Talk:Andrew Wakefield/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Facts

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.

---

I suggest including the facts that Dr. John Walker-Smith was a study co-author and that the GMC rulings were completely overturned in 2012 are pertinent to this BLP. To continue to call the study fraudulent is the equivalent of continuing to call a person a murderer after he was found innocent on appeal. It would also be nice to see the study accurately portrayed as simply identifying the gastrointestinal disturbance of many autistic children as unique and that there was some suggestion that the MMR shot may play a role in that gastrointestinal disease. Subsequently, Wakefield suggested that separate shots rather than the 3 in 1 might be prudent for some children. It has been reported in alternative press that the only reason Wakefield's license was not reinstated was his insurance would not pay for the appeal while Walker-Smith's would. That said, if the findings of the GMC were overturned, it would have been the rational and logical act to reinstate Wakefield's license as well as the paper. That the GMC and science journals have not done so is beyond the scope of this BLP, but nonetheless interesting material that I suggest the editors take into consideration when they choose their pejorative adjectives. See http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/07/mmr-row-doctor-appeal and http://www.eastwoodslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Walker-Smith.pdf Seabreezes1 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

My two edits to this article that were immediately undone within minutes of posting:

First paragraph:

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 1957) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, and lead author on a 1998 research paper suggesting there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of a bowel disease linked with autism. John Walker-Smith was the senior co-author of this paper.

Paragraph under GMC

Co-author John Walker-Smith appealed the GMC decision and prevailed. The 2012 ruling by Mr. Justice Mitting quashed the GMC findings and reinstated Dr. Walker-Smith's medical license. The judge said of the 2010 GMC handling, "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again." Specifically, the 2012 finding overturned both the findings of research misconduct and the sanction of erasure, citing "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion."

Seabreezes1 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

References

This has been discussed multiple times. First, Walker-Smith's case is irrelevant to this article. Second, Walker-Smith was not exonerated; that is not what the appeal hearing was about. The hearing was about the GMC panel's procedure only. Justice Mitting did not address the question of whether Walker-Smith's actions were medically necessary or ethical; he was only ruling on the decision-making of the panel, and he found aspects of it to be flawed. He wrote that the panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith and Wakefield had conducted unauthorized research (as opposed to simply rendering treatment) on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason. The problem, and the reason for overturning the panel’s decision, was incomplete explanation. The GMC elected not to send the case back to the panel – or convene a new panel – to better explain its determinations because Walker-Smith had by then retired, so his license revocation had become a moot point.

Wakefield’s case was entirely different. He filed an appeal but did not pursue it (on the advice of his own attorneys) because he could not argue that he was rendering treatment; he was a researcher, not a clinician like Walker-Smith, and thus by definition was conducting research. Furthermore, Wakefield’s case involved more serious charges, including four proven counts of dishonesty, as explained in the article. Justice Mitting made it very clear that quashing Walker-Smith’s disciplinary action did not alter the basic truth: "Today’s ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism … there is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Wakefield's] hypothesis that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.” So no, it is not pertinent to this article, and there is broad consensus for that conclusion in archived discussions. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Great points, thanks DoctorJoeE Zad68 19:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Valid and polite response, thank you. Although, there is still much more to the story, albeit in book form rather than mainstream press. I still suggest the highly pejorative and inflammatory language in this and other Wiki articles on scientific controversy is more akin to tabloid press than its self-identification as a "encyclopedia" and that there should be mention of John Walker-Smith. See Science for Sale by EPA whistleblower David L. Lewis, EPA microbiologist. Because he was attacked by journalist Brian Deer who also attacked Wakefield, he delved into the Wakefield case : http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sale-Government-Corporations-Universities/dp/1626360715 Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Referring to Deer's journalistic coverage as an "attack" might be considered by some to be highly perjorative and inflammatory... DaveSeidel (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I would say that your synopsis of Lewis' relevance and interactions with Brian Deer seems a bit...one-sided, where it's not flatly wrong. Among other things, Lewis attacked Deer, not the other way around; Deer had never heard of Lewis before Lewis started his campaign. And Lewis' attacks on Deer started because Deer reported on Wakefield's wrongdoing; it wasn't an independent interaction as you seem to be suggesting. Lewis certainly isn't a disinterested party, and it's questionable whether he's a remotely competent one. Deer has commented on Lewis' abuse: [1]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We have had that discussion before as well. Lewis's book was not considered even worthy of mention by mainstream media, with the exception of a summary in a science blog of the section on sewage sludge -- something that Lewis might actually know something about, since he's an environmental biologist of some sort. The unsupported nonsense he wrote concerning Wakefield's case has absolutely no secondary WP:RS support that I'm aware of. Also, after acknowledging my explanation of Walker-Smith's irrelevance to this article as "valid", you continue to suggest that his decision reversal should be mentioned in the article. Why? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've heard that 2 weeks in politics is a long time and things are getting confused here by very, very old stuff. Dr. Walker-Smith's case is relevant to this article because if you went to a hospital with some complex problem ( co-morbid is the medial term) would you not expect to be seen by more than one specialist (unless your very fortunate and your diagnostician is Gregory House but thats TV fiction). Dr Walker-Smith, on finding out that some of his patents referred to the hospital where also those of Dr. Wakefield naturally discussed it with him. Thats the way real hospital teams work together. So the court case showed what the CMC failed to do, which was realize that it was on Dr Walker-Smith's initiative not Dr. Wakefield's to find out what was causing their co-morbid bowl problems. Therefore, it was not Dr. Wakefield that subjected these children to invasive tests. Which is why the judge suggested in so many words that the GMC should get their act together in future. So this article is woefully out of date. Also, and perhaps because the GMC case was stretched over two years (217 days in total) they got “Project 172-96” & “Project 172-95” confused. So again the GMC got it wrong about ethical approve not being granted. By all mean quote verifiable source but favor the up-to date ones over the confusions brought about by the GMC deliberations. Eastwoods Solicitors. Walker-Smith.pdf--Aspro (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"'Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent.' This statement was untrue and should not have been included in the paper." - Judge Mitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas66 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The article is out of date, biased and misrepresents facts. Would also like to add, using the term "attack" in Talk is not the same as in the article, as Talk is basically the social media thrashing that should result in a fairer encyclopedic entry. Also want to say that "consensus" is constantly being misused. Consensus is not the same thing as majority rule or succumbing to the most persistent and loudest voice. Consensus means no one has a considerable objection. I just am not interested in putting in the energy to pursue this topic, however, I absolutely feel that the omission of mention of Walker-Smith and the Mitting reversal is a glaring omission motivated by a POV. That POV is also furthered by the coat-hooking in this BLP. It should be much shorter and with less inflammatory language. Seabreezes1 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, unless you can come up with some WP:RS to support those charges, your comments amount to WP:NOTHERE as well as WP:IDHT. The argument that Walker-Smith wrote the orders for the invasive testing, and that that somehow absolves Wakefield, has been discussed before, and makes absolutely no sense; the orders would not have been written if Wakefield had not designed his fraudulent "study" in the first place. Wakefield needed a clinician to admit the children and write the actual orders, since he could not do so in his capacity as a researcher. Walker-Smith later tried to claim that he didn't know they were doing research, which was a complete reversal of what he wrote in his 2003 self-published memoir. He changed his story yet again in 2012. And as Dallas66 noted, Justice Mitting emphasized that Wakefield's and Walker-Smith's claim that "investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent" was totally false. This is clearly stated in the transcript that Aspro linked, above. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Re charges of WP:NOTHERE as well as WP:IDHT, I would like to further participate in building an encyclopedia. I enjoy research and clear expression of dry facts and often serve as the "honest broker" in work situations. However, my objection to continuing is the frustration of rapid undoing of any small edit, i.e. removing a pejorative adjective. Moreover, in response to DoctorJoeE and Aspro, that Mitting comment was taken out of context in order to misrepresent the fact that ethical approval was NOT necessary for the study. In other words, the "error" was clerical, so the charges in this BLP are inaccurate. MItting in context:

"...because it was a clinically driven investigation which did not require Ethics Committee approval. Dr. Murch said that Dr. Wakefield had assured them that he would liaise with the Lancet to ensure that appropriate wording was substituted. The wording in the published paper which neither Dr. Murch nor Professor Walker-Smith saw before publication was, “Ethical approval and consent Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent.” This statement was untrue and should not have been included in the paper."

Regarding consensus, I hope my contributions to TALK clarifies the facts and informs the opinions of other editors who will be able to edit this item with a fairer perspective. Seabreezes1 (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is; the context doesn't change anything. Wakefield and Walker-Smith's assertions that the research (such as it was) that they conducted was approved by the Ethical Practices Committee, and that the patients' parents gave informed consent, were blatant lies. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

My point is, it is NOT a blatant lie. From that section of the Mitting transcript which I posted in its entirety, it is obvious it was a clerical error. There was no need for ethical approval, and that boilerplate language was meant to be replaced with other boilerplate. Seabreezes1 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This, for me, is today's 'facepalm' moment. I think CIR might be appropriate here, for anybody who thinks "There was no need for ethical approval." Good Grief man, those kids were given epidurals all for the sake of Wakefield's fraudulent research. Sheesh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

People who actually do research know when ethical approval is required. You get issued a certificate and a protocol number. Well put Roxy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

"Facepalm moment" indeed. Sometimes you wonder whether these folks actually believe the disinformation coming out of the antivax crankosphere, or don't understand that it's disinformation -- and I'm not sure which is worse. But in the spirit of WP:AGF, let's assume they don't understand the crux of Walker-Smith's defense, which was that Wakefield never disclosed to him that they were doing research (which required ethics committee approval), as opposed to simply delivering medical care (which did not). Mitting ruled that the GMC never proved that Walker-Smith knew that Wakefield's research was research -- which is hard to believe, given that it obviously was research, and Walker-Smith had previously stated in print that it was research -- and what other reason could anyone possibly have for doing lumbar punctures on children who had no neurologic symptoms? But the assertion that Walker-Smith was unaware that ethics committee approval was required—even if true—does not mean it wasn't required. Everyone agrees that it was, and that the statement in the Lancet paper that they had such approval was a lie -- and Mitting said so. And of course, there is no question that Wakefield knew he was conducting research, and that he falsely claimed he had committee approval for it. So please stop the nonsense about "clerical errors". That's the professional equivalent of "the dog ate my homework". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Put aside the antivax crankosphere, for a moment, read and digest the ruling. The GMC hearing left out that their was indeed ethical approval for the clinical investigations – which the children would have undergone anyway under 162/95 even if Wakfield had not been there. So your statement that it was a lie reiterates the factual inexactitudes created by the GMC which only focused on on the ethical approval document of 172-96. Transcription error may have occured but that can't be constituted as a lie. Transcription errors of often occur but the paper trail presented to Mitting showed that the clinical investigations were appropriate and covered by 162/95. So why should this article fixate on just those RS's that got fed bum factual inexactitudes by the GMC? We are supposed to be an encyclopedia and with the advantage that many of us can keep up-to date and correct factual errors – such is done on other articles.--Aspro (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the famous 162-95 maneuver. For the uninitiated, this is where Wakefield and his supporters try to mire us in details to create "reasonable doubt". He claimed that the approval in place for project 162-95 covered him. The GMC rejected that idea:

The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.

What was the evidence? The answer is too long to reproduce here -- but it all boils down to the fact that project 162-95 allowed Walker-Smith to take two extra biopsies for research purposes when he did colonoscopies. Wakefield argued, in essence, that since those two biopsies were permitted, all the other invasive procedures they did, including lumbar punctures, would have been approved too, if he had requested approval! Did that silly excuse ever work with your mom? The fact remains that he didn't request approval -- so the ethics-approval statement in the Lancet article is false, and Justice Mitting reaffirmed that it was false. So yes, we're an encyclopedia; we deal in facts supported by reliable sources -- and it's a fact that the Walker-Smith ruling left untouched the charges proved against Wakefield, e.g. that he conducted research without ethics committee approval, falsely claimed in the Lancet paper that he had such approval, did not disclose conflicts of interest, etc., etc. ad nauseum. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a truism that you can't construct an argument on mixed premises. This is what Seabreezes1 and I are hoping you'll realize (but perhaps cognitive dissonance is getting in the way). Walker-Smith was investing the children's abdominal discomfort, (have you heard that patients can have 'comorbidity' – suffer from more than one condition?) So it was only retrospectively that the GMC could level this claim about doing Wakefield research for him, which as we now know is moot, as Wakefield did not ask for the test to be done but they happened serendipitously all the same - due to clinical need, which Mitting accepted as being justified. In other words there was no “162-95 maneuver” as you put it. So, this article still contains out of date stuff, which if not corrected could be considered potentially libelous. Yes, we deal in facts, and now the facts have surfaced we must correct factual inexactitudes.--Aspro (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is why WP doesn't use primary sources; they nearly always force editors to draw their own conclusions, which constitutes original research. You have apparently concluded, from reading Judge Mitting's ruling, that he found that the investigations were clinically indicated. What he actually found was that the GMC panel’s decision that they were not indicated could not stand, because the panel did not adequately explain its conclusion. (This was largely due to a change in the law based on a court ruling, issued after the GMC hearing but before Walker-Smith's hearing, requiring GMC to be be more detailed in its explanations in complex cases.) But any competent clinician will tell you that you don't investigate "abdominal discomfort" (which is almost always due to constipation in autistic children) with a 5-day battery of invasive procedures, including ileocolonoscopies under general anesthesia, lumbar punctures, MRI brain scans with radioactive contrast, EEGs, and x-rays. That kind of testing never "happens serendipitously". The only thing that changed "retrospectively" was the defendants' stories: First, they issued a statement asserting that the testing was approved by the Royal Free's ethics committee under 172-96 and 162-95. After being confronted with proof to the contrary at the GMC hearing, they repudiated that statement and—despite clear rules—now argue they needed no approval. This is what reliable secondary sources, which are reflected in the article, say. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And so goes the conversation, forgetting what the object was in the first place, i.e. to remove a couple of the more inflammatory adjectives from the introductory paragraph and insert a reference to Walker-Smith into this BLP which appears more of an opportunity coat hooking for a POV than BLP. See my original suggested edits in this TALK section. Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So after 2 weeks of disruption -- after several different editors have explained in several different ways that the Walker-Smith decision left untouched the proven charges against Wakefield, and is therefore completely irrelevant to this article -- you are now proposing that we reconsider your original edit, which was roundly rejected? That's as obvious a case of WP:IDHT as I've ever seen. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

