Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 13:27, 21 January 2011 (add Backwardscopy template for Washington Times misinfo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Andrew Wakefield, 2011

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Attribution to Deer

A lot of this article is cited to Brian Deer; we need to check it for attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• It might be important to point out that Deer is using as source, and summarizing, materials reviewed and reported on (I'm not sure that the correct word is "published") by the General Medical Council, including the medical records of the twelve children, and drafts of the paper, which enabled the Council to see that Wakefield had changed the paper to misrepresent and contradict what was in the Royal Free Hospital's medical records, e.g. changing a finding of normal bowel histology to abnormal and changing the dates when problems were noted from before the vaccine was given, or months after, to just after. —Monado (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, generally attribution needs to be checked throughout-- I haven't done it, for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath of fraud charges

Many physicians, journals, and editors are making statements, some of whom make direct ties between Wakefield's fraudulent actions and various epidemics and deaths, laying the blame directly at his feet:

• BMJ Lifts Curtain on MMR-Autism Fraud, By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today

More articles of interest:

• The fraud behind the MMR scare, Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ, BMJ 2011; 342:d22 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d22 (Published 6 January 2011)
• Brian Deer: Piltdown medicine: The missing link between MMR and autism, 6 Jan, 11 | by BMJ Group
• Link between MMR Vaccines and Autism conclusively broken, By IB Times Staff Reporter | January 7, 2011 4:01 AM EST
• BMJ Declares Vaccine-Autism Study 'an Elaborate Fraud', 1998 Lancet Study Not Bad Science but Deliberate Fraud, Claims Journal, By Nicky Broyd, WebMD Health News, Reviewed by Farah Ahmed, MD Jan. 6, 2011

Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deaths

"That paper killed four children" in Europe, reported by CBS News and elsewhere, and caused 125,000 children in the US not to receive vaccinations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The study discussed by Michael Smith:

• Smith MJ, Ellenberg SS, Bell LM, Rubin DM (2008). "Media coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism controversy and its relationship to MMR immunization rates in the United States". Pediatrics. 121 (4): e836–43. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1760. PMID 18381512. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The deaths discussed by Offit:

• McBrien J, Murphy J, Gill D, Cronin M, O'Donovan C, Cafferkey MT (2003). "Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000". Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 22 (7): 580–4. doi:10.1097/01.inf.0000073059.57867.36. PMID 12867830. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a long-time critic of the dangers of the anti-vaccine movement who has written a book on the subject, Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. "Study linking vaccines to autism is 'fraudulent'". Time. 2011-01-06. Retrieved 2011-01-07.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vaccination stats in the US:

• Jasek, Marissa (2011-01-06). "Healthwatch: Disputed autism study sparks debate about vaccines". WWAY Newschannel 3. Retrieved 2011-01-07.

Since Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study was released in 1998, many parents have been convinced the measels, mumps and rubella vaccine could lead to autism. But that study may have done more harm than good. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than any year since 1997. More than 90 percent of those infected had not been vaccinated, or their vaccination status was not known.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have prepared a new subsection for this to be added at the end of the Consequences of fraud section. Just fill it up! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All of this is in the article now; can this section be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The first sentence in the article was changed, and is quite awkward now:

• Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher known for his claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps and rubella), autism and inflammatory bowel disease, and for a well publicised 1998 study, that he led, that seemed to show that a connection existed.

Since it's on the mainpage, I suggest we fix it soon, perhaps to something like:

• Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher known for controversial claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps and rubella), autism and inflammatory bowel disease in a well-publicised 1998 study led by him that has been declared fraudulent.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That's much better. I'd add "his" before "controversial claims".

I still think that "former" is too uninformative. There are numerous innocent reasons for why a physician might be described as "former". In this case we need an informative word. I suggested "delicensed", while another suggested the awkward British technical expression "struck off". Whatever we use, it needs to be made plain right at the beginning that he was forcibly defrocked for misconduct (unfortunately that expression is used only for clergy). -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that "former" is sufficient. Remember that we don't need to fit everything in the first few words of the lede. The end of the first sentence notes that the study was fraudulent, the second paragraph covers the highlights of his unethical conduct, and the entire third paragraph (still well 'above the fold') is devoted to the GMC's findings and the (well-deserved) delicensing. We don't need to bash our readers over their heads in order to persuade them of Wakefield's recklessness, and we shouldn't write our article on the assumption that they won't get past the first sentence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with either "former" or "disgraced", but I feel that this may be slightly awkward: "... well-publicised 1998 study led by him that has been declared fraudulent"

How about adding a couple of commas and tweaking a word: "well-publicised 1998 study, led by him, which has been declared fraudulent"

I think that would read more clearly. We might even go a step further and split the "fraudulent" into a follow-on sentence. Comments / complaints? bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has since updated the current lede, new word bolded:

"Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent claims of a causative connection..."

