Talk:MMR vaccine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archived talk page

Very long talk page, mostly over a year old. No activity for two months, so I archived it. Editors here may be interested in the activity going on at vaccine controversy, which is an ugly merge from that page and anti-vaccinationist. Cool Hand Luke 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Exercising caution

I've again removed the suggestion that Wakefield's recommendation was to "exercise caution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&diff=152536053&oldid=152529761). His recommendation speaks for itself; describing it as "exercising caution" is an attempt to insert a leading phrase and POV. It implies that giving the vaccines in combination is somehow incautious, when in fact there is quite a bit of evidence that giving them in combination is safe, and none that it's harmful. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

moving 'Urabe Mumps strain encephalitis' to MMR vaccine controversy

Maybe it would be reasonable to move Urabe Mumps strain encephalitis to MMR vaccine controversy after all, as it's somewhat brit-centric and the publicity there is connected to the media frenzy surrounding the possible MMR-autism connection. May this this would ease the "undue weight" -concerns presented above? --Jkpjkp 07:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

the Cochrane meta-study

Quoted from above: An extended quote from the Cochrane library is given, saying that evidence for MMR should be stronger.' Sorry, but that's not at all what the Cochrane publication's review is saying. In "Main results", it says "We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria". In other words, not a single study could be found which studied the effectiveness of the vaccine and fulfilled Cochrane's inclusion criteria. To put in another way, according to this Cochcrane review, there are no studies to vouch for the efficiency of the vaccine. Furthermore, the quote given is the whole text of "Author's conclusions", so it clearly isn't "out of context" or a mischaracterization of the report. A second quote from above: This completely mischaracterizes the Cochrane report, whose main result says exposure to MMR is unlikely to be associated with autism. Well, I don't agree with the claim of mischaracterization, but I agree that the unlikeliness of the connection according to Cochrane should be in the article. I added that to the Autism section. --Jkpjkp 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've clearly gone out of your way to take the Cochrane conclusions out of context. You quote: "We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria". Odd you end that quote with a period, since that's only part of the full sentence. The full sentence reads: "We could not identify studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR that fulfilled our inclusion criteria even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been largely demonstrated." I've emphasized the portion of the sentence which you left out without so much as an ellipsis. In the plain-text summary, the authors also wrote: "No field studies of the vaccine's effectiveness were found but the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been demonstrated worldwide." So yes, you're taking the Cochrane findings out of context. MastCell ^Talk 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not end the quote with a period; the period was after the second quote mark, ending the main sentence I wrote. I also included the other part of the sentence in the article "even though the impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been largely demonstrated." I now added quote marks to make it more clear what was said. To me, the whole sentence seems contradictory and puzzling - if no studies on effectiveness were found to fulfill the inclusion criteria, what do the authors base their opinion on the effect of mass immunisation? I understood the sentence so that they believe the impact has been demonstrated in some other way than the in the studies they reviewed. It seems like the second part of the sentence is not based on the research reviewed but something. What else, remains unclear. Maybe you can shed some light on this? --Jkpjkp 17:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cochrane is extremely meticulous (some would say fetishistic) about high-quality medical evidence - as satirized in this BMJ article. Some practices in medicine are supported by such iron-clad prospective evidence; other practices are so well-established (and so clearly useful) that they have never been subjected to the kind of trials that Cochrane would ideally like to see. As with parachutes in the above citation, some things are clearly effective but have never been subjected to strict high-quality trials. The Cochrane quote indicates that MMR vaccination falls into this category. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, we seem to agree that the second part of the sentence is not based on the research under review. Or, as authors of the Jpands 2006 article [1] put it, "this is not science. It is not based on any evidence presented, but supports often repeated official government statements." Anyway, is there a problem here - I don't think there's a big problem with how the passage reads now in the article (with both parts quoted), do you think there's a problem? --Jkpjkp 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2006 Jpands article [2] has some quite interesting claims and observations on the Cochrane paper and the economy and conflict of interest policies of Cochrane, and possible influence by the British government on the issue. Also the quotes of what Tom Jefferson of Cochrane Vaccine department has said do seem to give support to the issue that not all in the mainstream medical community seem to believe that research on the safety and efficiency is sufficient. --Jkpjkp 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

consensus / overwhelming medical opinion

On the talk page, in several occasions, it's claimed that The consensus medical opinion or the medical consensus is poorly represented in the article. The article mentions in the overwhelming medical opinion in one place. If there's a medical consensus on something, it shouldn't be that hard to reference it. Without reference, claims of the medical consensus are original research, and not verifiable. If there's been a consensus meeting somewhere with the resulting consensus statement that the risks of using single vaccines increases the risk of infection and should be avoided, it shouldn't be that hard to provide a refence for that. If there's been a consensus meeting with the outcome that the benefits of the MMR vaccine are well researched and far outweigh the risks, a reference to that meeting and the statement should be put in. --Jkpjkp 08:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims of consensus are always a bit hard to reference to everyone's satisfaction; but yesterday I was going to add a list of medical and scientific organizations supportive of childhood vaccination (hint: it's all of them). I had collected references from the CDC, WHO, NIH, AAP, AMA, British NHS, and Institute of Medicine, among others, but I ended up not adding them because of the rapid pace of editing. But I'll work these sources in; I prefer that sort of referencing rather than "overwhelming medical consensus" claims anyway. MastCell ^Talk 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. --Jkpjkp 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources (collecting them here first):