An original edit whose first sentence is "I suggest including the facts that Dr. John Walker-Smith was a study co-author and that the GMC rulings were completely overturned in 2012 are pertinent to this BLP..." as if there was nothing detailing why consensus is against these proposals, indeed I find nothing in this thread to convince me that we should deviate from NPOV in any way. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Vaccine legal scholar Dorit Rubinstein Reiss has more than adequately addressed the conflation of Smith's "exoneration" and Wakefield's intentional deceit and fraud. They are two different things.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And her address on this particular issue was already moot before she wrote it. So it can be disregarded as a report of fact. Halo, I see a light on upstairs is anybody home? For anybody having trouble in following this -its here: [2] It would have been right, if she had gotten her facts right. It should have been easy for her to double check.--Aspro (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The best you can do is insult someone? Good for you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting very WP:POINTy, and needs to cease. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It won't and should not cease. Other editors here made valid points that this page is written in a way that utterly contradicts unchallenged legal findings, but their concerns are dismissed not on facts but on irrelevant conjecture concerning what "any competent clinician will tell you [us]". DoctorJoeE may be a doctor of sorts, but that does not give him a right to use his clinical judgement to determine how the article should be written especially after lecturing everybody else about not using original research. John Walker-Smith was a very competent physician, arguably the most competent paediatric gastroenterologist in the world at that time. But even that aside, the subject has directly addressed all the accusations here and those need to be properly weighed against the allegations against him with full consideration to the facts: http://vaxxedthemovie.com/dr-andrew-wakefield-deals-with-allegations/ As long as that does not happen, this entire biography will be nothing more than a poorly sourced attack page maintained by a faction of POV-pushing editors determined to malign the subject. Fissure152 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"Walker-Smith was arguably the most competent pediatric gastroenterologist in the world"? Really? Who is making that argument? And how is it relevant, considering, as we have pointed out innumerable times, that the Walker-Smith decision specifically left the proven charges against Wakefield untouched? And if you want to argue that the article does not "give full consideration to the facts", you'll have to do a lot better than invoking the "Vaxxed" website, which fails WP:RS in just about every possible way. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 10:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It is relevant since you used your own clinical judgement to second-guess a legal finding in favor of somebody who has actual expertise in paediatric gastroenterology. Since the findings described in the paper were obtained through clinical investigations, the charges of unethical research and dishonesty against Wakefield could not stand. Given that the source is an actual video of him refuting all the allegations point by point and that the film is directed by the person the page is about, it meets criteria fine. What does not meet criteria is briandeer.com - a self-published source by someone who has dedicated much of his career to attacking the person being discussed. That's just one of many examples of how this is an attack page that needs to be rewritten entirely. Fissure152 (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:RS, if you think that the subject himself, denying charges against him on a video, constitutes some sort of reliable source. And please give us some examples of Deer's reporting that is inaccurate. And once again, the judge said specifically that the decision on Walker-Smith did not apply in any way to Wakefield, whose case was entirely different. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have, the subject of a BLP is a perfectly reliable source. What is not is a self-published, personal website of someone other than the subject and who is known to attack him. Using that as a source while omitting any scholarly or academic defense of or by the subject makes this an attack page. The judge did not say what you claim. What he said was that the GMC used faulty reasoning and wrong conclusions to determine that the Lancet paper was part of a litigation-funded research project. So the GMC's findings against Wakefield's ethics and honesty are overturned as well. That is the only reasonable conclusion one can draw. Fissure152 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can find anything that is inaccurate, mistaken, or wrong on the extant page, please point to it so that it may be corrected. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Saying that he was unethical, dishonest and committed research fraud is inaccurate, and that has been pretty clearly demonstrated by other editors here. The article is simply an attack page. Fissure152 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of WP:IDHT, since there is abundant material evidence, documented in reliable sources, that he is all of those things. You were asked to point out specific inaccuracies. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(Margin reduced) I have to agree with the majority consensus on this, and I'll presume that Fissure152 (talk) has not read the extant article fully or done reviews of the findings of Wakefield's behavior. Considerable volunteer time and effort has been expended by editors debunking the suppositions that the medical and scientific community's evaluation and reporting of Wakefield's behavior and crimes are some how "just wrong" and that there is something "just wrong" with the extant article, to the point where unless a minority opinion editor has anything testable to show anything in the article is wrong, growing annoyance by editors as they continue to have to have their time wasted is fully justified. Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

From reading this webpage, there is hardly anything resembling a consensus on the article except to the most dismissive editors who've already made up their minds on the matter. It is not a supposition that the "medical and scientific community" (really the General Medical Council, the only source of formal misconduct findings against Wakefield) used faulty reasoning and came to wrong conclusions about Wakefield's work - it is the opinion of a UK judge. The GMC has never even attempted to explain how all their findings against Wakefield hold up in light of the judge's damning conclusion about how the GMC judged his work, but Wakefield has done an adequate job of explaining how they do not. Yet the GMC findings and the editorial attacks by an industry-funded medical journal are misrepresented as undisputed fact while anything the subject has to say is systematically left out. Fissure152 (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fissure152 - The easiest thing you can do to correct the errors on this page is to present us with your sources for all this new information about Andy. It's very clear that the sources we are using to support this article are all incorrect and we should update them and the text of the article, using your sources. All you have to do is present them (your sources) and all the good faith editors watching and working on this page will help correct the page. Have you got Kool-Aid to refresh you in your search for sources? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

... it is the opinion of a UK judge ... As well as the medical community and the science community, as well as the Centers for Disease Control community, World Health Organization community... Well, you get the idea. Opinion are not relevant, science dictates what is real and what are c0nsp1raz7 or wrong beliefs. For the extant article, science has spoken. Damotclese (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It is rather comical that after providing a link to a video where Wakefield described how the GMC's findings against his work are disproved, I am asked to provide sourcing. The truth is that it is Wakefield who has actually managed to explain how the GMC findings against him fail to hold up while the GMC has never even attempted to explain how their accusations against him survive in light of the judge's decision. Given the attempts of some POV-pushing editors here to justify the disproved allegations and editorial smears that comprise this obvious attack page, it is pretty clear that GMC makes no attempt to spare itself more of the same embarrassment it must have felt when trying to justify striking off Wakefield's colleague during the appeal hearing. The data fabrication allegations have already been shot down in his book and elsewhere online before they were republished in the industry-sponsored BMJ; when they first appeared in the Sunday Times two years prior, MSNBC referred to it as "journalistic malfeasance." Fissure152 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If you truly believe that "Vaxxed" and Wakefield's book are reliable sources, I suggest you raise an issue at WP:RSN. Kolbasz (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You know what's comical? Telling us we're supposed to take Wakefield's word for anything. If you think this is an 'attack page' I suggest you take it up at WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

For purposes of the encyclopedia, legitimate references and citations are required, science decides reality, not protests by quacks who medical science has soundly debunked. Scientific fact is not a popularity contest, it's not resentment at being caught committing fraud for financial gain and then making demands that the scientific community is engaged in a c0nsp1raz7 to "hide the truth." Wikipedia attempts to present testable, falsifiable references and citations which backs up non-biased, neutral pint of view facts and details about subjects, and again, if you can find anything that is incorrect here, propose a change. Oh, and MSNBC is not a scientific medical institution. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And the MSNBC reference was based on the charge (later proven false) that Brian Deer was the complainant against Wakefield in UK disciplinary hearings. We're wasting our time here, yes? This user is not interested in learning what constitutes RS, or in improving the article; he's just pushing his agenda. A topic ban may be in order. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of censorship threats by pharma-paid-editing trolls; it's no secret that Bill Gates is a top donor to Wikipedia and that he called Wakefield a fraud. What we are discussing here are allegations against a living person that are either unproven or disproved - that has nothing to do with scientific fact. Everything he says in response to these allegations should be incorporated into the article, and if his accusers can't come up with anything further to say then tough luck. His fraud-for-money accusers are a medical journal that takes money from pharmaceutical companies that make MMR. Wikipedian credibility will be blown up over this. Fissure152 (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have proof that someone here is a 'pharma paid editing troll' you really ought not to say crap like that. Please read WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, and we can now add poisoning the well, which is a blatant violation of WP’s core AGF policy, to a long list of reasons why this user needs to be topic-banned. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This marks a personal first. I've never seen Bill Gates used in this discussion before. -Roxy the dog™ woof 05:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How hypocritical, DoctorJoeE already violated the very rules he accuses me of violating. Clearly the rules only apply to editors trying to maintain this article as an attack page against the subject to push a pharma-backed agenda. Fissure152 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you stop this 'pharma back agenda' bullshit, and stop it now. You have literally no evidence that anyone here is some sort of shill, yet, you keep saying it, stop it now. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And let's add ridiculous personal attacks to the long list. Are any admins monitoring this discussion, or must we take it to ARE to get a topic ban or indef? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The platform is funded by people who have openly called the subject a fraud and his bio is maintained as an attack page against any contrary facts or evidence by anonymous editors. It's an industry-maintained hit site posing as an encyclopedia that you're willing participants in. Fissure152 (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are not the first who adheres to a worldview that has no facts backing it up. You are not the first who meets with opposition from not-that-easily-fooled people because of that. You are not the first who had the idea of defining that opposition as paid shills just because they disagree with that worldview. And you are not the first who has this tactic fail miserably because not-that-easily-fooled people do not fall for such transparent excuses.

If you want to convince anyone, you have to do better - but you can't because you have no facts backing your worldview up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you yourself believe that this isn't an encyclopedia but an "industry-maintained hit site", then you are openly admitting that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. It's definitely time to get some admins involved. Kolbasz (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(Margin reduced) ...pharma-backed agenda... LOL, hey now, be fair, medical science, facts, reality is a "pharma-backed agenda" to a great degree, so the conspiracy believing editor is correct in that regard. :) [[User:DoctorJoeE]|DoctorJoe]] I don't believe that more bans and all the rest are needed, that merely contributes to the belief that it's all a conspiracy to be confirmed. Also, Fissure152, it 's medical science that described what the extant subject matter did as fraud, not some s3crv7 cabal of "industry." :) Do you realize how crazy that sounds to normal editors? Also many of us are not "anonymous editors," you may message us and ask who we are, some will respond using email addresses which clearly identify them which can be Googled for history to see who we are. :) Google is not part of the "industry-backed" conspiracy. :) Also, Fissure152, you might try Conservapedia if you don't like facts and science and reality offered here on Wikipedia. There's a web site for everyone. :) Ya just godda go find he one you like and be happy. :)

Hob Gadling More is the pity. :( I would love to be a "paid shill," I could afford gasoline every week if I had such an obviously great! job. :)

For the editors who propose that there is something wrong with the content of the article, that it's not accurate, mistaken, industry-backed, whatever, if you would please just point to something that is wrong and provide testable, falsifiable references or citations which show that the content needs to be fixed, let's work together and fix it. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? Leveling vague conspiracy charges frees the accusers from the obligation to cite objective evidence for their position. In this particular case, the hoary old “pharma conspiracy theory” lacks not only credible evidence, but logic and plausibility as well. The implication is that discrediting Wakefield would somehow be in the vaccine manufacturers’ financial interests. In fact, MMR is a relatively cheap vaccine; to replace it with monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines – at triple the cost of the combined MMR – would be a financial windfall for the industry; they would have been delighted. The supposed involvement of other alleged conspirators is even less logical or plausible, and never convincingly explained. And yes, it would be lovely if some drug company were willing to pay us to add new or updated information, cite reliable sources to support it, and disabuse people of misinformation – in other words, what we do here already, for free – but that recruiter never calls. Bugger. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Bill Gates c0nsp1raz7 paying editors to lie

It's a c0nsp1raz7! Chemtrails! CHEMTRAILS!!!1

Um, the actual reason I'm posting this note here is to underscore the core issue here with proposed edits. There are a number of different ideologies involved in attempts to impose biased content to the extant page, and so far the science-based, medicine-based editors hold the upper hand, and the article is golden, suitable, testable references and citations backing-up legitimate, science-based details about the whole anti-vaccination fiasco and Wakefield's deliberate frauds.

However the seemingly-endless attempts by "Trve Belivers" to suggest that there is something wrong with the article consistently fail to point to anything that's wrong, and efforts to suggest proposed changes are routinely reverted lacking suitable, testable, falsifiable references and citations to support such proposed text changes.

