Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 28 November 2011

	Thiomersal and vaccines has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 24, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thiomersal and vaccines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent changes

I completely overhauled the rationale for change section to be incorporated into the historical section of the text; this had the added benefits of removing the bullet point listing that was a carry-over from previous versions of the article, and removing mention of most primary studies. I also introduced one new source and expanded on an existing source to document more clearly the social background from which the theory came up.Yobol (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just changed a reference to remove the list of primary studies by the Geiers. I am trying limit the number of primary studies in this article, and found what should be a suitable substitute reference to be used as a citation. Thanks to Oldspammer for providing that reference below. Yobol (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

For future reference

http://www.springerlink.com/content/3398g44388158630/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobol (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/science/25autism.html?pagewanted=3 Oldspammer (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Albuquerque Journal has mention of a local presentation by Daniel Cobb, doctor of oriental medicine. Cobb screened for the audience a Radio Liberty lecture by Dr. David Ayoub MD November, 2005 in which the 5 studies accepted by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics were systematically debunked.

January 2008 Chicago Tribune reports a study is out from California indicating steady or increasing autism cases. Comments / critiques for the story exist. Oldspammer (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CEED9173DF936A15751C0A9639C8B63&fta=y Departments have conflicting interests so they were split 2005.

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-03-02-2006.php carried by News Wires published directly by some newspapers points to http://www.jpands.org/jpands1101.htm that points to medical journal article http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf Autism rates decline some years after thimerosal is removed from childhood vaccines in 1999-2002. Oldspammer (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Google Video and (especially) the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons press release are not appropriate sources by any stretch of the imagination (see WP:MEDRS). How do you propose to use the other sources, which are potentially appropriate? MastCell  05:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Goal=NPOV to include honest science. Sorry, but the NM newspaper story says that video was presented in a public forum in NM where discussions afterward no doubt happened. I have included the med journal link and the med journal study doc link now. This is a controversy covered and referenced by newspaper sources too--where the PR was carried virtually unedited by news wires and published by some newspapers.

http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/quicksummary.html Seems to summarize the time line and has the documents in question cached locally on their site. A cross check indicates that the documents replicate the original source information. One link is to a 2002 PDF image document that is a CDC contract for more than $190 Million for a private company to maintain the Vaccine Safety Datalink database away from public inquiries made through freedom of information act since the private company is not subject to the act. Oldspammer (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

All google videos and AAPS articles as well as self published websites such as the one above fail WP:MEDRS. I believe the article about California autism rates is already cited in the lead, and I will soon adjust the article to include it (I've already done a lot of editing to the article). Not sure how the NYTimes article would be beneficial, though a mention of Rep Weldon's support for a link may be in order. Yobol (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Having re-read the Chicago tribune link again, I note that it is a blog and public press and likely to fail WP:MEDRS. The actual journal article is cited in the lead. Yobol (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

AAPS journal studies are self-published? Where is that coming from? From the MastCell linked Wiki article they seem an anti-fascist political medical organization that attempts to inject debate to counter forces of fascism? The talk page regarding the journal says that the Journal is not indexed by Pub Med for reasons unknown, and not that it is not peer-reviewed by society / association members, and not that it is self-published web documents by the given authors. Because the journal's studies are available on-line, Pub-Med might need to replicate not only the Abstract, but the entire article?

Is the Chicago Tribune article written by a given Chicago Tribune writer? Does the CT article happen to include "uncontrolled" public comments that debunk the article subject study's findings that precisely coincide with the findings and criticisms offered in the later AAPS journal study?

Article bias--How will it appear to observers if one side of the controversy is selectively excluded? If the critiques / studies are unreasoned or completely unscientific or only political, that would be easily counter-argued by "the other side."

Newspapers carried the news wires story about the study. The study is notable. If at all inaccurate, the study should have critiques / debunking it. If no critiques, then the study stands unopposed, but shall be selectively excluded due to "opinions that the Journal is self-published?"

This critique (that is cited in lots of places on the web and Misplaced Pages) is currently gone I suggest that links to it be changed everywhere. Oldspammer (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I did not meant to say AAPS was self-published; I meant that the website such as www.putchildrenfirst.org is self published and fails WP:MEDRS. JPandS is not a reliable journal by MEDRS standards, as it is not even listed in the main journal listing MEDLINE, and as the WP article shows, it espouses AIDS denialism and creationist "articles". IOW, not reliable.