• WHO -- Measles Factsheet, more info, Position paper, MMR and autism
• 2,400 people a day died of measles and related complications in 1999. [3]

... more to come. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency between text and graphics

The line: "In the United States, the booster began in the mid 1990s. It is widely used around the world; since introduction of its earliest versions in the 1970s" does not square with the graph, that shows vaccine introduced circa 1962. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38edward (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a mention that the vaccine (not the booster) was first licenced in 1963. Eubulides (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aborted Fetus Cell Lines and Virus Strain

This is a key point for religious and principled people. Need at least some clear reference. 71.31.121.191 (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness of Vaccination

Just wondering if a reference could be added after the quote "Today, the incidence of measles has fallen to less than 1% of people under the age of 30 in countries with routine childhood vaccination." as this is a statistic that requires reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.21.46 (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, it needs a citation. I added a fact tag after the claim. Eubulides (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

BMJ

Can somebody please replace the bmj references? They are not accessible without having to register and pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.88.212 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I found only one BMJ reference with that problem, namely the citation of Carapetis et al. 2001 (PMID 11683165). I fixed that one; if there are others please let us know which they are. Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The second jab

Currently the article reads: "The second dose is not a booster; it is a dose to produce immunity in the small number of persons (2-5%) who fail to develop measles immunity after the first dose" which is supported by http://cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm However here http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/MMR/The_vaccine/mmr_two_doses it claims that the second dose is to protect against all three diseases - not just measles. Which is true and should therefore be placed in the encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.139.34 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the misleading charts

Please provide any of the widely and abundantly available charts that show the historic levels of measles since the beginning of 1900's. Do NOT pretend they are all under copyright. This is public information. In under less than a year the entire pharmaceutical industry will be toppled. We have doctors all over the place coming forth in every country and the lack of safety studies has reached avalanche proportions. Millions of people will begin to sue all over the world. I'd suggest that admins that still suppress information here on wikipedia start hiding their IP addresses because there is going to be quite a few VERY angry people around when it gets out how much children have been hurt by mmr vaccines. This is a fair warning.

ANYone with half a brain can watch and make the rational conclusion from the available historic data of dozens of studies that the main cause of the drop in disease world wide since 1900 is access to enough and varied healthy food, clean water and better hygiene.

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-uk-diphtheria-1901-1965.gif

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uk-deaths-1901-1965.gif

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

http://www.docmeade.com/historic-data-shows-vaccines-not-key-in-declines-in-death-from-disease/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxP5LEYg4LQ

Again, if you have any doubts you should take a look around in the "blogsphere". If you do not think people are protective of their children.. you've got another thing coming. The snowball stage is long since left. Were the people who argued for car safety anti-car ? Do you want to go back to a car without safety belt and a non-collapse-able steering wheel? Do we believe the pretence that current medical practice is the be all - end all of medical practice and knowledge? Will they not laugh at us a hundred years from now? Then it's time to start looking for rational and logical better practice. And listening to it.

One in four in the UK alone have already acquired the information, background and studies and have found the lack of safety studies, have found and seen the studies that showed that too much vaccines on children and mmr vaccines in particular had detectable negative effects on children. This is without ANY of the doctors who studied and found this to be the case even _publishing_ their findings in the media. In other words, not a single dollar has been spent to get this information out to large numbers of people. Another point: studies show that the people who currently oppose the mmr vaccines and the overuse of vaccines on too young children, overwhelmingly are people of education, people who talk to others, people who write and read, in other words the social leaders, the educated, the successful strata of society. Do not try to insult this group further. You will loose. And your credibility will go down the drain _rapidly_ with it, and it will stay in the drain. This is not an issue people will easily forget any time soon or take lightly.

One of those charts is right there in the article, showing infection rates for the USA in the last century. As for the rest of this - Wikipedia is not here to uncover conspiracies or predict the future. We're restricted to what can be validated now, as per WP:RS. If the entire pharmaceutical industry is toppled in the next year, that can certainly be included in the article... just as soon as it happens. --GenericBob (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick update - it hasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.33 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am shocked, I say, SHOCKED. --GenericBob (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wakefield autism study fraudulent

Or so says CNN, the Washington post and 500 something other news sources. Does anyone have access to the underlying BMJ article?--Tznkai (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BMJ article.

BMJ editorial.

Yahoo News gives a competent summary and links to the BMJ article. MMR vaccine controversy has already been updated. As has Andrew Wakefield. And a "See also MMR vaccine controversy" hatnote has been added to the top of this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

and what about Adjuvants??

I just read this study: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19854 And maybe this gives reasons why the vaccine is not safe. Yes I know this was re influenza - but the GSK vaccine MMR may also contain such substances. It is hinted at in the article, yet there is no info given. Such lies of ommision ALLOW people to be rightly suspicious of claims that there is no harm in the vaccine. When the formulation of these is changing it is not possible to say how effective a vaccine is on the population - that would be original research - which i guess GSK is doing, but not revealing publically.

Having read the article, no, it does not "give reasons why the vaccine is not safe". It discusses the problem whereby the fear of supposed harmful effects discourages people from getting vaccinated, but the authors don't make any attempt to argue that this fear is actually well-founded.