Now, I'm no fan of Wakefield, but even though we have reliable independent sources saying Bad Things about him, we shouldn't try to cram it all into the first sentence. That may tend to make the start of article look more like an editorial or polemic. I'd like to suggest that we have might use either "disgraced", or "fraudulent" in the opening sentence, but not both. Would that be an acceptable compromise to people? bobrayner (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is his fraudulent claims for which he is known, and which underlie his notability. I think it is important at the first mention of his claims to make their status clear. DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Duncan is right. Fraudulent should be in the first sentence. That's what he's known for. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No one fixed the redundancies in the lead for the entire first day it was on the mainpage, so I just did. This article really needs expansion-- I'm surprised that being on the mainpage has resulted in no improvement or expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Consequences of fraud" section title

I'm not sure if that is the best title for that section. The events in that section occurred while most people were under the impression that Wakefield was merely wrong and unethical, not fraudulent. NW (Talk) 22:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. He wasn't struck off for fraud, and AFAICT the Lancet didn't quite allege fraud either ('fraud' implies intent to deceive, whereas 'false claims' can be the result of gross incompetence). I've changed the title to better describe the section. --GenericBob (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is the nature of Misplaced Pages articles that they are updated to keep up with the latest evidence and sources. We now know that there was fraud all along, so the heading should say so.

The subheadings break it down and show a progression, with the last subheading (hidden until the content is provided) providing the ultimate consequence, the deaths and injuries to children. The main heading only limits it to consequences to him personally. That's too limited. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the hidden placeholder until now. For my money it makes better sense to separate out discussion of the consequences to Wakefield from the broader consequences; certainly until that section is actually written it doesn't have a bearing on article structure.

We know now that his work was fraudulent, but it's misleading to say that he was struck off as a consequence of the fraud. It was in large part a consequence of his failure to disclose interests, mistreating his patients, bypassing hospital ethics rules, and buying blood from kids at a birthday party (seriously, wtf?) We already note the fraud in the article lede and in the BMJ's findings; it's not like it's being hidden from readers. --GenericBob (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Okay, carry on. The article is being developed and updated nicely. This isn't finished yet since the story is being covered by even more sources and Brian Deer's three articles aren't all available yet. It will be interesting what his investigations reveal. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Call for extradition

I'm not sure of the status of this Forbes blog. It may be rated as RS if it's Whelan's column and he's a respected journalist:

• Extradite Andrew Wakefield To Face Fraud Charges In The UK, David Whelan, Jan. 5, 2011

Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just one guy calling for it. Might be worth including if there's more pressure from others. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It will be interesting to see how this develops. Wakefield is vulnerable to criminal charges, as well as lawsuits from parents, especially those whose children he (ab)used in his "research". -- Brangifer (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The parent's lawsuits would be a civil matter, and I doubt extradition can occur for that. The lawyers that paid him could theoretically have a case, but I doubt it. The journals like the Lancet might have a case for the loss of reputation, but again, I doubt that extradition would occur over it. I've never heard of someone being extradited for something like this.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He may be liable for criminal charges relating to the unethical and unnecessary procedures on children. The payments he received from the Legal Aid Board could also conceivably result in criminal proceedings, as could any statement he made under oath in his failed libel action against Channel 4 et al.. We should also remember that extradition from the US to the UK is much harder to get than extradition from the UK to the US. However, this is all speculation at this stage, and in the absence of anything more concrete should stay off the article. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree-- we need to give due weight to sources, and we don't yet see a number of secondary reliable sources raising this issue. Further, do we even know what kind of residency Wakefield has in the US? If he's in the US on a Green card, and is found guilty of something, extradition wouldn't even be necessary-- he could be deported. For now, it's all speculative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct categorization, please

Please don't add "2011 scandals" or similar categories to this article. There are two types of categories: set categories and topic categories. Set categories are generally in the plural, such as "2011 scandals". To fit into that category, the article has to describe a scandal. It desn't, it describes a person, and people cannot be categorized as scandals.

However, the article on Mr. Wakefield fits into the category of "MMR vaccine controversy", since it is a topic category. The article on the controversy fits both in its namesake category and the "2011 scandals" category, since it both is part of the topic and can be categorized as a scandal.

See WP:CATEGORY.

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I read that page (which is only a guideline) and can't decipher a reason for removing useful categories from this page; please quote the exact portions referenced, and explain why the guideline should overrule common sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume you don't mean to say that the guideline contradicts common sense (would not be good news if it did). For an article to fit into a set category - such as the "2011 scandals" - it has to be an occurrence of what the category name indicates. Mr. Wakefield isn't a scandal (other than colloquially), the vaccine fraud is one. If we categorize all kinds of people, both purps and victims, into categories like this, first it wouldn't make sense, for reasons already stated above (and in the guideline), second it would clutter the category with people articles (since most of the time more than one person is involved in a scandal), making it hard to distinguish the scandals themselves.