The amount of time that editors have spent working on the article and guarding it from a minority opinion of editors with obvious, blatant bias is time well-spent, however it's getting tiresome. We're all volunteers who have real jobs, things to do. So editors who have obvious anti-science bias and right wing quack c0nsp1raz7 notions they want to push, stop it, please. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the last two editors commenting should know better. This is not a discussion board, or chatroom. It wastes everyone's time reading this junk, which isn't even about the topic of the page. Could you please exercise some self-retraint? Dallas66 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2016

 Done

In the first sentence of the first paragraph in the page section titled 'Callous disregard', the page mentions Wakefield's book 'Callous disregard' and says that in it: "...he rebutted the charges made against him".

Properly defined, the word 'rebut' means 'to prove to be incorrect', or 'demonstrate to be wrong'.

The correct word to use here would be 'reject'.

My suggested change is that the sentence should be made to read: "...he rejected the charges made against him".

80.0.156.166 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I find this argument compelling, but will wait for other page watchers. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good edit to me. Kolbasz (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty obvious. Done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, a rebuttal is an attempt to demonstrate that an argument is incorrect, not necessarily proving it, as any debate participant will tell you; but I have no problem with the change - or at least not enough to argue the point. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 10:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the correct term is that he repudiated them, since his purported rebuttal was (as far as I can tell) based on the usual many-times-refuted nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is not neutal. It is very one sided. Period.

Subject line says it all in that it is as if a "science only" radical has witten it with their beliefs only in mind...and I don't mean to imply that studies that show vaccines are not all that safe is "non-science", but the radicals paint it that way, and apparently wrote this article. Neutral studies are hard to come by when money rules the entire world. (hopefully you do know what I mean by that) Please get this fixed and write this in a neutral manner. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.192.226 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that has not been reflected, please provide it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also read WP:NPOV, neutral here does not mean neutral as you seem to think it does Cannolis (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that it is not neutral? The article is stating the facts: it has been proven that his research was fraudulent and that he was found guilty. Since there is no doubt about this, we cannot state that "perhaps he was right" when the evidence is pointing otherwise. BeŻet (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fraud allegations have been utterly abandoned http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6220 Realskeptic (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That source actually says the exact opposite of what you claim. Fraud allegations are maintained by the BMJ! jps (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It concluded that “the net result [from an investigation] would likely be an incomplete set of evidence and an inconclusive process costing a substantial sum of money.” Ergo there is no fraud; there is not even an investigation of fraud - only unsubstantiated claims by journal editors. Realskeptic (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The BMJ has not retracted their claim that Wakefield committed fraud. jps (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Are we reading the same words? Your source says that University College London decided not to have an independent investigation of Wakefield's case despite the BMJ calling for it to be done. Cannolis (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Realskeptic is blocked, but it doesn't seem like they have even read the article and its sources. They are just cherrypicking something and adding their own interpretation, and totally ignoring all the evidence of fraud. If this can happen, then the article may need to be tightened up to make it clearer. He "showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer" -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for 24 hours - I have read it, the university chose not to investigate because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to conclusive evidence regarding BMJ's accusation. It is therefore wrong to call the paper fraudulent based on that re WP:NPOV. Realskeptic (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly you have not noticed that the British Medical Council carried out an investigation and found fraud in Wakefield's research paper and in his financial transactions. The college made clear that they would not re-investigate a matter that was already closed. The Lancet journal also stated that they were "deceived". Marmadale (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We document what RS say, and they all say it was fraudulent for very good reasons. That's good enough reason for us to use their words.

The list of offenses which justify the label "fraudulent" is long. He really screwed it all up in every way possible, from exposing children to painful and unnecessary tests, to falsifying the numbers, to having a serious and undisclosed financial conflict of interest.

You need to WP:Drop the stick before you get banned for not being here to build an encyclopedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)'

The court decision quoted at the end of the introduction also overturned the GMC's findings concerning the ethics and the patient selection described in the paper. What the college refused to investigate were the wholly separate allegations of data fabrication, which have never been found proved in any legally binding decision. Also, my response is only for comments from editors who adhere toWP:AGF. Realskeptic (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have looked for some time and have not been able to find any court opinions overturning the medical board's findings against Andrew Wakefield, or any sources referring to one. The opinion you seem to be referring to is about a different author who performed a different role in the research. The findings against Wakefield stand (the medical council made a statement saying so), as do any number of reliable sources, including the Lancet journal itself. You may not like this, but this is an encyclopedia. Marmadale (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have to come in here because I started to edit WP since I am interested in Medical history and this article is out of date. Which I think is why some editors think it is bias. A bit of background. The GMC is not a court of law. The Wakefield case went on for two years because they allowed so much 'hearsay evidence'. Think Realskeptic is referring to the court of law case of Professor John Walker-Smith. The law courts use forensics ( i.e. establishing who did did what, when and where – but not on hearsay). Walker-Smith was able to establish from written evidence that he alone orded the tests on these children based on sound clinical need. i.e., The children would have undergone them anyway. Some background : Abnormalities in these findings, hitherto unrecorded, lead Wakefield to formulate his hypothesize (right or wrong) of Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. It is therefore, putting the cart before the horse to revers this order of things and time-lines as the GMC clumsily did. So whilst I have no objections to the article mentioning the GMC findings, we as as encyclopedia, should include and put into context (via our verifiable sources) to point what has since come to light and discovered in the passage of time. Wakefield did not, subject these children “to unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as...” He did not have that power. The article lead reads back to front.--Aspro (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that decision is what I am talking about, and you're absolutely right. The matter is further discussed in the book Science for Sale, in which Wakefield tried unsuccessfully to have his paper reinstated. Not only that, but there is also the issue of the fabrication allegations which are strictly editorial in nature and are heavily disputed by Wakefield's critics and former colleagues, not just Wakefield. Yet this is also nowhere to be found in the article. Also, tying his name to a "discredited hypothesis" and even infectious disease deaths raises serious WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues. Clearly, the subject has a lot of hostile critics including some Wikipedia editors here, but this article should not be written from their perspective. I have made changes to the intro accordingly, but the entire article looks like it needs to be heavily rewritten IMHO. Realskeptic (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well if you think the LA Times and Washington Post are controlled by the CDC [3] I can certainly understand why you'd feel that way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this yet again? The hospital's clinicians and pathology service found nothing to implicate MMR in Wakefield's patients, but Wakefield repeatedly changed, misreported and misrepresented diagnoses, histories and descriptions of the children, which made it appear that there was a link. So yes, Wakefield did indeed subject the children to unnecessary invasive procedures, because he fabricated the indications for them. The argument that Wakefield bears no responsibility because Walker-Smith wrote the actual orders is ridiculous; he wouldn't have ordered the tests if Wakefield had not manipulated the data to make them appear to be clinically or experimentally indicated.DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect, you are confabulating. In the UK medical treatment is free but has to come out of a tight NHS budget. The consultant has to decide if a patient shows signs of colitis and warrants investigation (lots of doc's refer patients but he has to pick and choose based on his clinical experience). Therefore, this particular accusation against Wakefield is now moot (Moot: In legal terms - no longer practically applicable). Give an example: Got referred to King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, about a decade ago for suspected xxxxx. Even I thought the preliminary diagnose was possibly right, but the consultant reassured me at the examination itself, that in his professional opinion the suspected diagnosis did not apply in my case. That was a relief but if it had happened in say America, I would have still been subjected to many expensive tests, - just to make sure. You may be able to subject patients to unnecessary, invasive (and profitable) tests but not in the `UK you wont! So, as this happened in the UK and the Law Court found that these children’s did indeed fall within the ethical guidelines, the accusations Wakefield on this point are now moot. Therefore, please stop concatenating Wakefield's own work on Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia to the children's examination for colitis - OK? The article should reflect this to meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. We are suppose to be an encyclopedia (?) not a mouthpiece for any journalist that has not bothered to digest the whole thing.--Aspro (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, we document what RS say, and the GMC had this to say about Wakefield: He "showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer"

You are not going to be allowed to violate NPOV by deleting that. It is properly sourced and accurate. There is no BLP violation, but your continual defense of fringe POV and their pushers here is a bit tiring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. And with all respect, it is you (or whatever blogger you are following) who is "confabulating". The GMC found that Wakefield committed “serious professional misconduct,” which included acting outside ethical guidelines and in ways otherwise not in the clinical interests of disabled children, and no Law Court has ever said anything different because the decision was not appealed, on the advice of Wakefield's own counsel. Walker-Smith's ruling says nothing about that either, if that's what you were going to say next. The Judge ruled that the GMC didn’t adequately explain the rationale behind its findings that Walker-Smith committed professional misconduct, and did not absolve him of that misconduct. I've been meaning to expand this page's FAQ section, since this has been hashed over so many times; I hope I can find time to do it in the near future. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Aspro is making a more elementary error. In good faith, though. What he, or she, is saying is at best original research. All the surmises about the medical board accepting 'hearsay' (where's the source for that?), and pronouncements about the court (sources?), are all him/her just saying. I think the error is worse than that: attempting to impose him/herself into the judicial process to move an opinion for one doctor over into an opinion for another. Not wanting to confound the problem, that isn't permissible. The court did not re-hear the case. It reviewed the opinions of the medical board, and found them defective for lack of explanatory information, plus a number of errors on particular issues, regarding the pediatrician. Wakefield's verdicts - and they are not all ethical, but are also about dishonesty - all stand for WP unless someone can come up with proper sources - which would not be a blog or an anti-vax campaigner - saying enough to override all the RSs, and plenty more, cited already. There seems to me to be countless sources on the fraud and everything else. Marmadale (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is essentially what we have said repeatedly in response to several waves of similar criticism, as documented in the archives. Fringe advocates need to calm down, read WP:OR, and try to conceptualize the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- one that only collects and collates what other reliable sources have already published. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It is exactly because WP is an an encyclopedia that this issue needs to be addressed. The journalist (BR) was never asked to testify in person and be open to cross examination- so that is hearsay by definition. Did time suddenly stop still at the the GMC pontification? John Snow was actually dead by the time his germ theory was accepted. Blood letting continued after the first controlled showed that the risk/benefit was negative. Medical history is built on slow acceptance that things have to improve. Another examples, Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister, Barry Marshall. History is lettered with examples of gifted medical men challenging orthodoxy. Ie I am not anti-vaccination any more than am against someone getting bled to-day because they can't excrete enough iron. We either trust doctors RS (reliable souses) or we believe ( belief: accepting without proof) their jobs-worth administrators (in this case the GMC) that believes gospel, that a medical untrained journalist (with little track record) knows best (a one off verifiable source ) !!! You can have it both ways because that’s a Non sequitur. Like me, you may only be left with two brains cells still working but do let them talk to each other. If you want to stick to RS then why not from a Medical PhD's with a better track record than the original medically untrained journalist?

Therefore, this article is out of date for the reasons of BLP. Lets have some VS and RS from trained and experienced research doctors such as : David L. Lewis PhD

"Similarly, I spent almost two years obtaining and analysing the U.K General Medical Council's (GMC's) confidential documents behind allegations of research misconduct that Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. I the process, I discovered a document showing that the analysis of patient records that Deer published in 2010 perfectly matches an analysis requested by GMC proceeding four years earlier. The analysis, which Deer published in the BMJ, was the result of a deliberate plan by individuals working for the GMC's to conflate a blinded expert analysis of biopsy slides with routine pathology reports to make it appear that Wakefield had misinterpreted the records to link to MMR vaccine to autism. What the GMC lawyers could probably never get away with in the court room – which was to condemn Andrew Wakefield for research fraud – Deer accomplished by publishing the GMC's convoluted analysis in the BMJ." Prologue XIX, Science for sale by David L. Lewis PhD

If any one of you go up against a disciplinary hearing wouldn’t you what the facts to be considered rather than hearsay? This is what has put the shivers up the spines of many medical researchers. Time has shown that the GMC committee deliberations where not reliable (RS) of (forensically) ascertaining who did what and when. Yet this article suggests that 'his 'guilt' is cut and a closed thing (as in law).

Finally, Please don't call me fringe. I spent six years in R&D on cutting edge (exploring fringes of the known). If you mean lunatic-fringe then please choose your words more carefully in future.--Aspro (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

David L. Lewis seems to have misunderstood or misinterpreted the records and analysis; Deer and others argue credibly (e.g. here or here) that – far from rehabilitating Wakefield – the documents Lewis 'discovered' make Wakefield look even worse, and that Lewis doesn't seem to be competent to make the assertions he has. I have not seen anyone suggest that Lewis is a reliable expert source for claims made in Wikipedia, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Aspro, you wrote: "If any one of you go up against a disciplinary hearing wouldn’t you what the facts to be considered rather than hearsay?" Most definitely!!! And that makes Wakefield's behavior during the "trial" proceedings odd, if one doesn't realize he is always driven by a profit motive. Why didn't Wakefield defend himself during the "trial"? Wakefield did not defend himself at the time he should have done so.

Instead of correcting erroneous statements and charges made against him, he remained (relatively) silent and used his time to write a book, using as the title (Callous Disregard) one of the most serious charges (of child abuse) made against him. That's grotesque and unconscionable. Only someone without a conscience could do that. It's like a country taking the anniversary of its worst defeat in battle and making it a national holiday to celebrate, as if the occurrence had been a victory! Talk about revisionism.

IIRC, he released the book on the same day the judgment against him was announced. The guy has a knack for marketing himself! If that book contained any legitimate defense, he should have presented it during the proceedings, but he didn't. Why? Because his "defense" would not stand up to real scrutiny. He knew that he wouldn't be able to fool the professionals trying him, but in a book for the public he could fool all those anti-vaxxers who were idolizing him, and who still fund his travels, speaking engagements, writings, and lifestyle. He still milks them for all he can squeeze out of their gullible souls.