As for the supposed "lies of omission", ten seconds of Googling finds multiple sites that note that there is no adjuvant in MMR. --GenericBob (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian Court ruling

Interesting court ruling recently, as reported by UK Daily Mail: [4]

"Judge Lucio Ardigo, awarding compensation to the family... said it was ‘conclusively established’ that Valentino had suffered from an ‘autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay’ and his illness, as Dr Barboni stated, was linked to receiving the jab. Lawyer Mr Ventaloro explained yesterday: ‘This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino. ‘It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.’ "

Where there any articles in US papers regarding this? MrAnderson7 (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I did add the info in this article, but it was removed. Its currently in MMR_vaccine_controversy#Italy. It is also reported here [[5]]. Its also in Italian media - search "vaccino autismo rimini"

In my opinion this is significant news and should be in this article in the summary section "Claims about autism". Cjwilky (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It does not belong here. I see no significant coverage outside the British and Italian media, on that one day it was reported, and certainly court rulings have no weight in the scientific realm on whether it actually causes autism. Yobol (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that the US media "missed" this. I assume you aren't suggesting it didn't happen as per the reports? This ruling appears to be very significant, and raises it to more than the level of a "controvesy". At what point would you say the article should include something like this? How many cases, how much money, how many courts, how many countries? Is it down to scientific papers reporting on the court rulings? You can see there is a point that this article becomes a nonsense without acknowedging what is the case in the real world. There is a section here to contain it. Cjwilky (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Coverage of Wakefield garnered huge media and scientific attention and therefore gets mentioned. This doesn't even come up on the radar on this article. Yobol (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please define what "huge media and scientific attention" is? Just because it wasn't covered in the US doesn't mean it wasn't "huge" in other countries...MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple stories in multiple venues across the globe, lasting for years. This is a one time incident that got limited coverage in two countries. Yobol (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will be interesting to see what happens :) Cjwilky (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Article no longer conforms to NPOV

Recent edits to this article by one editor have biased it strongly towards the minority opinion that the MMR vaccine is unsafe. The consensus medical opinion should be documented fairly; there is good reason that it is the consensus. Here are some problems with the recent changes:

• An old opinion poll of UK health professionals is being cited as if it were supporting claims that there is serious doubt in the medical community about the safety and effectiveness of the MMR vaccine. But the poll apparently asked whether the government could "prove there was no link between MMR and autism and bowel disease". You cannot prove a negative, so the simplest explanation is that those polled were just saying that. Furthermore, these poll results date back to when the Wakefield paper had not yet been thoroughly discredited. These poll results do not belong in a scientific article on MMR.

This one is for starters; more later. Eubulides 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Concepts like "safe" or "unsafe" in this context do not seem scientific or even rational to me in this context, and create a false dichotomy lumping all concerns together. I'd say the issue here is risks vs. benefits. If the "consensus medical opinion" is that the benefits outweigh the risks, it shouldn't be that hard to find reference to state organizations, persons and publications claiming that benefits outweigh the risks. However, I understand Cochrane is very highly respected part of the medical community, and it's saying the studies on safety are largely inadequate. If Cochrane is one example of things which shouldn't be mentioned, but added claims from a very involved player in the controversy like Horton is OK, I don't see how that would be going towards NPOV. Your criticisms on the poll about proving a negative as well as the time of the poll are valid, I'll see whether there were better questions in the poll. --Jkpjkp 15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not an encyclopedia editor's job to opine about the philosophy of "safe". Just report the current medical consensus, and report it fairly. The first sentence of the "Author's conclusions" section in the Cochrane report is "Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine supports current policies of mass immunisation aimed at global measles eradication in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with mups and rubella." If you read the entire report, it's quite clear that the medical consensus is that the benefits of MMR outweigh the costs. The authors of the report do request higher-quality studies, but existing studies are enough to support the conclusion that the MMR vaccine is safe and effective. It is completely misleading to ignore the main conclusion of the report while citing its request for more information, with the implication that there isn't enough evidence to justify MMR. That is not at all the current consensus. Eubulides 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Would 2003 be current enough? "A third of HPs wouldn't advise giving MMR to a child with a close family history of autism." [6] --Jkpjkp 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

First, 2003 is not current enough, as the definitive studies refuting Wakefield's claim did not come out until the 2004/2005 time frame. Second, that is a completely misleading summary of that NHS report. That report says only a tiny fraction of HPs (1–3%) thought MMR can cause autism. The question about advising parents with children with a close family history of autism is more a question about public perception than it is about whether MMR actually causes autism. Eubulides 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent what the convroversy is about in the medical community - it's _not_ that some say "we know MMR causes autism" (as I understand it, even Wakefield himself has never said that) and some say "we know MMR does not cause autism". Well, some do say something like "we know MMR does not cause autism" but that appears to be not supported by the evidence (see e.g. the part of the Cochrane quote about largely inadequate studies). The article shouldn't say "according to the science, MMR does not cause autism", as that's not supported with the facts. Someone quoted the Cochrane summary here on the talk page - that seemed like an excellent summary of the situation, that's a much better thing to put to the page to say something to the effect of "there's lots of evidence about MMR benefits and no evidence that it causes MMR" like the writing of the personally involved Horton. --Jkpjkp 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting what the controversy is about. Wakefield's controversial claim is that there is a real risk that MMR vaccine causes autism. That is why Wakefield advised against the MMR vaccine in his press conference in 1998. The overwhelming consensus of the medical community is that Wakefield is wrong, and that there is no scientific evidence of any real risk. The article does not say "according to the science, MMR does not cause autism". There's nothing wrong with quoting Horton, either. It's not like he's alone in his opinion: his opinion is the consensus one. Eubulides 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more points.