What do you expect when you view a set category? You expect occurrences of what the category name indicates. Try the set category of "Olympic ice hockey players", for instance. You have to be one to fit into it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to say that-- assuming isn't usually helpful, common sense frequently overrules guidelines, which are not policy. You haven't quoted the portion of the guideline that backs your assertion, and I can't locate it-- please do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Academic scandals contains a number of individuals. __meco (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless the HandsomeFella can explain his cat deletions, they need to be re-added, per common sense and no guideline negating them. GorgeousBabe. 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that when there exists a separate article on the scandal, these categories go there. In many cases, however, the scandal is discussed in one or more sections in the biographical article, and then they must go there or otherwise the scandal doesn't get categorized at all. __meco (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

GorgeousBabe and HandsomeFella....amusing.  :) LeftCoastMan (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, categorization in WP is probably not an exact science, but I think bullet point 1 proves what I'm trying to say: "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs."

In categories such as "2011 scandals" you'd expect events, because that is what scandals are by nature. Persons are not events. That's where logic comes into it, if you ask me.

Yes, there are probably pages that aren't categorized along this way of reasoning, but the cause could be that no-one (so far) has been "enforcing" this with any vigour. It does not disprove my point.

Check this category for a parallel: Category:Political scandals in the United States. Wouldn't you say that it's much easier to find what you search for in this category than it would have been if it had been filled with all persons significantly involved in the scandals listed there?

This is the best way I explain my cat deletions. But if there is a majority against me, then I will not delete them again. Btw, GorgeousBabe, would asking for your telephone number be going too far? ;-)

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why I left WP a while ago. People pushing illogical and silly agendas, pretending to be one thing, but really not. You're obviously here to clear Wakefield's name. If I had my way, I put him on the Mass Murderer category for all the deaths he caused by parents not vaccinating their children. Technically, he's one of the worst serial killers ever. So there. If we're going to push agendas, may as well push one that makes some sense. LeftCoastMan (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to to clear anyone's name. That is an insult. I don't know the guy, and I have no reason to believe other than what is reported in media. If you continue with argumentum ad hominem, we will not miss you in WP. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so we have no guideline-based or common sense reason for deleting the categories, they should go back. We do know who's gorgeous at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that common sense is subjective. And guideline-based or common sense reasons would go for both adding and deleting cats, wouldn't they? Did you read the quite nuanced discussion on the talkpage of the category I mentioned above? It's good reading. Category talk:Political scandals in the United States, section "Inclusion Criteria".

As far as I've understood, Wakefield isn't involved in any other scandal, is he? And he's already placed in the category "MMR vaccine fraud", so what's the point of putting him in the "2011 scandals" category?

Maybe this discussion could be continued elsewhere, on a "higher" level (I mean in a broader context, WP-somewhere)? HandsomeFella (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Struck from record

Were Murch and Walker-Smith (co-authors) also struck after the investigation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to read up, but several of the co-authors have retracted their "authorship." LeftCoastMan (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at our article on the MMR vaccine controversy, the GMC decided to strike off both Wakefield and Walker-Smith. (The GMC's Medical Register web site confirms this.) The full Determination by the GMC regarding Murch is here, the statements from page 6 are particularly relevant:

The Panel acknowledged that Professor Murch’s status within the department at the time of events in 1996, was that of a relatively junior consultant and that he would attach significant weight to the opinion he was given by Professor Walker-Smith.

The Panel accepted the expert evidence of Professor Booth, that a colonoscopist would have a low threshold for carrying out a colonoscopy that had been requested by a more senior colleague who had many more years of experience in assessing children. The Panel also accepted that it could not criticise Professor Murch for making an assumption that an investigation was clinically indicated if ordered by Professor Walker-Smith as it is appropriate to “respect the skills and contributions of your colleagues”, as indicated in the 1995 edition of Good Medical Practice.

The Panel concluded Professor Murch acted in good faith albeit it has found he was in error. His actions, although comparable to professional misconduct in respect of undertaking procedures which were not clinically indicated, were mitigated by the fact that he was under a false impression that they were clinically indicated and this could not reach the threshold of serious professional misconduct.

In relation to the Lancet paper, Panel has found that Professor Murch was not a senior author of that paper.

The Panel noted that in the press briefing held at the Royal Free Hospital immediately prior to publication of the Lancet Paper, Professor Murch spoke to the findings. Professor Zuckerman, the Dean of the Royal Free hospital at the time, in giving evidence to the Panel, testified that Professor Murch vigorously presented the view that the findings in this research were not sufficient to advise discontinuation of the MMR vaccine. Professor Murch was also instrumental in the retraction of the interpretation that had been placed on The Lancet article by the media. In dealing with the repercussions of the Lancet paper and their possible impact on public health policy, the Panel considered that Professor Murch behaved professionally and responsibly.

