Talk:Andrew Wakefield: Difference between revisions

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days

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

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance). England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles 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 [show] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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. 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/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Wakefield&oldid=409160831#Washington_Times_copyvio

He has different opinion, for sure, but where is the "FRAUD"? 98.51.145.194 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. It's clearly explained there. --McSly (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A different opinion" that he justified with a fraudulent study, sparking nation-wide vaccine hesitancy and outbreaks of preventable diseases. Woozybydefault (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After making the topic a hot potato that few would touch some 40+ researchers have taken the trouble to investigate the idea of a link of some sort between autism and the gut microbiome and have come away convinced.

Andrews research may have been inadequate to draw conclusions but the correlation does seems to be there.

Multi-level analysis of the gut-brain axis shows autism spectrum disorder-associated molecular and microbial profiles
Idyllic press (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err, Wakefield did not research the microbiome, he researched the effects of vaccination. Very much not the same thing. The Nature paper never claims a link between vaccination and autism.

If he did research microbiome, there were no conflict of interest, so one of the pillars for him being struck from the medical profession would not have been there. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

much more than a correlation! 2A00:23C8:9F93:FB01:7960:7958:3808:9509 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccination as a cause of autism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:9F93:FB01:7960:7958:3808:9509 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]