• An extended quote from the Cochrane library is given, saying that evidence for MMR should be stronger. This completely mischaracterizes the Cochrane report, whose main result says exposure to MMR is unlikely to be associated with autism. The main result should be given prominence; the desire for more evidence is secondary.

• Text saying that the medical consensus is that the vaccine is safe is surrounded be weasel words casting aspersions on the author of the Lancet paper in question. Just say what the medical consensus is: don't attack the messenger.

• MMR vaccine #Urabe Mumps strain encephalitis contains duplicative text about an older vaccine that gives undue weight to this section. It contains breathless wording like "Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported on-line in March, 2007 on revelations from an FOIA request" and "Published medical reports" that are peacock terms designed to puff up one side of the dispute. It also contains an implied attack on the Thatcher government that is out of place in a medical article. The main question here ought to be about the cost/benefit ratio of substituting the newer, more expensive vaccine for the older one, on safety grounds. The article doesn't even raise this question, much less address it.

• MMR vaccine #Report claiming a possible link between MMR and autism is completely out of whack. The scientific and medical consensus is that the Wakefield et al. report was incorrect (as evidenced by 10 of his 12 collaborators retracting the interpretation of an association between MMR and autism). And yet this section gives just one short phrase to the medical consensus; the entire rest of the section attacks the MMR vaccine. Most of the section should be given to the consensus medical opinion; this is a medical article, not an article about the controversy.

• MMR vaccine #Evaluating risk vs. benefit again repeats the misleading Cochrane quote. There is no need to repeat this quote, and particularly there is no need to take it out of context again.

This stuff belongs in MMR vaccine controversy, if it belongs anywhere. It does not belong here. Eubulides 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that a) the Cochrane quote needs to be better contextualized. See the summary, in which the authors emphasize the risks of measles, mumps, and rubella, the safety of the vaccine, the lack of "credible evidence" associating it with autism, and its demonstrated effectiveness. Secondly, if we're spinning off an MMR-controversy fork, then there needs to be a much shorter summary of the controversy here. The effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing a heavy burden of disease, disability, and death and saving billions of dollars in health-care costs is mentioned in one brief (though very well-referenced) paragraph, while the "controversy" is expounded upon at length and with some fairly dubious sourcing, which seems to violate WP:WEIGHT - particularly in the presence of an existing content fork already covering the controversy. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the critisms regarding recent edits seem quite a bit off-base. First, the article size was a bit bigger before the first edit by me around a week ago than it was after the last edit by me before this commend. Second, the space the MMR controversy takes is down from 15 lines to 6 lines on my screen. Third, I disagree with the assertion that the MMR vaccine controversy article spun off from Vaccine controversy article (which was getting very big and was giving undue weight to MMR controversy) is a WP:POVFORK. As for Horton as a reference on what "consensus medical opinion" is - couldn't a reference be found which is not a party to the controversy? --Jkpjkp 16:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of total size, it's a question of weight within the article. An article can easily be edited to take a particular viewpoint without changing its size. The MMR controversy wording in MMR vaccine #Autism is heavily biased in favor of the minority viewpoint that MMR causes autism: only a small fraction of that section covers the consensus medical opinion that these concerns are unjustified, and the vast majority of that section attempts to justify the concerns. Any reference giving the consensus medical opinion on the subject is by definition a party to the controversy, so insisting on a reference to someone who is "not a party to the controversy" is the same as insisting on exclusion of consensus medical opinion. MMR vaccine #Autism is in real trouble right now: it is in no way an unbiased presentation of the work. And the other points I raised above remain unaddressed. Eubulides 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between being a key figure personally involved (like Horton, who approved the original article for publication) plus having written a book on it, and having expressed an opinion on the controversy. --Jkpjkp 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, there's nothing wrong with quoting the consensus opinion. Eubulides 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eubulides and MastCell; medical consensus needs to be faily represented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the affected sections to bring the article back to the mainstream point of view (while representing dissenting opinions as fairly as I can) and so have removed the NPOV template. Eubulides 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence on Measles effectiveness in this article about MMR. Surely, Measles inoculation is not the point of this article but MMR. Could someone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

MMR VACCINE CAUSES DEAFNESS

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/05/mmr-vaccine-deafness_n_1856929.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk-hp%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D125725 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.252.82 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Reports of Merck Falsifying Efficacy Studies

The following article says that The Wall Street Journal wrote an article reporting falsification of data about the attenuated Mumps virus portion of the vaccine. articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/23/merck-vaccine-fraud-story-buried.aspx This quote from the above article explains it well:

Merck has actually been slapped with two class-action lawsuits over their mumps vaccine 
(which is part of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine). The first,
which was initially filed in 2010, was unsealed late last month.

Two former Merck virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, claim they witnessed
first-hand the improper testing and falsification of data that was done to hide the fact
that the vaccine has significantly declined in effectiveness4.

By artificially inflating the efficacy, Merck was able to maintain its monopoly over the
mumps vaccine market—and that is the main point of contention of the second class-action
lawsuit, filed by Chatom Primary Care5.
 
According to Courthouse News Service6:

"Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is "far less effective" than it
tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of
"questionable efficacy," flooding and monopolizing the market... Chatom says in its
antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective.
That claim "deterred and excluded competing manufacturers," who would enter the risky
and expensive vaccine market only if they believed they could craft a better product...

Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell the mumps vaccine in United
States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked
losing its lucrative monopoly...