2) The Chicago Tribune article is apparently from a blog (see the url) and public comments made on such blogs are not WP:RS either. 3) The current Thiomersal Controvery article, in my opinion, is well within the guidelines of WP:NPOV. It presents both sides of the arguments; however, the vast majority of the WP:MEDRS fall on the side of thiomersal not being a cause of autism, meaning we have to place the weight of the article this way as well. 4) Please read WP:MEDRS (again). The vast majority of the sources should be from secondary sources (I have spent a lot of time over the past month removing primary sources) and they must not be used to try to debunk the secondary sources, all of which show thiomersal does not cause autism. Yobol (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Input requested

For the people who have this watchlisted: I think I'm pretty much done with this article, save a few minor changes here and there. Any suggestions for improvement before I move on? (and spend another 3 years on another article...)Yobol (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Population Studies section of the article, the first paragraph states "...almost all of which have found an association between thiomersal-containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism."

The surrounding context indicates that this should read "...almost none of which..."

Any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulliverian (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, changed. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is from on wiki Eli Lilly controversies article, can this be in this article too? Also should a link in the article link to Eli Lilly controversies? Quote, "Political analysts and the parents of autistic children were baffled when it was revealed, shortly after the passage of the Homeland Security Act in 2002, that a rider to the bill had been added just prior to passage, that would shield Eli Lilly and the pharmaceutical industry from billions of dollars in anticipated lawsuits over vaccines. Known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act", the provision was designed to force lawsuits over the preservative thiomersal, calling the suits into a special 'vaccine court'. The provision could have resulted in the dismissal of thousands of cases filed by parents, who contend mercury in thiomersal poisoned their children, causing autism and other neurological ailments, but the rider was subsequently repealed when the next session of Congress convened in 2003."--199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thiomersal controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial review finished, I also made several minor corrections to spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. Overall I think this is a nice article which could pass review with some more work. After a second opinion is given I will likely put this article on hold to allow time for improvement.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The wiki MoS guidelines for the lead suggest that only 2 or 3 paragraphs are needed for an article of this size. However, I do not see an easy way to reduce it to 3 paragraphs, so I'm fine with using 4.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All quotes and potentially controversial claims appear to be sourced, the sources appear reliable, and there is no original research that I could find. I randomly checked some of the easily-accessed sources to verify that the article did not misrepresent a claim. That sampling checked out, so I'm inclined to say we are good on sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I want a second opinion, at the very least on coverage and NPOV. (comments elsewhere are welcome too)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Waiting on 2nd opinion to verify NPOV and Coverage

Aaron north (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Everything looks good to me now. I'll wait until the second opinion to see if there's something I may have missed. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• In Population studies (under Scientific Evaluation) I'm not sure that we need the last paragraph. Every sentence in that last paragraph seems to restate information in the prior two paragraphs (In Europe,... and In North America,...).

First, thanks for the review! I think it would be useful to have a summary paragraph instead of making readers get bogged down in the numbers. If you think it's too duplicated, that paragraph can be removed entirely as the information is already in the above, as you mentioned. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if not enough coverage is given to the increased profile given to the autism link by the advocacy of celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey. Not that their opinions should carry any credibility in the debate, but that they may have increased the number of people supporting the autism link. It might merit a few more sentences or a paragraph under "publicity of concern", anyway.

I agree that was a glaring omission, and added some info. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, I think the last paragraph may need to briefly mention the historical and expected lack of success for these autism court cases. Just saying that thousands of cases were filed may lead the reader to conclude that a lot (or specifically, more than one) of these cases will be successful.

Extra sentence added.Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do believe that we could have an appropriate use of the list style in "consequences", however looking at the MoS for lists, it looks like we need some sort of introductory paragraph generally stating that the belief in the autism link has led to some consequences before listing those consequences. (also see a related comment below under the optional suggestions) Alternatively, the list style could be abandoned in favor of prose, which is usually preferred over lists when possible. We would probably still need an introductory paragraph in that case.

The list format was a recent addition; changed it back to prose to better confirm with MoS. Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if there is available polling data to confirm the increased belief among parents that autism is linked with thiomersal and/or vaccinations? There are plenty of sources in the article that refer to an increased acceptance of this theory so it probably isn't needed to satisfy coverage, but it might still be useful to include scientific polls and surveys in the US and other countries. If these polls and surveys exist, it could be used as an introduction to the list of consequences.

I don't think there's been any polling data about thiomersal (well, if it exists, I can't find it). Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, was just a thought. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would be nice to have another image at the top, but exactly what that image should be is not obvious to me. The only thing that comes to mind is perhaps a photograph of a vaccine protest? This could just be one of those public policy type of articles where images (aside from charts and graphs) are just not needed to be a good article.

