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.
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)
For editors reverting my edits, please discuss here
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)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