That's why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy
rate, the complaint states. And, Chatom claims, that's why Merck went to great lengths,
including "manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the test results," to prop
up the bogus figure, though it knew that the attenuated virus from which it created the
vaccine had been altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that the
quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result."

The above text is cited as using info from the Courthouse News Service here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47851.htm Zarkme (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

MMR vaccine recommended not only for adults with HIV

In the intro, it is stated that MMR vaccine is recommended for adults with HIV. That is not precise. In some countries like Germany, MMR is recommended for adults born after 1970 according to their health department. 112.198.79.56 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Page protection requested

I have requested page protection. This is getting tiring and is a big time sink. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information in the introduction

It appears to be a misunderstanding. The introduction reads, "The second dose is a dose to produce immunity in the small number of persons (2–5%) who fail to develop measles immunity after the first dose." The link given doesn't exist anymore but redirects to <http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmrv/vacopt-faqs-hcp.htm>, where the CDC reports, "About 2-5% of young children (i.e., between 200 and 500 per 10,000 children) will have at least one febrile seizure." The 2-5% figure is not used anywhere else and the link doesn't say anything about the vaccine failure rate. I think it should be edited to remove the "(2-5%)" but hesitate to do so in case that data was found at the original link. I'll leave it to the admins to decide but wanted to bring up the discrepancy. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.18.34 (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You can use the wayback machine to check the page that was linked to as it appeared when it was linked. The information does indeed come from there.

Why is a second dose of MMR necessary?

About 2%-5% of persons do not develop measles immunity after the first dose of vaccine. This occurs for a variety of reasons. The second dose is to provide another chance to develop measles immunity for persons who did not respond to the first dose.

Mostlyignorant (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop Hiding the History

Recent report shows the MMR vaccine causes autism in black children at 3 times normal rate, which ran on CNN and then was suppressed. So I came here to read the background and find the entirety of it has been scrubbed for no reason. I can't take-on the information control agents of the pharmaceutical industry by myself, but I think it's time for someone to say something and do something about the fact that there is information that would be of both interest and use to editors that is being hidden away by "archiving" it, for no compelling reason that is legitimate. The only compelling reason I can think of is that some people want to hide any negative information about (at least in this situation) the MMR vaccine. It looks bad. It looks suspicious. It looks biased, and it makes me question the motivations of anyone and everyone that participates in it. And note I'm not an anti-vaccine person. I believe in them, got my DPT, get my flu every year, am aware of the vocal minority that distrust vaccines and believe they have a right to have their say, and am opposed to anyone that would deny that right in order to maintain the brand image and profitability of the pharmaceutical industry.Jonny Quick (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Jonny, you need to assume good faith. Your hatred of the pharmaceutical industry has gotten the better of you, so much so that you are making personal attacks and violating talk page guidelines. It is standard practice to archive old and inactive talk page content.

As far as the whistleblower conspiracy theory, it's been thoroughly debunked. It has been discussed on many talk pages and the consensus here is the same as the consensus on many RS. That deceptive debacle may well end up in Wikipedia, but it won't be what you want. It will be an expose of a deception perpetrated by anti-vaccination fanatics.

I was actually the editor who initiated an effort to create a consensus to include the information, but reasonable people convinced me to wait. This article is not about the controversy, so you are in the wrong place. You need to see the section I started at Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#How to include this in this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You can both talk around and around and around the subject, but the fact remains that whatever fake, fabricated and manufactured consensus there may have been at one time, others have a right to read that discussion and inform themselves on what took place. Also, saying that I "hate" the pharmaceutical industry after I openly declared that I actually get all these vaccines is simply stupid, and then using that retarded premise to them accuse me of making a "personal attack" is actually a personal attack, and also stupid. The fact that the conversation is old does not require it to be archived. It's still relevant and it's still hidden away. I assume "good faith" until I see blatant evidence to indicate that it is no longer deserved, and that is certainly the case here. Note, I came into this article by the means by which I just described, seeking objective and unbiased information and all I get after making substantive and credible criticisms on behalf of both myself and anyone else that would like to learn the entirety of the situation is a bunch of unfounded and stupid accusations using fake and pretextual violations of irrelevent wikipedia policy that have no bearing on the matter nor serve no purpose save to provide a thin veneer of justification for the very bias that I am opening for discussion.Jonny Quick (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This comment isn't in any way constructive. Please don't comment about editors, instead identify reliable sources and make specific article content improvement suggestions. Zad68 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Your comment isn't in any way constructive and fails to address any of the issues raised, in fact it seems only to serve to add your own "2-cents" into a situation that doesn't require it. I'll comment about "editors" that behave as badly as the previous one, and you too if you don't stop doing what you are doing. Identifying "reliable sources" hasn't anything to do with the issues at hand; that's just a handful of warm spit and generalization to make yourself look "constructive" when you are not. I've MADE my point which is to keep the suppressed information included in the discussion pages and stop trying to limit what other people can and can't see based on the false and fabricated notion that there used to be "consensus" achieved sometimes, somewhere, back there, by people we don't remember and all we know is that the decision was made and now we have to live with it. I disagree. I think you should take your own advice and butt-out of situations that don't concern you unless you've got something constructive to offer, which apparently you don't so why are you wasting everyone's time with your useless and irrelevant comments. If you haven't got anything substantive to add to the idea that it's a good idea to keep the record of what's been discussed in the past available to as many people as possible, for as long as possible, providing that it is of some value, then I suggest you put a cork in it.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

