Talk:MMR vaccine and autism

message: When I first came across this issue, it was in a pamphlet I read in a UK doctor's surgery. The main drift of the article was that the administering of three vaccines at once was potentially more risky than giving three jabs at different times. The main focus of the pamphlet was on possible links to bowel conditions.
The pamphlet noted that by administering the three at once, rather than separately, the vaccination campaign was more likely to achieve the desired coverage. It also pointed out that Sweden was allowing administration of separate jabs, but that separate jabs couldn't even be bought privately from UK pharmacies.
That 'controversy' - the apparent conflict between the goal of achieving coverage versus the goal of minimising risk - has been swamped by the antivax thing and the Wakefield/Lancet scandal, so that I can't now find any information (here or elsewhere) about the potential risks of administering three vaccines at once. If I could find a WP:RS discussing such potential risks, and added mention of it to this article, I suspect it would be instantly reverted, because 'fringe'. There is no MMR 'controversy', it's all about autism now, and MMR is unassailable (at least on WP).
So to which article would one add material based on a WP:MEDRS that was critical of MMR? Is there any point in even looking for a reliable source? MrDemeanour (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a source first, then ask your question. Your Q is moot at the moment. -Roxy  the dog. wooF 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Three vaccines in one dose is meaningless. It would be safer as there are less total components than 3 individual vaccine jabs. The DPT vaccine, which is typically given 4 times before the MMR, has no controversy and is a triple vaccine for comparison. Even a single vaccine has multiple antigenic foci. WP bases it's inclusions on reliable sources, and that pamphlet is unlikely to be one. If the source meets WP:MEDRS criteria, however, it can be included. I would suggest searching the US National Library of Medicine. It's a fairly exhaustive source for scholarly medical publications. The source should be a secondary article, not a primary study. MartinezMD (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MMR criticism 

message: *As for me, I actually like "fraud" best, and I don't care for "hoax" too much because it implies that the true believers are in on the hoax, when that's patently untrue. So my choices in order are; A, B, C, D, E. Happy (Slap me) 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  To merge them would create an article too long and confusing. The fraud is something of real interest on its own, not only in connexion with MMR and autism, but also to the wider scientific community such as myself. If anything, the fraud article might be shaved a little of general 'MMR debate' stuff, and an abridgment included in the mmr/autism article. Thus there needs to be two because neither article is subsidiary to the other. Sledgehamming (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  To go back to the question raised, it's wrong to want to opinionate in the title. There has been a very widespread debate over whether MMR causes autism. This debate isn't a fraud or a hoax, but something that has happened. Setting out the terms of that debate and how it is resolving is about setting out facts, not dismissing them. What was found to be fraudulent was an element of this, but that doesn't make everything fraudulent or a hoax. This isn't meant to be advertising for the drug industry or the CDC. The title is fine. If any energy is available, someone might add more recent research findings, which continue to evidence the safety of this vaccine.Sledgehamming (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: survey

message: Advising editors here that there is a related discussion at Doreen Granpeesheh which would benefit from wider input. It is over the inclusion of the following content to the page:
:In 2016, Granpeesheh participated in Andrew Wakefield's Vaxxed, a documentary which pushes his widely-debunked theory that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Granpeesheh features prominently in the film, claiming autism is caused by children "not detoxifying from the vaccinations" and can be treated by detoxification.qtd. Metwally, Ebsam (November 2, 2020). Vaccine Hesitancy Online : A Rhetorical Analysis Through Postmodern Narratives. (University of Ottawa, Canada) pg. 75 Granpeesheh had previously worked for Wakefield at his clinic Thoughtful House.
Thanks! GordonGlottal (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion at [[Doreen Granpeesheh]] 

message: I see my edit has been undone to change "claim" to "suggested".  Why is this?  I assume we're talking about the 1998 paper that was retracted titled "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and
pervasive developmental disorder in children"?
Am I missing something?  Not aware it actually claimed a link; only implied it? LairdCamelot (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the discussion just above. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  11:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @SandyGeorgia Thanks, I see now. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim = loaded word, why not Suggested?