All through his fraudulent "study" of ONLY 12 children, he had a profit motive driving him in several ways. Then when he was first going to publish his results, he immediately, before publication, used science by press conference to unethically announce the results and start a scare with horrible consequences for many children who needlessly got sick and/or died, but with enormous profits and fame to himself. Much later, when he reached the point where his fraud would be exposed and he lost his medical license, he maintained focus on that goal of making a profit. He is rightly considered one of the greatest medical frauds of the 20th century. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wakefield did not defend himself during the hearing because his position was indefensible, and he would have been cut to pieces on cross-exam. His own counsel recommended this. But TenOfAllTrades is correct that this is not a chat forum; let's stick to discussions on improving the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

To included your second source from the journalist himself as justification is Circular reasoning. Is Orac ( your first RS ). Can he be-considered RS this particular case (prolific perhaps but does that equal reliability since he appearer to irritated BR word for word)? That is attempting to doubly reinforcing the fallacy. Do you see what I 'am getting at? Argumentum ad populum like this does not have a place on WP. --Aspro (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "circular reasoning" is, despite your link to it—a detailed response and point-by-point rebuttal to Lewis' unsupported and unsupportable assertions isn't inherently circular, even if written by Brian Deer. I'm not arguing that we should include these sources in the Wikipedia article, so WP:RS doesn't enter into it. (There's no need for them, as there's no way that Lewis' tremendously defective and unreliable book will be used as a source.) I thought you – or other editors here – might find them informative, and useful to dispel the canard that there is some sort of conspiracy driven by Deer, the BMJ, or some shadowy Big Pharma string-pullers.

Having said that, I'm not planning on getting sucked into (further) misuse of this talk page as a chat forum. If you would like to propose changes/updates to the Wikipedia article based on genuinely reliable sources I would be glad to engage with that discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. RE: "fringe", no one is "calling" you anything. Please review WP:FRINGE to see WP's policy on treatment of fringe views. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect, it is circular reasoning to say criminal accusations deemed unworthy of investigation for inconclusive evidence are somehow vindicated by self-published content on the accuser's personal website. It is further circular reasoning to suggest that even if those unreliable, self-published sources you cited to dispute Lewis' book didn't exist, that his book would somehow be wrong anyway. Lewis' book is a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS; it belongs in the article. The blog and accuser's personal website you cited to dispute it are not, even though the latter is heavily relied on for material throughout the page. It doesn't matter if they appear to make a convincing case, Wikipedia is not the place for content based on novel conclusions that favor unreliable sources over reliable ones. This is especially true when it involves a living person accused of a crime for which they have never convicted, let alone formally charged. Realskeptic (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm genuinely interested: in what way do you believe that "Science for Sale" meets WP:MEDRS? Kolbasz (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re WP:MEDRS#Books: "popular science and medicine books are useful sources, which may be primary, secondary, or tertiary" Realskeptic (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You should have read on to the next sentence: "Most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and, consequently, are not reliable sources." Upon publication, no media outlet (apart from a couple of crank conspiracy theory blogs) reviewed the book. That's because its author cited no credible sources to support any of his accusations, and didn't even bother to seek comment from the people he was accusing. It's worth noting that Lewis spent a year attempting to get a journal to publish some of his unsupported accusations before self-publishing this diatribe. It's hard to imagine a book (other than Wakefield's) that fails WP:RS more blatantly than this one. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I did, but it is not relevant to Lewis' book as it is not self-published. You can go through the references yourself and see that he was corresponding with BMJ and cited UCL's decision not to investigate Wakefield for lack of evidence. I wouldn't call Independent Science News a crank conspiracy blog, but you're clearly misinterpreting WP:MEDRS#Books now. Realskeptic (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through Lewis's "references", but apparently you have not. (Your link goes to Amazon's page for the book, not the references.) It has already been pointed out to you that BMC did investigate Wakefield and found fraud, gross conflict of interest, and four proven counts of deliberate dishonesty, among other things. UCL decided not to go to the trouble and expense of re-investigating a matter that was already closed; but it did "...update its mechanisms for safeguarding research participants and ensuring the quality and ethical standards of its research" to make it harder to commit that sort of fraud again. And did you read the Independent Science News story that you linked? It's an excerpt, not a review, and has nothing to do with Wakefield; it's about sewage sludge. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are having reference difficulty. Not only are you conflating two separate sets of allegations, but you are also conflating their sources. There is no "BMC," there is a BMJ and a GMC. BMJ alleged fraudulent data (abandoned following UCL's investigation), GMC found conflict of interest (partially overturned on appeal) and dishonesty (entirely overturned on appeal). BMJ republished and endorsed two-year old claims first published in The Sunday Times, even though Wakefield had responded to them at the time. After BMJ's endorsement, UCL decided to investigate only to terminate that investigation the following year on "inconclusive evidence."

Re Lewis, I tried to link to the references in his book but the closest I could come up with is the Amazon page URL. Regardless of that or of the way Independent Science News covered Science for Sale, all that matters as far as your previous point is concerned is that reputable media did not ignore the book as you claimed it did. Realskeptic (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "BMC" was a typo -- I meant GMC, which does not change anything I wrote. The stuff you are saying simply isn't true: BMJ has never backed down on its fraud allegations; none of the GMC findings were overturned on appeal because there was no appeal of Wakefield's hearing, on the advice of his own counsel. And reputable media did ignore Lewis's book, particularly the part that relates to Wakefield. The fact that one obscure science blog referenced the part about sewage sludge -- something that Lewis might actually know something about, since he's an environmental biologist of some sort -- says nothing about the unsupported nonsense he wrote concerning Wakefield's case. I wish you would drop the stick, as none of this nonsense is ever going to get into the article unless it gets into reputable sources first (bloody unlikely), and consensus is quite obviously firmly against you anyway. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I only cited your use of "BMC" of an example of how you conflated the abandoned BMJ allegations with the overturned GMC findings. However, you have not been addressing my points. I've never said BMJ abandoned its own allegations, but that its allegations were abandoned by the only formal investigation of the accusations. You should also read my response to you below concerning the GMC and WP:BLPCRIME. It doesn't matter that Wakefield didn't appeal, GMC findings against him were still overturned on appeal by his colleague, and that should be stated within the article.

A site published by the Bioscience Resource Project is hardly an "obscure blog." The part of Lewis' book that was referenced is still about being falsely accused of research misconduct which is relevant to what Wakefield is accused of. Like it or not, Lewis' book meets WP:MEDRS while you have chosen to resort to WP:IDHT antics and fail to adhere to WP:AGF. Consensus is not achieved that way. Realskeptic (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

One more time: Walker-Smith was not absolved of anything, and his case had nothing to do with Wakefield's, as the judge himself made quite clear. You say you've read the transcript, so you should know all of this. You need to stop. The fraud and dishonesty allegations against Wakefield stand, and the article reflects that fact. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said I read the court transcript, but the court's decision completely contradicts what you claim it said. The GMC findings were struck down, and the BMJ fraud allegations never stood in the first place. You need to stop denying, and just face the facts. Realskeptic (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's rather obvious that you haven't read it. It did not exonerate Walker-Smith; that's not what his appeal hearing was about. The hearing was about the GMC panel's procedure only. Justice Mitting did not address the question of whether Walker-Smith's actions were medically necessary or ethical; he was only ruling on the decision-making of the panel, and he found aspects of it to be flawed. He wrote that the panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith and Wakefield had conducted unauthorized research on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason. The problem, and the reason for overturning the panel’s decision, was incomplete explanation. The GMC elected not to send the case back to the panel – or convene a new panel – to better explain its determinations because Walker-Smith had by then retired, so his license revocation had become a moot point. Wakefield’s case was entirely different. He filed an appeal but did not pursue it, on the advice of his own attorneys, because his case involved more serious charges, including four proven counts of dishonesty, as explained in the article. Justice Mitting made it very clear that quashing Walker-Smith’s disciplinary action did not alter the basic truth: "Today’s ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism … there is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Wakefield's] hypothesis that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.” Read the decision, and give it a rest. Please. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE. Will you please stop spouting nonsense off-the-top-of-you- head about things that are out of you experience (Sutor, ne ultra crepidam) . Your words above: “Walker-Smith had by then retired, so his license revocation had become a moot point.” That comes across as more pontificating nonsense to muddy the waters that this Encyclopedia can do without. This talk page is exposing that this article is smacking of article ownership by a few editors who only allow circular arguments in their favour. Your your faux reasoning and arguments are getting tiresome.--Aspro (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Simple statement of fact, @Aspro, which you would know, if you had bothered to look it up. There are plenty of sites where you can perpetuate Wakefield mythology without fear of being challenged. Here, such mythology will be called out, every time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding your little "ne ultra crepidam" snipe - this is precisely my field of expertise. For the record. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think that's bad, @Aspro, look at this:"He wrote that the panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith and Wakefield had conducted unauthorized research on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason." When an editor tries to make the case for the subject's guilt but ends up only reinforcing the fact that he is innocent of the findings discussed, that editor has proven once and for all to be the straggler who will not get it. Of course, he has continuously demonstrated that by repeating failed arguments, not examining the sources he claims to have read and demonstrating an overall poor grasp of the issues. Now that he has sunk to self-contradiction and even further to just pure name-calling, it is quite clear that @DoctorJoeE's opinion should be given no weight when considering how this article should be re-edited. Realskeptic (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the ad hominem - spoken like an editor who has run out of arguments. "Poor grasp of the issues"? "Not examining the sources"? Look who's talking! What part of "He wrote that the panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith and Wakefield had conducted unauthorized research on vulnerable children for no good clinical reason" do you find confusing? The judge did not challenge the panel's finding that they conducted unauthorized research for no good clinical reason; he only ruled that the panel did not adequately explain how it came to the conclusion that they did. What is unclear about that? But this has all gone on long enough; we have wasted too much time and bandwidth refuting the same old Wakefield mythology. If you have suggestions for improving the article, and you can cite WP:RS in support, let's see them. If not, please give it a rest. Please. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

