Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::: 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 ]. ] (]) 23:45, 5 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 ]. ] (]) 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: Do you have a specific edit to suggest? If not, move on. As per {{ping|TenOfAllTrades}}'s excellent suggestion. ] (]) 01:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: Do you have a specific edit to suggest? If not, move on. As per {{ping|TenOfAllTrades}}'s excellent suggestion. ] (]) 01:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::: ] (]) 05:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
== For editors reverting my edits, please discuss here ==
== For editors reverting my edits, please discuss here ==
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Wakefield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
A news item involving Andrew Wakefield was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2011.
Misplaced Pages
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
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.
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
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 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
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 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
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. --NeilN04:21, 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/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)
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/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)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article based on genuinely reliable sources I would be glad to engage with that discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 20 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, Misplaced Pages 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)
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/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/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/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/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 hypothesis that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.” Read the decision, and give it a rest. Please. DoctorJoeE/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/talk to me!19:07, 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/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)
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/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/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/talk to me!01:30, 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/talk to me!00:08, 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/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/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)
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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. APKwhisper in my ear22:28, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is to discuss how best to go about improving Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors who respect Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
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™woof14:11, 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/talk to me!17:07, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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)
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. --NeilN04:26, 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)
(ec) The ratio of constructive to counterproductive edits in Realskeptic's history doesn't fill me with confidence, and I expect that after his current one-week block Realskeptic will almost certainly return to making tendentious edits to this page and others related to vaccination—but I am always willing to be pleasantly surprised. Right now we're enjoying at least a one-week reprieve from his disruptive editing, and if he resumes it when he returns, the WP:AE filing will be very straightforward. In the meantime, carry on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think people should get sniffy about the London Daily Mail, whose website I believe is the number one news source in the world. That may not appeal to you, but I think it's true. The organization has a street address, staff, and so forth. But, more important than this, the paragraph to which I have added the source states what Wakefield is "known for". That is the purpose of my putting in this source. If you read it, the article directly refers to the Wakefield fraud, evidencing better than any of the other sources what he is known for. It's not there a question of what he did, but what he is known for. And he is known for his fraud.Dallas66 (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
That's the problem with people getting stuck in the rut of these things. The Mail is clearly an impeccable source on someone's reputation. Arguably, it's the best. Plainly much better than any other source in that paragraph. Dallas66 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The statement was adequately referenced already. The Mail story doesn't make any special comment on his reputation, and given its redundancy and what is already at RS/N I don't think it should be used. Brunton (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the relevant passage, which I think is making clear what Wakefield is known for', as opposed to some editor who wants to insert that Wakefield is known (to his sister) for playing banjo: 'Fears about vaccines and autism began to spread after the publication in 1998 of an article by Andrew Wakefield that purported to find a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in 12 children. It was later found to be fraudulent and was retracted by the journal that published it.' If he is known to the Mail for that, then I would say he's known to the world for that. Which is not sourced as well anywhere else. Dallas66 (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
As noted, the statement was already referenced, no need to add something from the Mail (ever....). No consensus for this addition. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