But editors are not fire-proof, they make mistakes and have their own views. If they continue to express their personal opinion, such as "Your hatred of the pharmaceutical industry", then people have a right to answer back. Or is it that all opinions are equal - but the opinions of editors are more equal than others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.113.37 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

When I encounter sophisticated and manipulative "input" like that (my "hatred" of the pharma industry and how woefully misguided these powerful emotions have made me), I never assume this is an average "Johnny off the street" situation". Normal people are not that sophisticated or precise with their manipulative and provocative trolling; it takes a paid expert from whatever industry it is that is threatened by the information. Here it's "Big Pharma", and in another article on Fracking it's the Oil & Gas Industry. These people aren't accidents, and they don't work for free.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Brave New Would of the MMR vaccine

This article sometimes reads like an advert for the MMR vaccine. For evidence questioning the possible side effects of the drug are down-played. And, as with this Talk page, people daring to ask questions are side-lined or insulted. And yet, despite a costly public relations drive, concerns remain. Given this, what is wrong with having a section highlighting evidence against the three-in-one vaccine? Or is Wikipedia totally sure about the safety of this drug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.113.37 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Or is Wikipedia totally sure about the safety of this drug?" Yes. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

We do address the safety concerns in its own section. Every medication has side effects. If a medication has no side effects, then it doesn't have any effects either, which is the case with homeopathy. You need to be specific about what changes you wish to make, and which reliable sources to use. Otherwise you are just griping, and that violates the rules for talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathic remedies can have side effects if used incorrectly Veritatis in lege (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

MMR2 questions

I'm noticing information from this article being used as "Gospel" in media reports about the current measles outbreak and I think that it is a good time to check it carefully for problems. The part about MMR2 being used for people who did not acquire immunity from MMR1------begs the question, (and I realize that could be considered an "incorrect use of "begs the ?", but I'm using it here anyhow), Why not just run an (immune antibody)IGA test to confirm or measure immunity BEFORE giving MMR2? Also, I'd like to see something here about IGA tests, since they are increasingly being utilized by the public and not a "secret" have been used for health-care workers routinely to check on immune-status. People who have been exposed to the current outbreak who have had MMR but not the second vaccination, (who were born after 1957), were urged in Arizona for example to quarantine themselves and other cautions. In light of these new articles, I think that all information in the article about MMR2 should be updated and checked with the best possible current references. 2601:C:6783:8416:445E:C7CC:A0E3:5D25 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Death Rate Graph?

Can an editor figure out how to add this image to the article? Is it appropriate? It seems to be sourced well. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.87.16 (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should be included -- but the article is hijacked by "pro vaccine" groups who believe whatever the pharmaceutical companies say. And they do not want other info. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Breakthrough: why MMR vaccine can give children febrile seizures

Scientists have discovered that the MMR vaccine can produce febrile seizures in children with genetic variations in the genes IFI44L and CD46. CD46 is already known as a binding site for measles.Variations in the genes ANO3, SCN1A, SCN2A and TMEM16 are linked to an increased risk of febrile seizures in children, in which the MMR vaccine plays no role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting. It's entirely conceivable that a genetic variation could put some at increased risk of febrile seizures. We'd need better sources and coverage. The article does note that the benefits of the MMR vaccine far outweigh the risks: "It's estimated that the MMR vaccine saves about 1,000,000 lives a year, so the disadvantages of using the vaccine distinctly outweighs the extremely rare side effects." -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed section: Disease VS Vaccine effects

It would seem that the terrible effects of Measles, Mumps and Rubella are no longer common knowledge. I would propose incorporating a section showing these effects. To ease comparison and referencing, it could be in the form of a table, comparing these effects to the effects of the vaccine. Rational Wiki (which I must say is terribly biased) has a table doing just that, which might be a good starting point. GeiwTeol 10:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MMR vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Autism claims" vs. "Autism scientific fraud"

After re-reading Wikipedia's policy regarding keeping a neutral point of view, I believe that the article should not use the headline "Autism scientific fraud" as it violates this policy. The previous headline of "Autism claims" was much more in line with a neutral point of view. The policy states that Wikipedia articles should "describe disputes, but not engage in them." and "Avoid stating opinions as facts." I believe that the "fraud" headline both states an opinion as a fact, and engages in the vaccination dispute. I'd be interested to see what other members of the community think. – Majora4 (leave a message) 04:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

All reliable sources say that this was a fraud. Only the anti-vaxxers call it a controversy or a claim. A "claim" is something unproven that is stated in good faith. This wasn't. Definition of Claim: an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. This is not disputed or in doubt. It is disproven as a fraud as of 2011. On Wikipedia fringe theories get no weight when determining neutral point of view. We can and should cover this idea because it is notable, but we cannot "buy into it", not even a little bit. Jehochman ^Talk 11:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, this section is wider than the fraud issue. Plainly there are a bunch of people out there who make claims that MMR causes autism, and one would assume most are not and never have been involved in fraud. The whole debate about this vaccine's safety cannot always be compressed to Wakefield's malfeasance, which is fully covered under MMR controversy. To me, this article is about the vaccine. In this context, 'fraud' is inappropriate in this section heading. Dallas66 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There was a fraud, and the sequelae are various people and media repeating the false statements of Wakefiend. It's important to be clear that this is not a controversy or a debate. Not a drop of truth to the idea that this vaccine is harmful. No reliable source says that there's any doubt. I would agree with "fraud and conspiracy theories". Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