he only ruled that the panel did not adequately explain how it came to the conclusion that they did. -Which pretty much undermines the conclusion. And did you even bother to read the part where the judge said that the GMC came to a "wrong conclusion" "a number of times"? I guess not. I have cited reliable sources, but you just want to ignore them. Realskeptic (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Mostly, you have just referred to WP:RS a whole lot without apparently understanding it (if you had, Science for Sale would never even have been mentioned). When you have actually cited reliable sources (e.g. the BMJ), you have completely misinterpreted what they said. So like DoctorJoeE said: please give it a rest. Kolbasz (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How strange for someone claiming to be "genuinely interested" in how Science for Sale meets WP:MEDRS Realskeptic (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also don't think that book is popular science or medicine, nor does it seem to be particularly popular as a WP:FRINGEy conspiracy theory rant. Cannolis (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are adding your own definition to popular science, which is the interpretation of science intended for a general audience. Lewis' book fits that category perfectly. If Wakefield's innocence really were fringe, he'd have been convicted by now; he was never even charged. Realskeptic (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's getting tiresome, repeating the same things over and over. Of course Wakefield was never “charged” with research fraud -- it’s not a chargeable offense in Britain, although it probably should be. (And he fled the country anyway, just in case.) His peers and independent investigators found that his research was fraudulent and dishonest, which is different than "charging" him, but doesn't by any stretch render him "innocent" of anything. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fraud is a chargeable offense; either someone is found guilty for it, or they're not and they're innocent or presumed to be until such time. Wakefield wasn't even charged. If he fled the country to avoid indictment, he would have gone to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the UK.WP:BLPCRIME says a non-convicted person is innocent until proven guilty, but that is not what this page does. It also calls for inclusion of all seemingly contradictory legal rulings along with restraint from pithy descriptions (i.e. GMC ruling that Wakefield is dishonest, Walker-Smith appeal that overturned findings behind dishonesty ruling). That is nowhere to be found in this BLP of Wakefield either. Realskeptic (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on British law, but a blatant financial COI and research fraud are not criminal offenses. They are ethical issues, not criminal issues, although this case is egregious enough that they should be. They are enough to get one barred from ever working in research or medicine again. That is what happened to Wakefield. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Serious Fraud Office (UK) defines fraud as follows: Fraud is a type of criminal activity, defined as 'intentional deception to obtain an advantage, avoid an obligation or cause loss to another person or company.' SFO also provides a taxonomy of fraud, which includes dishonest abuse of position or trust within the individual category. That applies to both the overturned GMC findings-of-fact against the subject as well as the UCL-abandoned fraud allegations published in the BMJ. Yet neither the reversal of findings nor the abandonment of allegations are mentioned in the article. Per WP:BLPCRIME, they should be included along with any other criticisms that are supported by reliable sources. Realskeptic (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Research fraud is not a chargeable criminal offense in Britain, despite calls from some – such as present and past BMJ editors – that it should be. Britain has no body that investigates research fraud, analogous to the Office of Research Integrity in the US. It only has the GMC, which has no in-house investigative resources, and can only sanction medical practitioners. The educational institutions, meanwhile, don't want to devote the management time and legal costs to inquiries. With Wakefield, for instance, UCL did consider holding an inquiry, but quickly realized that it would divert millions from its academic budgets and backed off, deferring to the GMC. All of this is in sources cited within the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no deference to the GMC, the GMC hearing had concluded nearly three years before UCL closed its investigation into the separate fraud allegations based on "inconclusive evidence." As I've said, there is an office within the UK government that investigates fraud of the kind the subject was accused of, but he's never been charged with it. I wonder why... You are seriously engaged in "I can't hear you" type antics. You really need to just back off as it's clear you are letting your opinion of the subject cloud your judgement. Realskeptic (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And you, of course, are totally impartial. Which UK government office investigates research fraud, pray tell? Please give us its name, and your source. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I told you. You need to start following WP:IDHT. Realskeptic (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And you need to read the site that you linked. By law, SFO is restricted to investigating investment fraud, bribery/corruption, corporate fraud, and public sector fraud—and only the most egregious cases within those categories. No British gov't agency has authority to investigate medical research fraud. While you're at it, please re-read WP:IDHT, which is about "perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the rest of my comment that I linked to. Realskeptic (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a classic example of the law of holes. The reality is that SFO, according to its own website, is restricted by law to investigating several categories of egregious financial fraud; scientific research transgressions are neither included nor implied. Show us a reliable source stating that SFO has ever taken on such a case – or even that any member of that agency is under the impression that it has the authority to do so. Your assertion that a portion of the law’s wording can be construed to encompass scientific research malfeasance is pure WP:OR; and your conclusion that SFO’s supposed failure to exercise this hypothetical authority somehow absolves Wakefield of any of his transgressions (only one of which was fraud) is pure WP:SYNTH. That sort of unsourced speculation flies in the face of everything WP stands for, and there is no way that it can be included in any WP article. Now, can we please move on? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter that SFO is restricted to investigate certain kinds of fraud; it still defines fraud as encompassing what the subject was accused of. I am not citing SFO's lack of investigation as proof the subject is innocent; I don't need to. UCL won't investigate over inconclusive evidence and the GMC findings that caused him to be labeled dishonest were overturned on appeal. So the article is in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Simple as that. 01:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't stop digging, can you? You brought up SFO, and now you say it "doesn't matter". There was no appeal of Wakefield's case; you know that. Please stop. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I said it does not matter that they only investigate certain kinds of fraud, they still broadly define fraud as criminal activity. There was an appeal in that many of the findings that his license revocation was based on were overturned; it just was not Wakefield doing the appealing. Realskeptic (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said, that's pure WP:OR, as there is nothing in any reliable source connecting SFO and Wakefield. As for the Walker Smith, case, you really ought to read the transcript, as I have suggested several times. It is especially ironic that you and others claim the Walker Smith decision exonerates Wakefield, when the opposite is true. In reading the transcript, I was struck by how poorly Wakefield came out of it. The crux of Walker Smith's defense was that Wakefield never told his co-authors what he was really up to; that he never explained his massive conflict of interest, that most of the patients were plaintiffs in the class action suit, that data had been tampered with, or that he was doing a research project, as opposed to simply delivering medical care. The last, especially, is hard to believe, given that it was obviously research, and Walker Smith had previously stated that it was research; but in essence, Walker Smith threw Wakefield under the bus. His lawyer even conceded that the MMR-autism hypothesis was a dead issue – "settled science." So please stop saying that the article "makes accusations that were overturned". It's simply not true. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Independent Science News is a bit controversial and fringe: Bioscience Resource Project#Controversies -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe it is possible to be both "a bit controversial" and "fringe." Realskeptic (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. Fringe stuff is often controversial, and controversial stuff can also be fringe, but I'm being cautious ("a bit") about the degree. The link describes some controversial issues. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe it could be argued that Independent Science News took a fringe position in either mentioned controversy. Realskeptic (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at that Amazon link and noticed what "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought". Wow! Every single one a totally unreliable source of information. I don't know if that says more about the content of the book, more about Lewis, or more about the mindset of those who read Lewis. Certainly cause for concern ..... -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What other people also buy on Amazon is not relevant to the reliability of this book. Nonetheless, the only book that deals directly with the subject is the one authored by the subject. So it meets WP:RS criteria per WP:BLP. Realskeptic (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please take the time to read and understand the Wikipedia guidelines you keep referring to. It's beginning to seem as though you're just scanning them for keywords rather than taking the time to read what they actually say. Kolbasz (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I meant to clarify that when I said that the subject's book is the only book that deals with the subject directly, I was only referring to Amazon's "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" list for Science for Sale. I did not mean to imply that Science for Sale does not deal directly with the subject, because it does. Realskeptic (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Realskeptic, you're a big fan of linking to various policies, guidelines, etc. As TenOfAllTrades suggested here, you need to read this one, especially that first sentence: "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." I lost faith in your ability to positively contribute to this topic after seeing this edit where you completely changed the meaning of the text by removing "now discredited". We all know your M.O. is to promote a link between vaccines and autism. It's obvious to anyone who's followed your edits. Well, your agenda is not going to work here, so I suggest abandoning your mission or finding new unrelated topics to edit or your time here will come to an end shortly. APK whisper in my ear 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because I am a big fan of following them. If you have trouble with edits made elsewhere, then those should be addressed on other talk pages. Improving neutrality of an article is not proof of an M.O. or agenda, but is in keeping with WP:NPOV. Harassment and factions are different; they violate Wikipedia policy. Realskeptic (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest an edit or move on

Actually, the heading above pretty much covers what I have to say. It's been rather a long time since I've seen anyone suggest an edit to be made to the Wikipedia article associated with this talk page (remember, it's just over there, at Andrew Wakefield). The first, last, and only purpose of talk pages on Wikipedia is to discuss how best to go about improving Wikipedia articles. It's not to shoot the breeze; it's not to be a chat forum; it's not to bicker back and forth with proponents of fringe views. Sure, we tolerate a certain flexibility in that rule – we're a volunteer project, not an army of bureaucrats (except for the bureaucrats) – but we shouldn't let the back-and-forth chitchat distract from the business of article writing.

It's obvious that Realskeptic doesn't like this article, because it doesn't whitewash the fraudulent nature of Andrew Wakefield's work, or his egregious ethical lapses, or all the other slimy things he did and does. Worse still, this article doesn't pretend that there remains any significant scientific controversy over the once-hypothetical, now-discredited link between vaccination and autism. Realskeptic, as a strong advocate for an assortment of fringe views related to vaccination, clearly doesn't like that Wikpedia respects, reports on, and emphasizes the consensus of scientists and physicians.

Fortunately, Wikipedia is able to handle this sort of stubborn fringe advocate. It's already clear that Realskeptic's attempts to edit the article to introduce his preferred anti-vaccination point of view will be reverted by the substantial number of Wikipedia editors who respect Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, proper weight, reliable sourcing, and so forth. He's already been blocked a couple of times for edit warring, and I imagine by now he realizes that further edit warring is just going to result in a topic ban or very long block. If he really thought he had a credible case, he could take it to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, but he knows he doesn't, so he won't. (And Realskeptic, be very aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Don't go posting time-wasting rants at those noticeboards just because I've mentioned them here. To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not recommending you take your arguments to a wider forum and thereby waste the time of even more Wikipedia editors.)

What he has left is venting on this talk page. (And others—see the extensive but non-substantive bluster at Talk:2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference.) As responsible Wikipedia editors, we have the option, ability, and possibly obligation to not engage with him further. Let him bluster. I don't know if he's sophisticated enough to try to goad the responsible editors into poor behavior, but don't risk it. He wants attention; we don't have to give it to him.

Or, we could just ask for a topic ban at WP:AE. That works too.

Either way, there's no need to keep feeding attention to a fringe advocate who is just interested in picking fights on talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

As a long time watcher of this page, I wholeheartedly support TOAT's comments above, while commending DrJoe for his patience. It is a shame that 'trolls' of this type would rather believe in a discredited individuals handwaving denial of his behaviour than the evidence. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest someone close this discussion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Me three. After resolving not to get sucked in ... I got sucked in. Again. But letting the mythology go unchallenged isn't the answer either, obviously. When time permits I'm going to summarize the more common myths, and why they are myths, in the FAQ section above; that might help, as it seems to have on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion talk page, another magnet for fringe soap-boxers. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. Note to Realskeptic: this is not "factionalism," this is consensus (which is not the same as unanimity). -- DaveSeidel (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No, consensus is achieved by discussion. What you've done is chosen to attack an editor for disagreeing with you while making irrefutable points. The Wakefield bio is a WP:BLPCRIME violation, IOM report's politically determined conclusion is not "consensus", anything that disagrees with it is not fringe and writing a bio on Kennedy from perspective of editors who said his article was retracted because of fraud is libelous. Editors who respond by blocking, threatening with topic bans, making personal attacks and closing discussions constitute a faction that is trying to disrupt the normal processes of Wikipedia so that content will only align with their views. I'll leave it there Realskeptic (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is reflected in policies and guidelines that have wide input, not in attempts by individual editors to rewrite it on individual pages. We reflect the facts as they are, not as people might wish them to be - come back when Wakefield's studies have been republished by the journals that retracted them and when his license to practice medicine has been restored. You are trying to use Wikipedia to fix a "problem" that exists in the real world, and that ain't how it works. I put "problem" in quotes because as far as I am concerned it's not a problem: Wakefield's actions were fraudulent and unethical, according to reliable sources, and I have no problem at all with Wikipedia reflecting that. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This is POV pushing disguised as "disagreeing". Said "irrefutable" points are anything but, given the total absence of reliable support, and therefore fall into the category of WP:OR. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter that his paper is retracted and that he does not have his license; this article makes accusations that have either been overturned or were never charged. It is therefore libelous and a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Realskeptic (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific edit to suggest? If not, move on. As per @TenOfAllTrades:'s excellent suggestion. Kolbasz (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Realskeptic (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So after all this disruption by you, you have learned nothing and propose we accept a previous edit of yours which was roundly rejected? That's a very blatant example of I didn't hear that behavior, and since it comes after all of the above, it's very disruptive. It's time for a topic ban or long block. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to advocate a fringe agenda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that Realskeptic has been indefinitely topic banned. [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness. Had I known about that discussion I would have contributed, but apparently it was unnecessary. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. He/she will be back, they always do. The "RealSkeptic" name speaks volumes, however it is a WP:SPA which also appears to operate at least one sock. It's obviously WP:NOTHERE as well as WP:IDHT so eventually I hope the individual does not waste more editor's time, but these types never shut up until they're forced to. Damotclese (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

(please refer to me as JOE)I believe(note the "believe") that the "RealSkeptic" person had some relevant points, and that the article fails to mention the possibility that the sources against "Andrew Wakefield" are in some way financially dependent on the vaccine industry. If my memory serves, the sources included A) magazines/newspapers (that rely on ads, including vaccine-industry ads for their revenue.) B) various forms of other media networks, similarly dependent on ads/commercials of the vaccine industry. C)various doctors who, I believe, were educated in schools/universities sponsored by the vaccine industry. This makes the majority of the sources have a bias. P.S. all my sources are from memory. I do not have links at this time. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Children's vaccines have to be advertised? If what you posted had any merit, the "media" would stop advertising vaccines, wait for vaccination rates to fall, and then make a killing getting advertising for the drugs and therapies needed to treat all the diseases that will reappear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(the guy who called himself JOE)I did not state that. my statement was meant to indicate that the same company’s likely pay in some way for advertising as make some vaccines, In general, and the magazines would as such be biased. that plan would take them ~5 years, according to the supposed time for a booster shot to be "necessary"necessary. this plan would seem more evil/bad to those who work there and currently do things with vaccines. as well, I believe that the industry have some sort of near guaranty that people going to school will soon have to take vaccines, if some laws are successfully passed.( I know this may be off topic, but I am unsure.) if I recall correctly, the owner of the magazine whose reporter was called "deer"(?) was also the owner of a company (or group) that sells vaccines. if anything I have sayed seemed aggressive this is unintentional. I only mention this because many people have believed I was aggressive when that was not my intent. unrelated, that was a fast response. less than 12 minutes to notice my talk thing. must be quite dedicated, since the last comment(?) was last year. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, JOE, you do not recall correctly. Brian Deer is a freelance journalist who originally uncovered the fraud in 2004, and then was commissioned by BMJ to write about it. (That’s what journalists do.) BMJ is not owned by any vaccine manufacturer. And the idea that BMJ's acceptance of vaccine ads constitutes some sort of "bias" lacks not only relevance but logic and plausibility as well. The implication is that discrediting Wakefield would somehow be in the vaccine manufacturers’ financial interests. In fact, MMR is a relatively cheap vaccine; to replace it with monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines – at a bare minimum of triple the cost of the trivalent MMR – would have been a financial bonanza for the industry; they would have been delighted. The supposed involvement of other alleged conspirators is even less logical or plausible, and never convincingly explained. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(JOE) I shall assume your statement is true, as I do not wish to look for sources. With regards to the portion were the acceptance of vaccine adds constitutes a bias, no, that alone does not imply bias. however, if a sizeable portion of the revenue comes from the vaccine (and pharmaceutical?) industry, there would be some monetary reasoning to favour them. with regards to the logic in discrediting Wakefield, I think it would make sense if 'MMR' costs more than any of the vaccines individually, and I believe that if it were not bundled together and they were unsure of its safety most people would not get a mumps vaccine, though I am unsure about rubella. I am sorry if the Deer related statement I made earlier is not true. separately, if someone did not pay attention or only heard parts of what Wakefield wrote, it would be easy to assume or believe or extrapolate that many vaccines were unsafe, which is another reason for the vaccine(and pharma?) industry to discredit Wakefield. With regards to an earlier post(NeilN) a vaccine that I do not recall the name of has recently been advertised on several forms of media( all/most electronic ofc). well, I'm curious on how you will respond to this one. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not interested in responding to your vague, fairly ludicrous assertions of media bias. You're wasting everybody's time here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, this is all pretty weird -- my statements must true because you can't be bothered to verify them? Stuff taken out of context might be misinterpreted? (Duh?) Some vaccine you don't know the name of has been advertised recently? (Gardasil perhaps? Or Zostavax?) So what? What the hell's your point? Unless you have some constructive suggestions for improving the article, please run along. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(JOE) I said I will assume your statement is true, as in take your word for it. the advertised recently was in response to NeilN say "Children's vaccines have to be advertised?". I was showing that, indeed, they are advertised.the part were I said stuff take out of context could be misinterpreted was to point out that this would be a logical reason to discredit him; the stuff will not receive attention, and not be interpreted to begin with. as far as suggestions, I suggest directly acknowledging the Possibility(!) of a bias in the sources, or of some payment to them by any person with something to gain. I could not see any mention that this was possible that did not contain a statement of its (supposed?)falsehood within the sentence. P much, say it is possible that the main sources have a bias, without saying that he thinks there’s a conspiracy against him as the source; the statement that he said it, when you have been discrediting him the whole time, is unlikely to be taken seriously.(and maybe ignored)172.97.228.137 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(JOE) I don’t know why there’s a box :\ 172.97.228.137 (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The "box" was due to an accidental indentation -- I fixed it. To your points: I'm not aware of any children's vaccines that are advertised, or ever were; if you know of any, please enlighten us. I'm still not sure what to make of your second point -- if you can cite an example of something in the article that is taken out of context, please enlighten us. As for "directly acknowledging the possibility of bias in the sources", please read WP:RS, which explains why we cannot and do not cite biased sources in the first place; ergo, no need for such an acknowledgement. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that for an editor to inject such commentary and/or speculation would be to engage in, or at least come very close to engaging in, original research. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(JOE)With respect to commercials/advertisements of children's vaccines - see for example, Merck's campaign since June 2016 to advertise their HPV vaccine as something that is aimed at 11 and 12 year olds. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(JOE) do you have nothing to say? 172.97.228.137 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure I do. We all have a finite amount of time to spend at this, so if you don't get an immediate answer, please be patient. Gardisil is not a children's vaccine, it is for sexually active adults -- but the latest recommendation is to get the vaccine before you become sexually active -- i.e. before you're exposed to the virus in the first place, so Merck is publicizing that recommendation. Once again, what is your point, and how does this translate into improving the article? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Because obviously Gardisil is part of the c0nsp1raz7 to suppress the truth about this world-wide, global big pharma / George Soros campaign to... um... It looks like to kill people and cause autism for profit, if I understand the motive of the anti-Wakefield / pro-autism scientists who are pretending that Wakefield's claims are fraudulent.