In other words, there is every indication that Murch was a competent and responsible doctor who trusted too much in his mentor, Walker-Smith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I read in one source that Walker-Smith was also struck, but don't recall which. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The footnote in the MMR vaccine controversy article cites Sanchez, Raf; Rose, David (2010-05-25). "Dr Andrew Wakefield struck off medical register". The Times (London). Unfortunately, as with most Times links, the URL seems broken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw it in one of the sources on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Found this, adding now, but should switch it to a more enduring source when one is found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we actually need any additional sources – beyond the official GMC determination – for Murch not being struck off? In addition to being 'straight from the horse's mouth', as it were, I would expect that the public record of a GMC hearing is much less likely to disappear behind a paywall or other hindrance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And, for convenience, the GMC determination which did erase Walker-Smith from the Register: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Like many sources originally used in this article, the GMC documents are primary sources; secondary sources that discuss primary sources are preferable, although we can also link the primary sources. The way this article was built over the years, before secondary sources were available, it probably overrelied on primary sources. Since secondary sources are now available, they should be used. NPOV requires us to present all sides of the story according due weight to reliable secondary sources-- the General Council/Deer story is the main story, but we should still reduce reliance upon them as primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

POV Junk

One line reads, "The Institute of Medicine (IOM), along with the CDC, NIH, and Food and Drug Administration (and their British counterparts) continue to deny that any link has been found between vaccines and autism." Denialism is the world of the anti-vaccination nutters. This should read "...have found no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism." They are not denying a link exists. No peer-reviewed journal has shown one. Nothing to deny.

Denialists are trying to conflate skepticism with denialism. Shouldn't be allowed here. LeftCoastMan (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree (but have to check the sources to reflect what they say). And by the way, the article includes no response from Wakefield, someone should find and add something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't take the default position of accepting what was written and trying to debunk it. The FDA and CDC are certainly not denialists, so I doubt they would use that language. I have yet to read anything by Wakefield, just TV spots. Usually he's stammering because he's being attacked, so I suppose he might write something. LeftCoastMan (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a response here, and I imagine more can be found at CNN. Someone should add something: I have a cold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

More here; I don't feel well enough to add any more content today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a small amount about Wakefield's response; it could be built up from there if need be. NW (Talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at what I could in the Google snippets of his book, Callous Disregard, and naturally, he refutes every point, but I can't read much of it on Google. Does anyone have the book or want to get it? We need to discuss which portions of his response need to be represented, for neutrality (and how do we do that, considering fraud has been shown? What weight do we give to his word?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a decent article on a non-violent criminal who pleaded not-guilty or denied charges against them despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? (I'm thinking Bernie Madoff, but I can't remember properly what he did in response to the investigations). If so, we could try to do what that article did. If we don't have anything to go off on, I'm thinking perhaps two paragraphs in the response subsection—one on his book and one on other responses? NW (Talk) 05:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll snoop and ask around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Video inline

The link added (incorrectly) here hangs my computer-- anyone else? We don't place links inline; if it's any good, it belongs in External links, but I can't see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's back, now as a Youtube, but still as an external jump within the text. If we're considering Youtube a reliable source these days, at best, it belongs in external links, but not as an external jump linked within the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Washington Times copyvio

In verifying Wakefield's birthdate, I found two sources that indicated 1957, and updated the article. While continuing to look for bio info, I found that The Washington Times appears to have lifted its text from Wiki's version with an unsourced birthdate.

See Washington Times and around this version of our article.

We've had similar wording for a very long time (July 2007 and January 6 this year when I started editing to add new news), and many of us have tweaked it here many times-- I've no doubt we didn't take it from them, they took it from us, without proper attribution and licensing.

And now, their information is wrong, according to other sources, which say his birthyear is 1957.

Andrew Wakefield Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and researcher best known for his discredited work regarding the MMR vaccine and its claimed connection with autism and inflammatory bowel disease. Wakefield was the lead author of a 1998 study, published in The Lancet, which reported bowel symptoms in twelve children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, to which the authors suggested a possible link with the MMR vaccine. Though stating, "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described," the paper adopted alleged parental allegations as fact for the purpose of calculating a temporal link between receipt of the vaccine and the first onset of what were described as "behavioural symptoms".

Also, the Washington Times entry only recently showed up on Google, and was apparently created after the January 6 revelations, and includes only that info. Their Google entry when I found it showed a January 6 date:

Andrew Wakefield - Bio, News, Photos - Washington TimesJan 6, 2011 ... Latest news and commentary on Andrew Wakefield including photos, videos, quotations, and a biography. www3.washingtontimes.com/topics/andrew-wakefield/ - Cached

In case someone is inclined to contact them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, our article when created had a 1957 birthdate, that was changed by an IP in 2006 to 1956. I find no discussion or attempt to source the birthdate before I sourced it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

us:

Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a former surgeon and British researcher best known for controversy over his claims of a causative connection between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease.

them:

Andrew Wakefield (born 1956) is a British former surgeon and researcher best known for his discredited work regarding the MMR vaccine and its claimed connection with autism and inflammatory bowel disease.