While I do agree that Dr. Wakefield's original article should be considered fraud, I don't think there's sufficient reason to say that there isn't a controversy or a debate. There's a large portion of the populace who 100% believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism (and many have extended these beliefs to all vaccines as well). Although I personally don't think these beliefs hold any merit, I think there's a sufficient number of people who believe it such that we can't really justify treating it as a "fringe theory." The belief is even popular enough to warrant its own article, so that counts for something, right? – Majora4 (leave a message) 20:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

We actually do need to treat the MMR Vaccine Fraud/Controversy as a "fringe theory," just because a lot of people believe it does not make it anymore scientifically valid. Take Global Climate Change as an example, lots of people don't believe it is occurring, that doesn't mean there belief it is not a fringe position from a scientific point of view. In order to comply with NPOV and Fringe we should state in the heading this is based on fraud. Very few people who believe this theory have committed the fraud it's true, however it all started because of a fraudulent paper/press conference.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have amended the heading and the text. The previous impression was of a sober and careful article about the vaccine, but then going off into an angry outburst about Andrew Wakefield: all of which is covered elsewhere. I guess current events arouse more passion, but that's something to guard against IMO Dallas66 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MMR vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623134938/http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx to http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615000359/http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/ to http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913173824/http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/basics/truths.php to http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/basics/truths.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Claims of autism" vs. "False claims of autism"

Tgeorgescu: You reverted my changes on this article, and left a message on my talk page. The right place to talk about changes to this article is here, on it's own talk page. You say you reverted my edits I "added commentary, my own point of view, or my own personal analysis" this WP article. That's a straight out lie. I did nothing of the sort. I didn't add anything. All I did was remove one word: "false". That word is in breach of WP:POV. There should be no confusion about this; it's pretty easy to establish a NPOV: any qualification of anything or anyone in the text must be attributed to someone rather than left unattributed. If, for instance, the article says the claims (if any) are considered false, they must, to retain its NPOV, also cite who considers them false. WP is not a Ministry of Truth; it's an encyclopaedia. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I won't play by your game. In scientific matters WP:SPOV is WP:NPOV. There are guidelines like WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS which you should never violate. We don't do WP:GEVAL. Jimbo agrees, see WP:LUNATICS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You're misquoting and misapplying the policy.

1. The policy literally states that WP:SPOV "for science articles is consistent with WP:POV."
2. This article is a WP:BLP, not a science article. WP:BLP are about someone did and what happened in their lives, not character evaluations.
3. WP:LUNATICS has nothing whatsoever to do with this. My edits do not give credence to Andrew Wakefield et al (1998); they only correct the article's wording to simply say what he said and did, and what others said and done in relation to that.

WisdomTooth3 (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup, you try to present facts as if they were opinions, see WP:ASSERT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in some cases no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual. "Sky is blue" type facts need not be attributed, because that would debase the facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Flat Earth doesn't give equal weight to flat and spherical earth, for example. Gah4 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with most of what BullRangifer says, except "factual opinions" is a contradiction, facts are by definition not opinions, and opinions are by definition not facts. But if you replace "factual opinions" with "facts" in BullRangifer's comment, then I agree completely. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That was clumsily written. I suspect I was describing the situation where people think it's an opinion which must be attributed, but when that opinion is correct and factual, then why do it? Just write it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Why was the position of the Catholic Church removed unter "Religious concerns"?

Why is only jewish and muslim position worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmosNikita (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Duration of protection?

The article should ideally describe how long the vaccine protects its recipients from the diseases.

This paper: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/197/7/950/798890

Persistence of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Antibodies in an MMR-Vaccinated Cohort: A 20-Year Follow-up. Irja Davidkin, Sari Jokinen, Mia Broman, Pauli Leinikki, Heikki Peltola. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 197, Issue 7, 1 April 2008, Pages 950–956. https://doi.org/10.1086/528993

attempted to answer that question in one way. There may be other studies, either referenced from this one or independent, that we could also cite. Gnuish (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Antibodies are one thing.

As for measles the CDC states clearly that persons "who received two doses of measles vaccine as children according to the U.S. vaccination schedule [are] protected for life, and they do not ever need a booster dose". --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

CDC Whistleblower Dr. Thompson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A child with the measles, a deadly disease that was almost eradicated.

SHould we include Dr. Thompson's statements he made in 2014, regarding the fraud of the 2004 MMR-autism study? Dr. Thompson provided 10,000 legitimate documents to back up his claim. We cannot trust any of the pharma-funded companies on vaccine safety, as liability was taken away from them as part of the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Act. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