The possible reason why Gardisil was mentioned is that the individual covered in the extant article has advanced his anti-science c0nsp1raz7 claims that Gardisil "...has damaged many young girls..." and that "...big pharma has denied it" which tellingly was spewed on a television show hosted by the not-so-unusual-these-days c0nsp1raz7 extremist Christian Republican "Well-Regulated Militia Patriot" Alex Jones.

A. Wakefield appears (by all available evidence) to have started out his anti-science campaign predicated in financial fraud, for purely financial gain, if the documents covered in the MMR hoax are reviewed, and yet after having allegedly been found to be "mistaken" in his claims about the MMR vaccine, he has appeared to have launched a "defense" against the medical world's science-based findings about his MMR claims by "doubling down" and yarking off in to the increasingly insane world of the extreme right wing, and that includes making unfounded, outrageous claims about Gardisil which, just like MMR, targets children.

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!

Any way, it looks like for purposes of the extant article, maybe covering some of Wakefield's c0nsp1raz7 claims about Gardisil might actually be informative and relevant. Whether Wakefield actually believes his own claims or not is probably even irrelevant. Damotclese (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant that Wakefield continues to insist that he's "not anti-vaccine", yet continues to make anti-vaccine statements and disseminate harmful information with -- as always -- no credible supporting evidence. The Gardisil nonsense is typical -- 20,000 adverse events, he tells Alex Jones, neglecting to mention that those "events" were a few hours' worth of dizziness, nausea, headache, fever, redness, or swelling at the injection site -- out of 60 million vaccinations, well under the typical AE incidence for vaccines. Oh, and 4 case reports of premature ovarian failure -- less than 1 in 10 million for a problem that has a 1:1000 incidence in the general population! So yes, it's relevant to the article, since his "followers" are now leaving their children vulnerable not just to childhood diseases, but cervical cancer as well. But we'll need WP:RS, since the above is OR on my part. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(JOE)my last 3 posts have been removed from the talk page. i do not know why. two of the were about the 1st being removed. 172.97.228.137 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctor

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.

---

guy, about this revert, please have a look at the subject article, and let me know if you still disagree. Best ref is the 2011 NYT mag ref already used in the article, if you demand explicit support for the word "celebrity" as well as notion. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't call him a celebrity doctor, and he isn't one, he's a non-celebrity quack. Guy (Help!) 01:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

three bad arguments in a row. that you are willing to write such bad arguments shows this is a waste of my time. am done with this. Jytdog (talk)

I have to say: maybe a senior editor or somebody should look at this 'celebrity doctor' thing. It seems that Jytdog has created an article s/he calls 'celebrity doctor' and has then sort of bestowed this title on a random list of individuals. To me, that is original research - the whole caboodle. It's like a magazine feature, complete with made-up definitions of what constitutes a 'celebrity doctor'. How come a bunch of guys have their biographies polished up with the honor of 'celebrity doctor', given out by random wikipedia editors: nameless folk using criteria of their own devising. This isn't like 'Japanese dentists', or 'Olympic gold medalists' - capable of sourcing and resolution. It's a subjective essay, initially by an individual, who, for some reason, reckons that the world needs a list of 'celebrity doctors'. Makes no sense to me. Dallas66 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Given WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, along with the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that entire article does seem problematic. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That is an unworthy comment. Celebrity doctors are people like Oz or Christian Jessen. They are celebrities as doctors. Wakefield is a "celebrity" only in the minds of anti-vax cranks, to most people he is a disgraced quack. He's not even a doctor: he has been struck off and has no license to practise medicine anywhere in the world. I don't object tot he existence of the article, but I do not think it applies here. I can't find any reference other than your writing, for Wakefield being a celebrity doctor. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wakefield was a licensed doctor up until 2010. per the source provided above, "Wakefield was a high-profile but controversial figure in gastroenterology research at the Royal Free Hospital in London when, in 1998,..." So already high profile when he published The Paper and after that he had 12 years of actual "celebrity doctor"hood.

His (former) medical credentials are one of the key reasons anti-vaxxers still follow him - again from the source provided (bolding added): "Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation....In his presentation, Wakefield sounded impatient but righteous. He used enough scientific terms — “ataxic,” “histopathological review” and “vaccine excipients” — that those parents who did not feel cowed might have been flattered by his assumption of their scientific fluency......Some part of Wakefield’s cult status is surely because of his personal charisma, and he spoke with great rhetorical flair. ....To parents who have run up against unsatisfying answers from the scientific community, Wakefield offers a combination of celebrity and empathy that leaves strong impressions. "

This is the definition of "celebrity doctor". The statements he is making are far more reprehensible than Oz' (and Oz' are really bad) but they are in the same bucket - trading on their medical credentials, relying on their charisma, to "ply their trade in the media". Same bucket. And there is enough in this NYT piece to provide direct support for the label "celebrity doctor." But I am not going to push this, in this article. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You have simply made up the category of 'celebrity doctor' and, by a process of original research, and scratching your head, feel you want to bestow it on who you choose. I find that a real problem, and may need to broaden this debate among editors. In general, there's an issue. In this case, it's an absurdity. Notoriety is not the same as celebrity. Should the late Fred Phelps be accorded the accolade of 'celebrity pastor' on account of his high profile work with Westborough Baptist Church?Dallas66 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree. By your criteria, why is Josef Mengele not included on your list of "celebrity doctors"? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Godwin's law validated again; this conversation is officially ridiculous. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

propaganda film

Vaxxed should not be objectively qualified as a propaganda film. If some reliable sources have called it that, then it may be notable to include that in the context of quotes from that source. In any contentious topic you will find a variety of descriptive labels applied from both sides. Byates5637 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So here too! Please see WP:GEVAL. As you have already been told, WP does not do "fair and balanced". Please do read WP:NPOV. The DS apply to this article as well, btw. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not even use the word's "fair and balanced" Did you even read what I wrote? Byates5637 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You are trying to do the same WP:GEVAL stuff here that you were doing there. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop trying to edit war with me.

I added refs! Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I was about to add similar refs, but Jytdog beat me to it. NPOV means reflecting the reliable sources, which in this case, refer to the film as propaganda. —PermStrump(talk) 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You can find find a reliable source for nearly any documentary referring to it as propaganda. Surely you know this. It's an opinion from the source and should be stated as such. There are plenty of reliable sources that do not call it a propaganda film. Byates5637 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

here you removed well-sourced content. Not good. Am sure that will be reverted soon. This is a propaganda movie for an anti-vax POV. This is what the refs dealing with what it is, say. There are more than what have been cited here and it is inaccurate to make it seem like only the partisan Daily Kos named it as such, which is how you left it. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove content, I removed your reversion of my edit and unrelated sources. Lets look at the sources you added:

1. Indiewire: Does not contain the word "propaganda"
2. aftenposton: Not in english language. Please translate and quote the parts you believe relevant to objectively categorizing this as a propaganda film
3. Forbes: Opinion blog by a non notable author.
4. Scienceblogs: Is this even notable?

Byates5637 (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Indiewire contains the word "agitprop" which is a form of propaganda. David Gorski (the source you call "scienceblogs" is well-known authority on fraudulent pseudoscience. Per her bio at Forbes, Kavin Senapathy is also well established exposer of fraud. If you search for the word propaganda it is right there even in the untranslated version, and if you do not know how to use google translate you are beyond help. WP:CIR Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• article in Variety also calls it "agitprop"
• article in Toronto Star calls it propaganda
• article in slate calls it propaganda
• blog at here at PLoS by science journalist Beth Skwarecki calls it propaganda
• cnn notes that critics call it propaganda
• review in village voice says, in bold font at the start: Vaxxed, the new “documentary” about the alleged connection between vaccines and autism, is directed by Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced doctor responsible for duping untold thousands of parents into believing vaccinations could give their children autism. This may not be news to anyone who’s followed the controversy surrounding the film’s abrupt removal from the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival schedule, but it needs to be stated up front, and before the end credits roll, just in case you’re unclear who’s behind this.

so yeah, propaganda; you also find related terms like "manipulation" used in many reviews. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

struck off

Is British english for "removed from" when used in context of the GMC medical register. In news reporting on TV and radio, and other media, a complete and meaningful sentence might be - "Wakefield was struck off." No further context is needed in British english.

I have included a link to disambiguate "struck off" in the first sentence, and I hope that the matter is now closed. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hah. I have just noticed that in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead, there is an internal link to the same disambiguation/explanation. What to do? what to do? -Roxy the dog. bark 14:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

"is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was struck off in the UK" - I suspect "struck off" is a UK-specific term. Can it be replaced by something more meaningful for non-UK readers? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Philip. I edit conflicted making almost the exact same change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have modified all uses of "struck off" in the text to make the meaning clear. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The lead still needs improvement. It was a 'non legal' GMC court that stated these charges, so we can not say 'proven' . His (AW) college then went to a legal British court (which examined all the evidence -some of which the GMC did not have available and some of which they ignored) and a British legal court judged from that: there was no misconduct by his college AND that he was calling the shots. In other words, the clinical examinations were medically justified and AW did not ask for them . The references in this article are reiterations of out of date information from the GMC. For a WP Bio, this should have been updated years ago.--Aspro (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Per BLP you must cite refs for these claims even here on Talk. Not optional. Please strike or provide refs. thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. so you're a newbie. If you don't belong to an institution that provides you with free access to things that are hidden behind paywalls there as still many things you can google for free. AW's college was John Walker Smith. Google that and GMC and you'll get MR JUSTICE MITTING Between: PROFESSOR JOHN WALKER-SMITH & GMC Their emphasis not mine! From that you get MMR row: high court rules doctor should not have been struck off 'MMR doctor wins High Court appeal. Etc., etc., et cetera. So you have many references on google at you very fingertips now... But please, on WP don't try and make other WP editors your lap dogs. If you have a computer connected up to the internet and better still have 'free access' behind pay walls then please do your own research and improve WP. Don't lets us wonder what did your last slave die of ? Here is your chance to improve this article. It is OK. Anyone can edit WP - even you -so be Bold. --Aspro (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

wtf does a college have to do with this? Aspro, you make no sense at all. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you mean colleague. That's been done to death. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not shown that anything in this article about Wakefield is incorrect. Walker-Smith is not Wakefield. I suggest you be careful here Aspro. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The lead still says : proven charges of misconduct. In a legal sense that is now moot. The foundation was built on sand (for reasons given above) . So the lead needs to be brought into line with BLP or we are commuting libel.--Aspro (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. -Roxy the dog. bark 00:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense is no meaningful reply without references. Appears very clearly now, that this article has ownership – that ignores the WP spirit of BLP & WP - need I say more. Signing off, because articles that are owned are a waist of time.--Aspro (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not brought any sources about Wakefield per se. I won't reply here again until you do, and I imagine others will do likewise. The WP:BURDEN is on you to support the change you want to see made. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Walker-Smith and Wakefield are two different cases. If you've got real reliable sources (which I doubt, because, well, I've written extensively on this) that dispute this point, then please bring them. But making a logical fallacy to say "Walker-Smith is innocent, ergo Wakefield is an angel who discovered the tie between MMR vaccines and autism" is just not going to fly. Wakefield was found guilty of fraud. End of story. Bah. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Refuting the trope that Andrew Wakefield was wronged by the GMCSkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Formatting of the sentence

I actually have a different concern about that sentence. Specifically, should the sentence read, "Wakefield was removed ("struck off") of the UK medical register..." (or something similar) or should it remain the same? I ask since without the parenthesis, it reads, "Wakefield was removed the UK medical register..." which does not sound proper. Adding the word of to the sentence would have it read, "Wakefield was struck off of the UK medical register..." which sounds proper. Though, if you read it without the context in parenthesis, it now reads, "Wakefield was removed of the UK medical register..." which does not sound proper. So, how should it be written, as is or modified? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Your of isn't proper english, and we wont be using it. -Roxy the dog. bark 06:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, then. So, how it is worded is correct or not? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am more confused since the sentence has been edited, but at least this has arrived at a conclusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

has met Donald Trump

The German wikipedia articleabout A.W. contains the following sentences :

Im August 2016 traf Wakefield auf Donald Trump während dessen Wahlkampf um die US-Präsidentschaft. Trump gilt als Impfskeptiker. So verbreitete er 2014 über Twitter die auf Wakefields Theses aufbauende Behauptung: Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM, Many such cases!

