facts in a less-detailed manner two paragraphs later. I suppose it uses a different quote, but aside from that I struggle to see how you aren't suggesting "repeating the material", Damotclese. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed

I added some material about the new film "Vaxxed" but it was (almost immediately) reverted by user Yobol citing "undue weight". The material was:

In 2016, Wakefield, described as "the British gastroenterologist falsely accused of starting the anti-vax movement when he first reported in 1998 that the MMR vaccine may cause autism", directed the documentary film Vaxxed. The film purports to show "an appalling cover-up committed by the government agency charged with protecting the health of American citizens [the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] ... an alarming deception that has contributed to the skyrocketing increase of autism and potentially the most catastrophic epidemic of our lifetime." The film was withdrawn from New York's 2016 Tribeca Film Festival after the festival's founder Robert de Niro (who has a child with autism) reversed his decision to include it.

It does not contain an opinion. I have read WP:UNDUE. I started a new Section because it doesn't fit any other section. It is germane because, among other things, it explains what the Subject has been doing these past few years. Can Yobol or another Wikipedean explain please? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 27 Feb 16

This happened yesterday, literally. Let's wait and see what due weight will be given it when the tempest has settled down in the teapot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies because the material did not include any of the widespread criticism of de Niro's decision to screen the film — e.g. that it would have given Wakefield a high-profile platform to continue sharing his misinformed and repeatedly discredited claims — nor why de Niro reversed that decision — whether it was a response to that criticism, or something else. I agree, there is no reason to rush into including this material. If the information in the documentary turns out to be just as misleading, or flat-out incorrect, as the information in his book, it will fail notability guidelines and be worthy of a sentence or two, at most. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Even if we were to add a mention of the film to Wikipedia's article, the text added by Shhhnotsoloud (diff) would be problematic. About two thirds of it is just directly quoting from the film's website, with the unfortunate effect of 'back-dooring' in a bunch of POV nonsense. For example, starting off the edit with "In 2016, Wakefield, described as 'the British gastroenterologist falsely accused of..." is both factually incorrect and entirely superfluous, as it appears at the bottom of an encyclopedia article that already describes exactly who Wakefield is. The actual film description is credulous self-promotional nonsense, as it's just a rehashing of the thoroughly debunked 'CDC whistleblower' non-story. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This is moving quickly. I do not agree with Dbrodbeck (and neither it seems do many Wikipedeans) that we should wait and see. Vaxxed is now a new Main Article. Another user has introduced text about Vaxxed but in an inappropriate place (I don't think it's primarily to do with MMR). I have reverted it and replaced it (see later). If in the future it's a storm in a tea cup then delete it...in the future. I don't agree with DoctorJoeE - what you say is about balance not weight. Adding more text might give the episode more (undue?) weight but I have done so, as you suggest. I agree with TenOfAllTrades but I think it's important to refer to Wakefield's self-description (carefully-chosen words, I imagine) as context - it is indeed balanced by the rest of this Article. If you can find a form of words to replace my new "controversially" which I admit is weasly, then please help. And if you can source something about the 'CDC whistleblower non-story' it might be useful here or in the Main Article Vaxxed. And if there's somewhere else it should be rather than its own section then please move it. Please don't just delete it. Thanks all, and I hope this satisfies Yobol. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, but here, at this point, consensus is clearly against you. I wouldn't be surprised to see the "Vaxxed" article tagged for speedy deletion fairly soon. And you're right, adding "controversially" doesn't justify restoring that incorrect and redundant sentence, so I've removed it. I've let the rest of it stand for the moment, but I still believe it fails WP:UNDUE. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you DoctorJoeE Shhhnotsoloud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Wakefield leaves hospital

As the reference from the original reporting shows, Wakefield was asked to leave after he didn't replicate the MMR-autism paper, not Crohn's. Please do not revert this unless you have some better source than the reporter here. Dallas66 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite right; for some reason I thought the MMR-autism paper came out in 1995. My mistake. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Substitute Lipkin for Offit

I have replaced a review quote by Offit with one by Lipkin. Offit is the voice of industry, his comments are not well focused or accurate, and I can't see that every vaccine issue requires his opinion. He's already quoted elsewhere in this article. WSJ is also a superior source.Dallas66 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Wakefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150403100720/http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/05/health/AP-EU-MED-Autism-Fraud.html to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/05/health/AP-EU-MED-Autism-Fraud.html?

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

fail GangofOne (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)