No. – bradv🍁 04:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We should definitely include a source for Dr. Thompson's documents because the CDC can no longer be trusted to perform vaccine safety studies. No placebo based vaxxed vs. unvaxxed studies were conducted on the MMR vaccine. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is patently false. Please stop. – bradv🍁 04:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If this is false, then why aren't you suing Del Bigtree or Andy Wakefield? Why isn't Merck suing them? Why isn't Senator Richard Pan suing them? 134.139.33.92 (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Show me a placebo study done by an independent organization not funded by the pharmaceutical industry that proves that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. That means no CDC studies, no Institute of Medicine studies, no studies done by pharma-funded companies and manufacturers. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You are promoting a conspiracy theory which has been persistently and consistently debunked. Please see WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. – bradv🍁 04:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy theory. If you watch Vaxxed, you will find many of the 10,000 documents that Dr. Thompson uses to back up his claim on his phone call with Dr. Brian Hooker. Go do your research. If you are going to keep saying that this is false, then send a placebo study vaxxed vs. unvaxxed done by an independent organization not funded by the pharmaceutical industry. That means no studies from the IOM, the CDC, Merck, any vaccine manufacturer or organization funded by pharma. Thanks 134.139.33.92 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We do not make WP:PROPAGANDA for WP:LUNATICS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This. And Vaxxed is not a reliable source. You may be interested in this article from the Washington Post, which is. – bradv🍁 05:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post gets a lot of its money from the pharmaceutical industry, so of course it is going to say bad things about Vaxxed. The co-author of SB277, Senator Ben Allen, watched Vaxxed and said that "Vaxxed is not an anti-vaccine film". Dr. Thompson still works at the CDC today. Send a placebo-based study comparing Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed done by an independent organization or independent commission not funded by the pharmaceutical industry in any way. Until then, you guys are quoting vaccine safety science that does not exist. Thank you. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Read Dr. Hooker's official statement on Dr. William Thompson here. More facts. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, not RS. – bradv🍁 05:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Then find a placebo study from an indpendent organization not funded by the pharmaceutical industry that proves that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. That means no newspapers, nothing from the news agencies, the CDC, the IOM, the AAP, vaccine manufacturers, politicians funded by the pharmaceutical industry like Senator Richard Pan, and any other source that is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Just because the CDC, the IOM, and almost all of the most reliable sources say that vaccines do not cause autism, does not mean it is true. They all are funded big amounts of money from the pharmaceutical industry, which is protected from liability when it comes to vaccines. Until you show an independent placebo-based vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study from a non-pharma-funded organization regarding the MMR vaccine and autism, you are just promoting pharma's propaganda. Go do your own research. Be smart about your research and don't be a vaxhole. Thanks 134.139.33.92 (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing smart about what you say, don't waste our time. And... it this characteristic for the California State University? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not characteristic for the CSU. This is a crisis here. Too many children are being hurt by these vaccines and until you can find a placebo vaxxed vs unvaxxed study from an independent organization not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, there is no proof that this vaccine is safe. That means no articles from news organizations, major medical journals, newspapers, the CDC, the IOM, the AAP, politicans funded by big pharma like Senator Richard Pan, and any other pharma-funded organization. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless you have the placebo vaxxed vs. unavaxxed science from a non-pharma-funded organization proving that vaccines are safe, don't tell me that vaccines are safe, because they are NOT. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this word "vaxhole" but it sounds like you are trying to cause offense. But seriously, think about what you asking. You say that we should "do our own research", but yet you're telling us to ignore all scientific and academic research performed by the experts that work in the area of health and medicine. That makes zero sense. Please take your pro-disease nonsense elsewhere. – bradv🍁 05:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

But are the experts working for us, or for money from the pharmaceutical industry? Which companies are they working for?: I betcha most, if not all of them, are lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry in some way. Find that placebo-based study from an independent non-pharma-funded orgaqnization to back up your claim, or stop making these claims by these careless companies. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I will never back down and until you find actual evidence from a company who is not being funded by pharma at all, you are just saying things without reliable sources from non-pharma-funded companies! I stand for the truth, not for propaganda! It's better to get measles than to get a lifelong disability. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What do the doctors that focus specifically on autism, like Dr. John Green and Dr. Lynne R. Mielke, say? The vaccine can can autism. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me tell you something: Wikipedia is a front for mainstream science, mainstream medicine, QuackWatch and organizations of skeptics. Our choice is already made. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

But can the mainstream media be trusted? They received a good chunk of their money from the pharmaceutical industry, which is immune from vaccine injury liability. Why are there so many doctors, especially autism doctors that tell their patients that vaccines can cause autism. Look, Wikipedia should be a place where real truth with evidence from reliable sources that are not bought out by the pharmaceutical industry are releasedl, not a place to support a powerful industry's evil agenda. And until this mission is accomplished, I will never back down! 134.139.33.92 (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You cannot convince us and the power of WP:RULES is against your WP:POV. Neither seek we to convince you, it is futile to convince true believers of anything else than they believe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you say that on our end too. You cannot convince us, nor force us to believe what pharma and many news agencies say, because we, by heart, know the truth.. Go find a placebo study comparing vaxxed vs. unvaxxed from an independent organization not funded by the pharmaceutical industry that proves the vaccine is safe. Otherwise, stop talking like a vaxhole, a person who quotes vaccine safety science that does not exist. 134.139.33.92 (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:THETRUTH: you'd rather die as a martyr for your cause than accept mainstream science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the way of the pro-disease advocates. If only they didn't affect the innocent too. – bradv🍁 06:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The truth is that mainstream science is flawed when it comes to vaccines. If Del Bigtree and Andy Wakefield are sharing fraudulent data, why isn't Merck or any vaccine manufacturer going out to sue them? Go read those 10,000 documents Dr. Thompson put out. No, I will never accept their position on vaccines, because all of those studies by these pharma-funded companies are a fraud, according to producer Del Bigtree. Now go do your own research and stop being a vaxhole! We are never going away! 134.139.33.92 (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We are not pro-disease, we are pro-safe vaccines. These vaccines are NOT safe. Send a placebo based study vaxxed vs unvaxxed from an indpendent non-pharma-backed organization that proves the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. Otherwise, stop being a vaxhole and do your research! 134.139.33.92 (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vaxxed is not a reliable source of information and has already been debunked. What you're suggesting is conspiracy. Turtleshell3 (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)