To my surprise, there is nothing about it here in en.wp. I am no native speaker ; could someone add it to the article, please ? --Neun-x (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Trivia. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

I think the article on Andrew Wakefield needs reviewing as he has now been exonerated, cf www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/ 31 Dec 2016 - Happy New Year: The Lancet Acknowledges Dr. Andrew Wakefield Is Exonerated. ... While The Lancet ombudsman Dr. Malcolm Molyneux refused to reverse the retraction of exonerated gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s landmark paper on post-vaccination autism, Dr. Molyneux did ... 80.44.248.64 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

See [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The autisminvestigated blog post asserts that

"While The Lancet ombudsman Dr. Malcolm Molyneux refused to reverse the retraction of exonerated gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s landmark paper on post-vaccination autism, Dr. Molyneux did acknowledge that the UK General Medical Council’s findings of misconduct against Dr. Wakefield had been overturned...."

This assertion is not supported by the email that the blog quotes, nor by objective reality—Wakefield has never been exonerated in any sense, Molyneux's email never described Wakefield as such, and the GMC's findings against Wakefield were never overturned. The blog is an inaccurate and unreliable source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Vaxxed, Propaganda.

Describing Vaxxed as Propaganda is a statement of opinion rather than fact. The term propaganda only colours the readers opinion, rather giving them the information to reach there own conclusions. Quoting the criticism the film received on opening is enough to make readers aware that doubts have been cast over the documentaries credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.22.9 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The description seems to be both factually accurate and well-supported by the half-dozen or so footnotes provided. We aren't even paraphrasing; 'propaganda' (or a close variation) is the literal wording used in most of them: "Propaganda reel", Toronto Star; "loaded with anti-vax propaganda" (with the word "documentary" enclosed in scare quotes), Slate; "tone-deaf agitprop", IndieWire; "propaganda film", Respectful Insolence.

It would be irresponsible of us to mislead our readers – and misrepresent the sources we use – by watering down our description of the film's nature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Vaxxed is the very definition of propaganda, and it would be irresponsible to characterize a film full of assertions that have been repeatedly disproven as anything else. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's referenced. So, it is a non issue, no matter what the anti vax crowd says. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes propaganda is not a matter of opinion, even the people who create and distribute propaganda are aware that they are disseminating propaganda, including the creators of the propaganda in question. Just bring up the current dictionary description of contemporary word usage and you find that the video is propaganda. The whole point of the video was to propagandize, after all. Damotclese (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Based on the Merriam-Webster definition anything that promotes an agenda (political activism, advertising ect) could be considered propaganda, google has a similar definition, but lists propaganda as a derogatory term, which seems consist with its everyday usage, calling into question the neutrality of calling a movie propaganda.

Why is Vaxxed called propaganda but not other agenda driven productions, should all political campaigning be called propaganda? If propaganda just means something intended to promote an agenda, then isn't the phrase "anti-vaccine propaganda" redundant? "Anti-vaccine" is a neutral and accurate description of this movie, making it clear that it promotes an anti-vaxx agenda, while propaganda seems more of a derogatory term that doesn't inform the reader of anything.

So my question is: what about Vaxxed warrants the label "propaganda" ? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources. See the discussion directly above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that the authors, editors, and publishers of the multiple pieces cited are well aware of the definitions and usage of English words, and selected their words with those definitions in mind. We are following their word choices. (Not all advocacy is propaganda; merely espousing a particular viewpoint or being "agenda driven" in insufficient to warrant the use of the term. Propaganda tends to involve playing fast and loose with the truth, at best, and often drifts into misrepresentation and outright fabrication. Certainly there will be some gray areas in drawing is-it-or-isn't-it boundary; again, that's why Wikipedia follows the sources.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: I see, the term "propaganda" is used to mean the movie is dishonest, not just to color the readers opinion, but I am still concerned with the idea that sources alone justify calling Vaxxed "propaganda" this is not an issue of sourcing but one of neutrality. Bias sources may meet WP:RS but this does not create an exemption to NPOV. This should probably be atrabutted by saying "has been called propaganda by....." rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice.Tornado chaser (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "not negative". NPOV we means that we follow reliable sources, and follow the weight that they give. It does not mean "fair and balanced". Sources that are considered reliable in WP describe Vaxxed as propaganda, and they describe the notion for which it advocates as dangerous pseudoscience, and they describe the propagator as a discredited medical fraud. None of this is ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, “neutral point of view” does not necessarily mean “your point of view”. I really don't see any basis for your concern; all of the descriptors in the article are sourced -- that is, attributed. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Put still another way: “neutral point of view” does not mean sitting on every fence between any two positions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I never said Vaxxed didn't promote pseudoscience or that Wakefield wasn't a fraud, and of course NPOV doesn't mean my point of view. Your right that NPOV doesn't mean sitting on the fence when dealing with issues of fact, but It does mean not taking sides on matters of opinion. The issue here is weather it is an opinion or fact that Vaxxed is propaganda, many sources call Vaxxed "propaganda" so it is well sourced, but a popular opinion shared by multiple sources is still an opinion, you could probably find many sources that call certain politicians racist but it would still be an opinion and therefor wouldn't be appropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice by saying "this politician is a racist" but you could say something like "this politician has been called a racist by....." My concern is that people are using sourcing alone to justify calling Vaxxed "propaganda", but sourcing cannot turn an opinion into a fact. I am suggesting the article state "Vaxxed has been called propaganda by..." WP:NPOV supports this, see the section on bias sources. If anyone can say why it is fact not opinion that Vaxxed is propaganda i will accept the consensus and move on. But so far all I have seen is people saying it is sourced so it's not an opinion, RS can still have opinions but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should report there opinions as fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

A statement that is racist is racist; something that is propaganda is propaganda. See WP:SPADE. You are not getting any traction here, nor presenting any policy-and-guideline based arguments. I will not respond further until you do. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

it seems a consensus has arisen that it is fact not opinion to call Vaxxed propaganda, so I will not debate this point further. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Andrew Wakefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7012267.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312134206/http://www.statesman.com/news/local/british-doctor-resigns-as-head-of-austin-autism-251756.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/local/british-doctor-resigns-as-head-of-austin-autism-251756.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026043205/http://www.iom.edu/reports/2004/immunization-safety-review-vaccines-and-autism.aspx to http://www.iom.edu/reports/2004/immunization-safety-review-vaccines-and-autism.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724093057/http://www.wwaytv3.com/healthwatch-disputed-autism-study-sparks-debate-about-vaccines/01/2011 to http://www.wwaytv3.com/healthwatch-disputed-autism-study-sparks-debate-about-vaccines/01/2011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

British former Gastroenterologist, or former British gastroenterologist?

I introduced an edit which was reverted to label Wakefield a former British gastroenterologist. The reason for this change is that the sentence flows better, and makes sense: He was a British gastroenterologist in that his medical license was derived from a British institution, whereas now that license was removed. While he remains British, he is no longer a British gastroenterologist: Therefore "former British gastroenterologist" makes sense. Perhaps nationality should be omitted from this sentence? Sdneidich (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No, he is still a Brit, no matter what you say. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, you've removed British from the lead. Could you please make him American. You are welcome to him, America! -Roxy the dog. bark 13:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No thank you. Natureium (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't want him in the U.S. either, we have enough with our Republicans problem as it is. Damotclese (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We went from hating a fraud that has led many parents to leave their children vulnerable to disease, to hating half of Americans? Too far. Natureium (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's not discuss politics here, why does nationality go in the lead? Since wakefield liven in Texas now I think it could be confusing to put nationality the lead. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm confused? -Roxy the dog. bark 23:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• the only relevant question here is whether is a US citizen or a UK citizen. I looked, and have found no evidence that he has become a US citizen, so he is still "British". I have restored that. Do not remove that again, without very reliable sourced content in the body stating that he is no longer a UK citizen. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• there is no evidence that he's switched citizenships. He has never made that claim. None of his sycophants have either. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Had his license to practice in the UK taken away but not his medical qualifications. So his still a British born gastroenterologist. Albert Einstein (and many others) still retained their professional status regardless of their new domicile. So, just as Einstein did not become a former physicist but a former German domicile, thus Wakefield has become a former British domicile and still is a doctor and still is a a qualified gastroenterologist in both the UK and U.S.A and all other countries that recognize such medical qualifications. So 'am correcting lead from former to born. Aspro (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

.. and I put it back, then saw this comment. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think he is no longer qualified in the UK, and in other countries he probably would need to fulfill some requirements to become qualified so I don't know if he is qualified in the USA either. Thinker78 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd just like to say that I have no idea why there is a discussion about where he was born. This has never come up in discussion, and I only noticed because of the broken language in the lead, which I have to keep correcting. Please stop this nationality thing. There is no, and never has been, any doubt, or controversy, only this thread for goodness sake. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• • What is going on with the reverts? 'Former' does not make grammatical sense. Former is an incorrect adjective. He used to practice gastroenterology in the UK and is still a retains that status. So 'former' is not fitting. Just as Jonathan Miller , Harry Hill and others are still doctors and used to practice. Margaret Thatcher didn't get her qualification down-graded to become a 'former chemist' on becoming Prime-minister. Come to think of it Franklin Roosevelt was never referred to as a former lawyer... because he still was. Just as John Quincy Adams was and Bill Clinton, John Tyler, Abraham Lincoln was etc. Or are some editors suggesting WP goes against the grammatical conventions of the English speaking World and invent our own? Aspro (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

He has his license revoked. Natureium (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

... and for the hard of thinking, that means he is a former Gastroetc. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that if he graduated with the title of gastroenterologist he will remain that for life, he is not "former" that although he may be an unlicensed gastroenterologist. But I don't agree that "former" does not make grammatical sense. It makes grammatical sense. Grammar is not concerned whether something is true or not, it is just concerned about certain rules. In this case the rule is that an adjective is a word that modifies a noun and that is all what grammar is concerned about. Grammar is fine if you say "All humans are former people" although we know that all humans are people. As a side note, saying that he is a former gastroenterologist is also a valid proposition according to logic, although the proposition itself can be true or false. Thinker78 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Former" makes perfect sense, grammatically and logically, and is entirely appropriate.

Let us suppose that an individual completed all of the necessary training to become, say, a bus driver. He passed the government-mandated tests for bus drivers, and paid the required bus-driver licensing fees. He got a job and was paid to drive a bus. At that point, I think we could all agree that he was a "bus driver".

Now suppose that he engaged in gross and reckless misconduct while driving a bus. He exposed a large number of people, including many children, to risk of serious harm. Consequently, he was permanently stripped of his bus driver's license. If he were to drive a bus now, he would be committing a criminal offence and face possible jail time. Heck, it would be illegal for him to even advertise or offer his services as a bus driver.

Tell me, is that individual a "bus driver", or a "former bus driver"?