While close paraphrasing, the copied elements are hardly creative and it is only a single sentence. What would you want achieve by contacting them? Yoenit (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You missed the most important-- they copied unsourced, incorrect info (birthdate is 1957, not 1956, according to other sources). I'd think The Washington Times would want to know which of their esteemed journalists did that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure they do. So this is actually more about them not checking their facts rather than a copyvio problem? Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to verify the accuracy of our article and improve it and expand it; do you have something useful to add here? For example, whether anything else printed by the Washington Times is an unverified mirror? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Medical Interventions for Autism (MIA)

Some of Wakefield's bios say he serves on the board of the charity, Medical Interventions for Autism. The only thing I can find about that group is this; I wonder if it's still alive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield's response and reactions to it

We should include Wakefield's own explanations for his innocence against the accusations that have been proven against him. "Wakefield called Deer a hitman" fails to elaborate Wakefield's specific explanations for the individual charges that have been laid against him. Timeofmind (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a response written by Dr. Wakefield to Deers specific allegations: http://www.rescuepost.com/files/wakefield_press_release_bmj-deer1.pdf . Including Wakefield's responses to Deers proven allegation of "data fixing" seems rather fitting for this section of the article. Timeofmind (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting but would need to be from a RS. Can you find this anywhere else than a fringe website? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's unusable, but we should just note that it's from April 16, 2010, addressing previous allegations. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is an interesting situation. Since the only question of reliability here is whether Wakefield himself actually issued the statements that were cited; the most reliable source for such statements would be Wakefield himself. It seems the fringers that follow him are the most likely one's to spread his statements around and so are the most likely sources to find statements issued by him... Does Wakefield have his own website? Would that be considered a reliable source to cite Wakefield's own statements? (I would think so, since I find it rather impossible that he could issue a statement that he doesn't support) Timeofmind (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You can find some of Wakefield's own words, in his defense, in a page on whale.to called "Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words". The blacklist won't let me post the full URL, and I'm not surprised - much of the rest of that site is a profoundly unreliable source. However, if you can see a Youtube video of Wakefield saying stuff (and it's not heavily edited), plus a transcript, and it's on a site that supports Wakefield, I think that's a perfectly good source for Wakefield's own comments on the subject. Alternatively just go straight to youtube, or here. bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If Wakefield has his own website, it is considered a RS for his own POV and we could cite it here. It wouldn't necessarily be considered a RS in other articles. I'd be cautious of Youtube. Yes, whale.to is blacklisted for good reason and I think its webmaster is banned here. He was very active. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I too would normally share your caution about youtube, but if it's a video of Wakefield facing a camera and talking for a few minutes about these issues, I think that's a good source for Wakefield's beliefs on these issues. The usual concerns about youtube are eroded in a situation like this - how could it be an unreliable source unless somebody has knocked up a CGI impersonation of wakefield and painstakingly dubbed it with plausible-but-false words in an appropriate accent? :-)

But, hey, if the community doesn't accept the youtube videos, I'll just stand back. I'm not aware of any other good sources on the subject. Any bio page hosted by an organisation that supports Wakefield is likely to gloss over or distort the fraud allegations, and I can't remember (offhand) any direct quotes in mainstream newsmedia. bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this Lancet article MMR—responding to retraction by Andrew J Wakefield, Peter Harvey, and John Linnell. It provides good insight into Wakefield's reasoning behind his defense. It should definitely be cited and included here. Timeofmind (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That is seven years old, and significant findings have emerged since then; does anyone see anything useful in there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

An article for comparison - Charles Smith

While the cases are by no means identical, it may be instructive – or at least constructive – to compare our handling of this article with our biography of another disgraced physician, Charles Randal Smith. Smith had a 20-year career as a pediatric forensic pathologist working out of a prestigious Canadian hospital, but had a rather nasty habit of interpreting ambiguous or even exculpatory physical evidence as signs of abuse or shaken baby syndrome. Smith's dubious conclusions in twenty cases led to at least thirteen convictions. He resigned (presumably under pressure) in 2005, but insists to this day that any failings of his were unintentional, and that his life's purpose remains "finding out the truth for parents who have lost babies" (). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Smith article reads like a hit piece. We need to remember our ethical responsibilities when it comes to BLP articles, "Do no harm." It's not appropriate for us (and I'm not specifically referring to any one editor) to try to use Misplaced Pages to bring people "to justice." Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One should be very careful in attempting to "do no harm" (interesting that we would allude to primum non nocere in dealing with unethical physicians...). It does not mean that we do not report openly and honestly negative facts about biographical subjects, nor does it demand that readers of our biographies must always leave an article with a positive impression of the subject. Where appropriate, we should give the subjects the benefit of the doubt, but we do our readers and our project a disservice if we misrepresent the level of doubt regarding an individual's (mis)conduct. With both Smith and Wakefield, Misplaced Pages is not being used as to bring individuals "to justice", nor as an instrument of vengeance.

In Wakefield's case, when his actions came to light they were condemned in the strongest possible terms by his peers and by organizations most qualified to make such evaluations, in terms that left no room for doubt. His science was harshly criticized by two highly-respected journals (The Lancet and BMJ); his medical ethics were found grossly wanting by the UK's governing body for physicians. Medical licenses are not withdrawn lightly. In Smith's case, his dubious pathological findings sent more than a dozen innocent people – often traumatized parents who had just lost a child – to prison. His irresponsible actions were reviewed by colleagues, the provincial attorney general's office, the province's chief coroner, and as part of a public inquiry; he was reprimanded by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons and is currently under suspension by the College, awaiting a final disposition. To borrow your colorful phrase, these people have already been "brought to justice"; we now have a responsiblity to straightforwardly report on that. In pursuit of balance, we must be careful not to trip over Okrent's Law. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield's side in the lede

An editor removed the addition of Wakefield's side from the lede. This article is biography of Wakefield, so why wouldn't his side be notable enough for the lede? It was only a single sentence stating that Wakefield has continued to defend himself. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That one statement didn't do much to tell his side of the story (and fraudulent as it may be, it still needs to be here); I'm not sure how it helps our readers, since many charged with criminal conduct continue to assert their innocence. Our readers need to know how and why. For those who asked above, I'll add again-- his side of the story is told in his book, Callous Disregard, which has only minimal snips available on Google. Someone needs to get the book so we can discuss how much due weight to give to a story that has been shown to be fraudulent and that contains multiple contradictions, but we still need to include something somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When I read the lede with its long list of harsh criticisms of Wakefield, my first thought was, "So, what does Wakefield say or what has he done about all this?" Perhaps one sentence isn't sufficient, but in a bio about the guy I would think that his side is notable enough to be summarized in the lede along with others' opinions of him and his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One sentence isn't enough, but it will have to suffice until 1) someone gets his book, or 2) an online reliable source produces something. I agree with this addition for now; we can't just completely fail to say anything about his side of the story. But I question this; he was stripped of his medical credentials because of the fraud, so why is it only "accused"? It's proven?? Who else would prove it besides the governing board that struck him from the medical register? And he is known for this ... how can we meet in the middle here-- alternate wording suggestion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, can we get some discussion here? The difference isn't really significant enough to edit war over; some middle-ground wording should be possible, talking would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cla68's removal of the reference to fraud in the lead seriously unbalances the article and has the effect of biasing it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a huge difference, it's semantics, and suggest our time would be better spent in finding wording acceptable to both, or at least discussing it. In fact, until we add something about Wakefield's side of the story-- even if his story is fraudulent-- the article is unbalanced anyway. I found some text here (search on "Wakefield, however, denies", which I will begin to add shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that this wording gives a false impression of the case, and will be read by many as though Wakefield was only accused, when in fact a statutory tribunal has made very clear findings of fact about the study and his behaviour in it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See my suggestion below. It's important to attribute statements like that about people. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

After I finish adding the portion mentioned above, I'll begin to add this; is the next BMJ report out? I can't find the source of this text in the BMJ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Found; I'll also begin adding this next, so if anyone wants to continue edit warring, could you hold off 'til I'm done :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not lead off with, "Andrew Wakefield was a medical doctor and researcher who was removed from the general medical register in the UK for fraud after his conclusions and research into the MMR vaccine controversy was called into question." Or something like that? This way, we're making it clear who is calling him a fraud, and that it's not Misplaced Pages doing so. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "...his report and conclusion... were shown to be falsified." - They weren't just called into question, they were very thoroughly debunked, and by a statutory tribunal too. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"His report and conclusions...were shown to be falsified by...." Attribute who is saying these things about him and his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The GMC, when they struck him from the medical register. Try reading the article. We don't usually cite in the lead if cited below. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations can be quite useful, though, for controversial ledes. Personally, I think the lede is supposed to summarise the article, and the first sentence of the lede itself should only give the basics - otherwise we end up with rather stilted text. I'm not convinced that we need to stretch the first sentence to mention the GMC if it already mentions him being removed from the register - who else would remove him from the register? I think the notability and media coverage touches on much more than just his being defrocked; so I'd prefer to see a bit more of that mentioned upfront, even if only briefly. The GMC is not the only body to call wakefield a fraud, I believe. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But there are problems with this article (it's organization, flow, and attribution), and I raised the attribution issue days ago here on talk. The article is not in terrible shape, but it's not in great shape either, and needs to be reworked once it's off the mainpage. The underlying problems are that: 1) the article was built over the years as Deer's investigations unfolded, under problems with ownership and tenditious editing and before all evidence was out in reliable sources as it is now, so the flow and organization is all off; and 2) Deer was the primary driver for the investigation, so there are attribution problems and problems with overreliance on Deer's own sources rather than sources that independently analyze Deer's work. Correctly attributed, many of the statements in the current article would have to look something ridiculous like: CNN reported that BMJ reported that Deer said that the General Council found". Attribution needs to be looked at so that we're not relying entirely on Deer, and it's clear who is saying what, and that it's not Wiki that is saying these things. A comprehensive story is now told by numerous reliable sources, which was not the situation as this article was built over the years, often with tendentious issues at play, as anti-vaccine and pro-science editors used sometimes Deer's primary sources to build the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still working to add the new text-- will catch up with y'all in about half an hour so we can fix it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done expanding for now, have at it, but addressing the points above. Cla, first, this article was mired in a walled garden of POV disputes for years, Eubulides did his best to stay on top of it but it was tendentiously owned and hard to improve, so what was there when I started on it a few days was quite a mess to say the least. I've struggled just to keep it clean; it's not well written by any means, and the flow is all off, and lots of attribution needs to be checked, and it is stilted, was written by many different authors-- all the usual problems. Honestly, the article is not in good shape-- I've kept up as much as possible so it would at least be mainpage worthy. Yes, the article needs the kind of attribution you are suggesting above-- I'm done for now, but hope you'll all work something out on that, my prose stinks, but Cla is right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, whatever the case, you've been doing an amazing job. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated, but I don't think so :) I'm barely keeping up, and all too aware of the problems we still have in these articles. All hands on deck :) You're all doing great, and the collaboration here has been very nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone can make use of this Lancet article defending Wakefield? MMR—responding to retraction by Andrew J Wakefield, Peter Harvey, and John Linnell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeofmind (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the same seven-year old article you already listed here-- no need to list it twice. Considering new revelations, how much of that is relevant today? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't sure where it belonged. I will remove the other copy of it. 216.232.255.81 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield has made a statement in his defense. There's a copy here and here. Might be useful for this article. bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the 7 year article is a useful reference for statements made by him in response to accusations that were made against him. I'm surprised at your attempt to disregard it on account of it being old, unless you can somehow show that he has changed his mind since then. Timeofmind (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Retracted publications