I agree that another image would be preferable. I tried searching through the US government and PLoS sites for some free images, but couldn't find any that were particularly related to thiomersal itself (aside from generic images of syringes, etc). Not sure where to get free image of a vaccine protest...Yobol (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be fine for this review. With this subject, it would probably be difficult to imagine what kind of images would add value to the article. Aaron north (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion Wanted

I would like a second opinion from another reviewer. I do not yet have a lot of experience as a reviewer, and this is my first review of a significant controversial article. On this subject, I am also personally biased against the claim of a link between vaccines containing Thiomersal and Autism, but I believe I am able to be objective. However, I'd still like to verify that coverage and NPOV is fine. (comments regarding the rest of the GA criteria also welcome) Aaron north (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually involved in the field (it would be great to hear from someone who is!), but the article does appear NPOV on the surface. I'm not in a position to evaluate its factual accuracy, but the material is presented in a manner which appears evenhanded, and seems to reflect the general scientific consensus (as I understand it). --Xiaphias (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is good enough for me, thank you! Aaron north (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work invested in this article, however it seems a little slanted towards the position of those who discredit the dangers of mercury poisoning from vaccines. I believe more references should be given supporting the opposing viewpoint, given that the page is devoted to the "controversy" of Thiomersal. One such reference would include the video presentation of Dr. David Ayoub, M.D.; there are numerous others by credible professionals in the field, which I can supply links to if such updates are made. K0dpw (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No reputable scientific body on Earth believes that thiomersal causes "mercury poisoning" or autism. It would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT to give isolated vaccine opponents equal time as we give the entire mainstream worldwide medical community. MastCell  20:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The article uses the word might exceed the EPA guidelines

It does. Please post the sources that say it does not or might. The EPA guidelines is a feature of the Thiomersal controversy. How the EPA position is placed in the article and worded, needs work. The article should say something more than it might exceed EPA limits. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Congress said the EPA limited was exceeded, it is exceeded. To say might is unfair to the reader. http://books.google.ca/books?id=k7dKHW9trqIC&pg=PA12732&lpg=PA12732&dq=epa~thimerosal~exceed&source=bl&ots=8h9pNdKtju&sig=YyC9LwHN1Uc5qLmrxs7GQi4F8xE&hl=en&ei=m_zPTpi7BYjiiAKirtnwCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA&safe=strict#v=onepage&q=epa~thimerosal~exceed&f=false--199.60.104.18 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Congress isn't WP:MEDRS. The FDA, which is, says, "However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury." (from the source in the article) We should use MEDRS, not cherry picked quotes. Yobol (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Biliary transport and mentioning the word bile in the article

It is well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body.

This issue about the amount of bile in a newborn should be in the article as this is part of the Thiomersal controversy.

Quote, "According to Dr. Boyd Haley, head of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky, and an internationally recognized researcher on the toxicity of mercury compounds, says no amount of thimerosal is a safe amount. He says, "It is well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well." Haley adds that thimerosal is more toxic than mercury and that "giving a ten-pound infant a single vaccine in a day is the equivalent of giving a 100 pound adult 40 vaccines in a day."http://www.healing-arts.org/children/cdc.htm --199.60.104.18 (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

extensive edit-warring by editor

Extensive edit warring. Like, please give the list. What list? MasterCell you're a liar. --96.54.128.212 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

96.54.128.212 / 199.60.104.18 / 96.50.64.208 , that was completely uncalled for. You, using at least two three different IPs (it's forbidden to do that here...use only one account, so register to avoid this problem) have been edit warring, ignoring advice, violating our policies and guidelines, and generally showing yourself to be unwilling to follow our sourcing policies. Now you attack a highly respected admin who is just enforcing policy and protecting Misplaced Pages from your ignorance. Ignorance is excusable, but refusing to learn isn't. Why you haven't been blocked yet is beyond me. We don't usually suffer fools for so long. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The "evidence of your wrongdoing" I mentioned in my edit summary is the fact that you accused MastCell of lying. That is just so wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The thiomersal controversy article is possibly one of the worst articles on wiki and it should be demoted as one of wiki's natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. Thiomersal controversy article exposes readers to serious misinformation. It no longer meets the criteria, a reassessment is asked for. For example the article refuses to acknowledge the drug thiomersal was grandfathered in by the FDA. --199.60.104.18 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's one of the best articles, but because it meets the standards of NPOV, MEDRS and other guidelines, you have to whine. But if you want to have YOUR version of the article, I'm sure there's a CrapScienceWiki somewhere. OrangeMarlin 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages