Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:48, 16 November 2015

A news item involving Andrew Wakefield was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2011.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Autism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Andrew Wakefield. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.) A1: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. While the article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Misplaced Pages, the balance must accurately reflect the balance in those sources according to their reliability. There are two relevant policies: biographies of living people and neutral point of view. According to these two policies, both of which are non-negotiable, we must reflect the subject as it is seen by reliable independent sources, but we must do so accurately and in a neutral way. Q2: Should material critical of Wakefield be in the lead? (Yes.) A2: Yes. Wakefield is at the heart of one of the most discussed scientific frauds in recent times. This is not Misplaced Pages's judgment, it is the consensus view of reliable independent sources, we reflect those. Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.) A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence. Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider the MMR-autism link a fringe theory? (Yes) A4: Yes. The MMR-autism link is described as refuted in all significant independent sources. It is a fringe view. Q5: Should studies that show a link between autism and MMR (or vaccines more generally) go into the article? (Only if they meet WP:MEDRS.) A5: Only if they meet WP:MEDRS. We do not include low quality sources that contradict much higher quality sources. At present there are no studies meeting our sourcing guidelines for medical topics which credibly support the MMR-autism link, and there is an enormous body of research showing that there is no temporal link or association. Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" be created? (No.) A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged. Q7: Should evidence of a link between the gut and / or its microbiome and autism be included in the article? (No.) A7: No. This would be a novel synthesis from primary sources, which is forbidden. Wakefield's work did not address this, and even if there were a proven causal link between the gut or its microbiome and autism, this would be irrelevant to Wakefield's published research and its subsequent refutation and retraction. Q8: Should all references to material critical of Wakefield be put in a single section in the article? (No.) A8: No. Sources critical of Wakefield should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Misplaced Pages. Q9: Should the article characterize Wakefield's work as fraudulent? (Yes.) A9: Yes. Wakefield's research has been retracted due to undeclared conflicts of interest and has been criticised in the literature for ethical and methodological issues. It is credibly identified as research fraud, and there is no significant informed dissent from this judgment in the published literature. Q10: Should the article include favourable commentary from "vaccine skeptical" sources? (No.) A10: No. The article may only contain material from reliable independent sources, and medical claims must be drawn only from sources that meet our subject-specific sourcing requirements. Sources within the anti-vaccination movement rarely meet our general sourcing reliability guidelines and almost never meet our medical sourcing guidelines. We do not accept agenda-driven claims from poor quality sources to "balance" more reliable sources, however much we might like or dislike the conclusions of either.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Andrew Wakefield be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Andrew Wakefield, 2011 Additional comments Andrew Wakefield's birthdate was apparently taken by the Washington Times from an older, unsourced version of this article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Andrew_Wakefield&oldid=409160831#Washington_Times_copyvio

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 I can certainly understand why you'd feel that way. --NeilN 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. DoctorJoeE /_{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 Misplaced Pages: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)

For editors reverting my edits, please discuss here

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. ^ "General Medical Council, Fitness to Practise Panel Hearing, 24 May 2010, Andrew Wakefield, Determination of Serious Professional Misconduct" (PDF). General Medical Council. Retrieved 18 September 2011.

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Mid-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class England-related articles
• Mid-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• B-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Unassessed Autism articles
• Mid-importance Autism articles
• WikiProject Autism articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people of England