I think it would be most proper to list the retracted publications with the others since he really did have them published, and then note that they have been retracted. We could place RETRACTED in front of the listing and then strike it through. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The retracted publications are listed (below the publication); we have to follow correct citation guidelines-- the articles were published, and later retracted, and the retractions have separate DOIs and PMIDs. It's not up to us to alter the titles of reliable sources with strike throughs, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've actually never been crazy about the practice of listing a person's publications at the bottom of their Misplaced Pages article. It makes the article sound a bit more like a C.V. or resume and less like an encyclopedia article, and it seems like a function more appropriate for PubMed, Google Scholar, or a similar search engine rather than us. But that's just me. MastCell  17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

MC, I agree, and I'm not sure how to overcome this, but I was trying to make the article more neutral by adding his most cited (100 to 200 cited by according to Google scholar) articles before the scandal (and to leave a record of the retracted/withdrawn articles, to eliminate confusion); it seems that he did some good work before he moved into MMR territory. I've been looking for reliable sources, but all I can find is various bios submitted by him (amazon.com and the like) which mention that he has over 130 published journal articles. I was concerned that the BLP was overfocusing on the scandal while excluding his work before the scandal; how can we, or should we, address this? If I've done more harm than good by introducing some Google scholar "cited by" text, we should fix that, but my bigger concern is that we not open the door here to allegations of POV against Wakefield, since the entire story relies so heavily on Deer's investigations and the General Council findings. Open to suggestion-- do whatever is best-- but I don't like linking to PubMed or Google scholar either-- not sure how to solve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Date for Deer's acquisition of copy of patent application

Does anyone know about this?

• Although Deer said he possessed a copy of the patent application, a letter from Wakefield's lawyers dated 31 Jan 2005 said: "Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine." diff

If Brian Deer obtained the copy after the date of the letter from the lawyers, we could write it this way:

• Although Deer later obtained a copy of the patent application, a letter from Wakefield's lawyers dated 31 Jan 2005 said: "Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine."

Right now, by writing that Deer "said he possessed", we are introducing a possibility for doubt about whether he was lying or not. He DOES posses a copy and has posted it, so it's more just a matter of WHEN he got it, so I think that should be changed to:

• "Although Deer obtained a copy...." and can add "later" if we find documentation for the date. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, and have similar questions; from the sources, I haven't been able to sort this yet, but I suspect we could find this info if someone can dig into Deer's and the Medical Council sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OTC nutritional supplement?

Per this addition, I'm wondering about something:

• According to CNN, Wakefield said the patent he held was for "an 'over-the-counter nutritional supplement' that boosts the immune system". Diff