As an aside, the article on Margaret Thatcher is both a red herring and a bad example for the argument you're failing to make, Aspro. It's a red herring because Thatcher is not best known and most famous for her work as a chemist (it also wouldn't be a criminal act for her to resume work as a chemist if she wished). In contrast, Wakefield is by far best known for the unethical work he did as a gastroenterologist that led to his ejection in disgrace from medical practice. Our article on Thatcher makes the opposite point from what you'd like, as it starts its second paragraph with the text "A research chemist before becoming a barrister, Thatcher was elected...". Wikipedia is pretty clear that Thatcher isn't still a research chemist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. :) The lead-in sentence is not clean, it does need work, it's not worded well at all. How about we change the text to read ...is a British-born medical researcher who practiced gastroenterology who... -- That gives past tense as is a little cleaner. Damotclese (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert question

@Jytdog:@Thinker78: Jytdog, I see you made this revert[6], undoing an edit by Thinker78 saying discuss it on the talk page, but you didn't say what was wrong with Thinker78's edit, so my question is, why the revert? Thinker78 is a fairly new editor, and I think it would be good for them to know what you think was wrong with their edit, as it wasn't a blatant policy violation (WP:VD WP:POV WP:OR Copyvio, ect). Tornado chaser (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The diff introduced POV content and kind of didn't make sense, stating with "Howver..." What follows doesn't contradict what came before. And what follows the "however" - the quoted matter -- is the line all the anti-vaxers use and is their main "spin". We don't need that. And generally we don't use quotations; an encyclopedia article is not a newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2017 (U

(linking POV) The "however" might not belong, but I thought it was normal in a BLP to mention the denial if the person denied accusations against them. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That argument has been getting pushed very hard at the white supremacy related articles lately and is POV bullshit. That is not at all normal. WP content is driven by sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"WP content is driven by sources" The edit was sourced, but I am not familiar with newsweek, was there a problem with the source? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't add every bit of thing that is in every source, now do we. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tornado. I wonder why the only reasons Jytdog wrote in the summary for the revert is "nope" and that I needed to explain why my edit should be added. I think it would be more objective if Jytdog summarized what is wrong with my edit and why it shouldn't have been added. I am suspecting that Jytdog has a bias and that's the reason why my edit was removed. Thinker78 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I never said we did, you said "WP content is driven by sources" so I pointed out that the content in question was sourced, you still have not clearly stated what is wrong with Thinker78's edit, I am not attached to the edit, but I don't like seeing new editors good-faith edits reverted without a clear explanation. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Note that it could just as well be you who has the bias. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I did say what it is wrong with it. It doesn't make sense as written, we don't generally use quotes, and it is amplifying the #1 progaganda line of anti-vax activists. It is pure POV. This article is pretty complete btw. When people come and make edits like that they are generally trying to add strongly POV content one way or the other. This was the other. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense as written is not a reason for an unexplained revert, this would be an easy fix. What propagandists will do with material isn't the criteria for whether to exclude or include the material, and there are quotes in many if not most articles that deal with controversies. Thinker78's edit could be seen as WP:UNDUE, but if that was the issue it should have been stated in the edit summary, rather that just reverting a new editor and saying "nope, discuss on talk page" when they don't even know what is wrong with their edit. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: 1. I think that vaccines are very useful in combating infectious diseases.

2.I think I stumbled on this Wakefield article by investigating claims in Reddit and in my investigation I found the Newsweek article with a quote from Wakefield saying that he did not claim to have proven that vaccines cause autism so I thought that it was very relevant information to the Wikipedia article.

3. I thought that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and it looks like you are clearly biased against certain point of view.

4. I think that curating information on Wikipedia to further one point of view and oppose another is clearly against Wikipedia's policies and you seem to imply that the reason you reverted my edit was because you think "it is amplifying the #1 progaganda line of anti-vax activists". 4. I'm not an anti-vax activist and I even question the wisdom of not vaccinating kids against deadly infectious diseases.

5. As I said before I added the information because it is very relevant and crucial information in the section of the article because apparently the guy's retracted research was not claiming to prove that vaccines cause autism as people probably think.

6.I specified clearly in the summary of my edit that I "Added information according to Wikipedia's non-free content guideline examples of acceptable use of text" and said guideline states that "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes" , and in the Wikipedia explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Copyright violation policy and the Wikipedia:Plagiarism guideline, titled "Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing", there are even examples that I followed, and I quote from said supplement "Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source.... Thus: Right: Churchill said, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."[1] Wrong: According to Bulgarian Butterflies, "the patient observer may be fortunate enough to glimpse this rare moth flitting along the mossy banks of a woodland stream."[3]" . So, quotes as I used them comply with Wikipedia's guidelines.

7. As I said, you seem to be not complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Five pillars, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"." .

References

--Thinker78 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC) edited 23:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Quoting policy is not helpful - please see WP:CLUE which is the most important tiny essay in this whole place.

The quote is one big spoonful of POV content in this article. We already know he is anti-vax so it doesn't add knowledge.

There are plenty of people who watch this article and there is no deadline here. Let's see what other folks have to say. We can pursue some form of WP:DR if a consensus doesn't develop one way or another. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If citing policy is not helpful, why are you calling the edit POV? After all WP:NPOV is a policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, two things: First: I said that quoting policy is not helpful. Second: In general, your efforts to play "referee" here are unhelpful; this is the second time you have mischaracterized what I have written. If you are trying to help a newbie, adding confusion is not doing that. Please simply provide your own views on the content under discussion. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be in two places in the article. This specific example of Wakefield's hand waving is already covered in the lead (ref 35 at the moment is the same as the ref in the deleted edit). I suppose there is a case for it to be in the body, where this instance of denial doesn't appear, but it is overkill to have both imho. At the moment I will leave things alone. That wall of text doesn't help though as it took me ages to figure out what was being said, an appeal to balance, rather than an appeal for NPOV, two very different things. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this in the lead. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to borrow my spectacles? -Roxy the dog. bark 13:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was wrong, it is actually ref 34, sorry. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ref 34 says something quite different from the edit being discussed here. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want to borrow my specs? -Roxy the dog. bark 14:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ref 34 is saying that he stands by his conclusions, the edit in question quotes him as saying he didn't conclude that vaccines cause autism. 34 is about the validity of his conclusions, while this edit is about what his conclusions were. Tornado chaser (talk)

In that case, you appear to be supporting Jytdog, as am I, sort of. (You really do need to check "both" refs) -Roxy the dog. bark 14:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

They are both the same ref, but what is currently in the lead says that he stands by his research, which makes it seem that he is still standing by claims that MMR causes autism. I think it is necessary to also say that he says he didn't prove anything and was just calling for more research. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I am trying to subtract confusion, not add it, at first this looked like a classic WP:BITE when I saw it on my watchlist, after looking at the sources I think that thinker's edit was good, but it may need to be reworded/put in a different spot. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your own position. You reasons have been a) "it is in a source". b) BLP articles present the subject's own views in reaction to how others describe them. No one has contested the first and the second is an incorrect interpretation of BLP. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, you'r right that "a" alone is not a valid reason for inclusion, I only brought it up when I thought you contested it. B, per NPOV isn't the subject's response to criticism supposed to be mentioned in an article? in this case it is already, so that isn't the issue. After Roxy pointed out that source 34 is used both in the lead and in thinker's edit, I realized that the lead says "he publicly repeated his denials and refused to back down from his assertions" implying that he stands by the claim that MMR causes autism. However, the quote in thinker's edit claimed to be calling for more research(which he should know has been done already?), not claiming to have proved a MMR-autism connection, and should be included to clarify what exactly Wakefield is standing by. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

already answered above which you ignored. Go read the close of this CWOT RFC -- Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Labeling_people_correctly --about this issue. That same issue has been flogged in a bunch of other places and the answer has been "no" every time. The answer is still "no". Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:1.Although the same citation I used is in the lead, that text in the lead doesn't elaborate nor specify which denials it is talking about, although it may refer to his denials of fraud, hoax and profit motive, which is different to the information I included, which says that he didn't claim that vaccines cause autism. Besides, I really don't know why you say it is duplicative using the same reference to cite different parts of an article, because according to the Wikipedia articles I have read it is established practice to use the same citation for different claims in different parts of the article. 2. I will also point out Wikipedia:editing policy "redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum (excepting the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the entire article, and so is intentionally duplicative)".

References

Thinker78 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

He committed academic fraud, had his license stripped, said things like this (quoted in PMID 14604564): "On 12th November 2000, the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a segment on the controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine and autism. CBS correspondent Ed Bradley asked Dr. Wakefield whether he would give his children the MMR vaccine. Dr. Wakefield responded, “No, I wouldn’t. I would most certainly vaccinate them. I would give them the single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.” That performance helped spark the anti-vax movement here and made him its hero, per many refs including that one and this one and many many more. He continues fanning fear around MMR for example through the recent propaganda movie Vaxxed. In this quote he is trying to claim some kind of scientific credibility. He has none.

You can throw an RfC for this PSCI-promoting quote. It will be a waste of time, but you can do that if you want. I am not responding here further Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:@Jytdog:I am definitely not trying to give him any credibility, maybe the quote could be followed by "despite the fact that numerous studies have been done showing no connection between MMR and autisim, it doesn't even need to be a quote, but I think there is a case for mentioning this denial in the body. Tornado chaser (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that Jytdog has a bias. I may not be an anti-vaxer but I am pro neutral point of view so I'm scandalized about Jytdog reasons for not wanting to include the quote. Thinker78 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the quote was lifted from a magazine dated 20 Feb 2015, long after the full details of the deliberate frauds were committed, and long after the frauds were dragged through various criminal and civil courts. I mention this because the proposed quote which was reverted -- while a denial of a WP:BLP individual -- is also a blatant lie, details of which are highly extant within the current article as well as in the references and citations. Wakefield's protests aside, the actual facts contradict his 2015 lies.

Wikipedia should not give undue weight to lies spoken long after the truth has been fully documented. Even a casual mention in the full context that was proposed offers undue weight to the blatant lie. Arguably one could add parts of the quoted lie and note that Wakefield lied in a 2015 interview, but again, that doesn't really contribute to the biography which the extant page covers.

Reverting the proposed update smells legitimate to me, it contradicts Wakefield's history, it's a proven lie, and it deviates from WP:BLP. The quote adds no benefit yet gives researchers unfamiliar with the man's history a solid contradiction. Damotclese (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how adding this proposed quote would benefit the article. Nowhere do we write that Wakefield claimed to have proven a link, in fact, in the Andrew Wakefield#MMR controversy section, it explicitly says "the paper said that no causal connection had been proven". Nothing new or of value is introduced by throwing in this quote. Cannolis (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was already mentioned, given this, thinker's quote was redundant and I no longer support adding it, sorry for any confusion I caused. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thinker78: per WP:AGF and WP:NPA, you probably shouldn't be saying your "scandalized" by another editors (presumed) motives. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: This is what Jytdog said: "That argument has been getting pushed very hard at the white supremacy related articles lately and is POV bullshit" and "We already know he is anti-vax so it doesn't add knowledge". I consider those ad hominem attacks and you kind of didn't say anything at that time. Well, anyway, the consensus is pretty obvious at this time though, so I will accept the revert of my edit under protest unless the consensus gets overturned later on by more editors. Thinker78 (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It would always come down to an RfC and there is no way the community would allow a local consensus to over-ride policy-based editing. "More editors" is not going to change the outcome here. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I don't think what you say has validity given that you conducted ad hominem attacks on me and defamed me by calling me antivaxer. Thinker78 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Think what you like; but I did not call you an anti-vaxer, and was very careful not to. I did say that the edit was anti-vax advocacy, which is entirely different. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You said, and I quote, "We already know he is anti-vax so it doesn't add knowledge." Thinker78 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The "he" in Jytdog's sentence is very obviously Wakefield, not you (unless you are Wakefield). Even without the "so it doesn't add knowledge" it does not make sense for it to refer to you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously it is not very obviously about Wakefield because I think he was referring to me. But I concede that the quote might be talking about Wakefield and not me. Only @Jytdog: can clarify that. Thinker78 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

... and he already has, four posts up, when he said Think what you like; but I did not call you an anti-vaxer, and was very careful not to. Is there something there that isn't clear? Read WP:AGF please. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thinker78: He was referring to wakefield, not you. Also, the reason I didn't say anything to Jytdog was because what he said wasn't really a personal attack, he may have been a bit harsh, and I did mention WP:BITE, but he was criticizing your edit, while you were assuming bad motives on his part. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Quotes

in general i think the quotes are unhelpful and plan to remove them, adding additional summary where needed. quotes are newspaper stuff usually done for "color", not encyclopedia stuff. just a heads up in case anybody wants to object. We lose no encyclopedic information by summarizing; summarizing is what we do. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good thing yet one must be careful not to remove quotes just because they are quotes. For example if the quote is from one of the actors in the incidents being discussed -- the criminality or ethics violations, things of substance -- the quotes should be retained if they are relevant and flow logically.

The issues here is that more information is better than less and quotes from major actors (including when from a WP:BLP) are important and informative provided references and citations are provided which support the quote.

On the other hand quotes that are just provided to add filler to an otherwise empty sandwich can distract and clutter. So removal of quotes can either help or hinder. The core reason to exist is to provide information and a jumping-off point for people to click links to follow threads they're interested in, either for school work or for their own edification, I doubt that Wikipedia is used for legal or medical research. :)

Good luck! You may find contention from editors since the individual in question has a history that some editors would like to see expunged, others want to see fully described. Don't be discouraged if people object. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Book

I removed a plot summary of the book sourced from the book itself. The reasons are, I think, obvious: Wakefield is a proven liar and citing his own opinion on how he was wronged without the context of independent commentary is a gross failure of WP:NPOV. The solution is simple - replace the plot summary with a review in a reliable independent source. That's what i set out to do. And oddly, it turns out to be rather difficult: reliable sources ignored Wakefield's book. It appears to have been treated as someone saying "and another thing..." long after they lost the argument. Oh there are reviews, fawning ones on quack autism sites (Age of Autism for example) and occasional snarky ones on skeptical blogs, but there's nothing I can find in reliable sources. A few places repeat the publisher's blurb, obviously unacceptable, but literary sites that can be relied on to discuss the book's objective merit appear to have universally ignored it. So unless we're going to drop our sourcing criteria to the level of whale.to and LeftBrainRightBrain, we can't cover this other than as it currently is, a note of its existence under Publications. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit, when I first saw the diff where you removed the article section on Callous Disregard I was a bit concerned and I was afraid I might have to come to this talk page to push back. Even though Wakefield is a fraud and his book a heap of self-serving twaddle, I thought it would be wrong to just drop his one major bit of recent 'popular' writing down the memory hole.

...Fortunately, that's not what happened. Callous Disregard is (still) mentioned and appropriately described at at least three points in the article's main text. It's also still at the top of the list of Selected Publications. We still give reasonable and proportionate coverage to the work. Good call. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Guys even though reliable sources call his work "fraud", calling him "a liar" and "a fraud" here doesn't look very much like NPOV to be honest. I would suggest giving your viewpoints without the unneeded adjectives. Thinker78 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)