It's possible that he holds more than one patent, so is this different than the vaccine patent or was he lying (again!)? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, this needs to be sorted, suspect digging into the sources will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield is referring to Transfer factor. Colostrum is rich in it. The FDA class this stuff as a nutrition supplement. The patent is about tailor making it so that it would (hopefully) rid a persistent infection, were the individual's own immune system has been unable to do so. Not suitable though, for mass immunisation of the population -no way. However, Deer is not a doctor, so perhaps this point has gone over his head. --Aspro (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But are there two different patents? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield is a researcher, so his name will appear on numerous patents. The patent in question is just the TF one (we looked at them years back when this first surfaced). If you can wait until tomorrow, I will request the medical librarian to dig it out and I'll post it's patent number. --Aspro (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I really can't keep up with every aspect here, and haven't sorted this piece at all, don't know how to fix our wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got it and have found the US filing of patent is now freely available online, so here it is. Apparently, some people immediately pointed out this lack of basic fact checking to the British Medical Journal when the story broke, as can be seen on some of these letters . The reason being that because TF's act on a different part of the immune system it should be immediately obvious that any benefit of this oral treatment will be of a short term nature and therefore unsuitable to replace any existing injectable vaccine. If it could have been made to work, it might have also been invaluable for treating Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis for which there is as yet no cure. A great shame. Anyway. This is supposed to be a biographical article, so I am not going to discuss this patent thing further or stick around here to wait for replies, other than to end with the observation that it does appear this story has taken on a life of its own, with most people mindlessly repeating what they have read in the press whilst presuming that everybody else has checked all the facts properly, a.k.a. Argumentum ad populum. Its all got far too silly for words but as some Wikilawyers like to point out: Misplaced Pages is all about verifiability, not truth. Still, I suppose the article serves as a demonstration to psychology students everywhere, on how hot blooded rhetoric can out pace slow methodical reasoning. Happy tenth birthday Misplaced Pages. --Aspro (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well if someone else can sort this, I'll work on Wakefield's response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy responds

• Jenny McCarthy: In the Vaccine-Autism Debate, What Can Parents Believe?, January 10, 2011

I'm not sure how much, if any, of this is relevant here, or is more appropriate for the Jenny McCarthy and/or Generation Rescue articles, or all three. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure how much weight to give here to those characterized by a reliable source as "nincompoop celebrities", but I note that:

• "Dr. Wakefield did something I wish all doctors would do: he listened to parents and reported what they said."

That isn't what the evidence reveals. And,

• "For some reason, parents aren't being told that this 'new' information about Dr. Wakefield isn't a medical report, but merely the allegations of a single British journalist named Brian Deer."

That's not entirely true, considering the Medical Council's investigation, but that is what we must avoid in this article, with correct attribution (and I think we're doing OK on that, but we still need to review for attribution). And then we have this:

• "I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son."

So, we see the Huffington Post continuing the same kind of journalism that has been soundly criticized-- giving a platform to a celebrity to continue the scare. I don't think this belongs here, but I'm not sure how we should treat it, or in which article, probably her article, since it's her lay opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I updated her article, but don't think we need to add here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with SandyGeorgia's position; McCarthy's uninformed opinions aren't relevant to this article at all. Doc Tropics 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In The News page view stats

• page view stats for Wakefield
• for MMR vaccine controversy
• for McCarthy

So, "nincompoop celebrities" pages get more views than the scientist involved in the controversy (her Jan 1 hits are due to the Super Bowl her New Years appearance on TV). Even subtracting the Super Bowl New Years hits, McCarthy has gotten more hits this month than either Wakefield, on the mainpage, or MMR vaccine controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Posted to The Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More to come

• Deer in The Guardian

Next week in the BMJ, I will go further, showing how the old boys' network of the medical establishment was mobilised to protect him. Are you getting the picture yet?

But times are changing. Wakefield's fall from grace is now slicing another scalp. One of the most insidious cartels at the heart of British science is being torn apart: the two top journals in medical science.

The Lancet once championed him. The BMJ has now nailed him – and commended my contribution. "It has taken the diligent scepticism of one man, standing outside medicine and science, to show that the paper was in fact an elaborate fraud," they wrote in last week's editorial.

Let battle commence, I say. Let doctors expose each other. Let journals compete to get the truth out first. Because 13 years passed before I slayed the MMR monster. And although a single, severed hand may yet come crawling across the floor, for science and public safety 13 years is still too long.

So, another aspect of this story, and why we have to watch for POV and attribution, is that we have a battle of two prominent, competing journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What Drives Irrational Rhetoric? The Case of Childhood Vaccinations, Seth Mnookin

A relevant article which also briefly mentions Andrew Wakefield:

• What Drives Irrational Rhetoric? The Case of Childhood Vaccinations, Seth Mnookin, The Atlantic, Jan 11, 2011

It's based on his book (linked), which should have much more information. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another call for prosecution: Berezow

Vaccine-autism researcher should be prosecuted, By Alex B. Berezow, Special to CNN, January 14, 2011

Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Publications

Are those all his publications or merely selected ones? NW (Talk) 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Retracted publications; they are his best known, most-cited publications (we can't list all 130+ journal papers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the section not be titled "Selected publications" or something of that sort then? NW (Talk) 03:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure-- I was surprised I got no feedback above. Whatever you think. What I did was list those that have the highest "cited by" other articles per Google scholar-- we can't list all of them, I can't find an RS discussing his other work, but felt it was POV to leave out his earlier work, but also feel what I did is OR. Don't know how to solve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling it "selected publications" is probably best; we don't want to give the impression that is all he wrote, nor are we going to list all of them, either. Yobol (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing that list of publications, I just noticed that Hewitson (presumably another British import to the US?) also works for Thoughtful House. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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