Talk:MMR vaccine

Citation needs update

There's a footnote citation in the lead section, Cochrane 2020, tagged "needs update." It makes sense for it to marked that way, since, as indicated in the tooltip, there's an updated version of the source article available. I was going to update it myself, but the updated version of the article is behind a paywall, and I don't have access to it. The position of the "needs update" tag immediately after the statement "Vaccination does not increase the risk of autism" is unfortunate, since a casual reader might infer that new information exists that contradicts this claim. If someone with access to the updated article could have a look at it, update any quotations if necessary, whatever's involved in updating a citation, in a timely fashion, it would put my mind at ease a bit! Or the tag could just be removed and this talk page section left up in its place, if that suits Wikipedia practices.

More incidentally, would there be support for replacing "risk" in that sentence with a neutral term like "incidence" or "chance"? --Autumn on Tape (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Done.

I have also used the Cochrane's statement ("association") instead of "risk". --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In 2021, Cochrane concluded sounds as if this had not been known before. Should we say when they first concluded it too? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

True, I have traced it back since 2005 (I assume this was the first Cochrane report): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub2.

I will omit the year number, unless there is proof that there is a report before 2005 and with a different statement. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that is a better solution than what I suggested. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr. William Thompson

Dr. William Thompson was a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), where he have worked since 1998. Ha admitted that he and his coauthors omitted statistically significant information in their 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.

All info is here: https://greatergoodmovie.org/news-views/cdc-whistleblower-dr-william-thompsons-public-statement/

This is a major info to be included in this Wikipedia article.

It is quite clear that this Wikipedia article is heavily biased, but i want to write this anyway. I owe it to the millions of injuerd for life children. 2A10:8009:1A91:0:34D2:ADF1:12D1:B746 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That is the "CDC whistleblower" fairy tale. See Science-Based Medicine for a refutation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This is censoring and smoke screen, not “Science-based medicine”. CDC fraud has to be included. 2003:C7:EF03:F5BC:A96C:B4A4:9747:637C (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory is irrelevant. Only what reliable sources say is relevant - see WP:RS - and SBM is a reliable source - see WP:SBM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Hob.

In addition, scum movies like The Greater Good (film) are everything but useful. --Julius Senegal (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that the "contrarian viewpoints" are all from IP-only addresses. Jimw338 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

MMR vaccine was associated with fewer upper respiratory tract infections. Was it really?

Wikipedia now says:

A Cochrane review found that, compared with placebo, MMR vaccine was associated with fewer upper respiratory tract infections, more irritability, and a similar number of other adverse effects [17]

[17] = https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8607336/

I can't find such information. Can you give me a direct quote, please? Quite the contrary, at least as short-term adverse effects MMR increases risk of respiratory symptoms?

Even if the Wikipedia text is true, was it statistically significant, and how big the benefit was? I would be verry happy, if it turns out that for example an MMR vaccination booster every fall reduces risk for serious respiratory infection like covid, flu or RSV for children and/or adults, but we need much more precise quotes from original studies, instead of wasting time of every Wikipedia reader reading the whole original reference full-text, and even then NOT finding what Wikipedia claims there is.

91.159.189.148 (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Having read through the summary tables, I'm not fully convinced either. In table 5, where adverse effects regarding URTI appear to be summarized, the authors gave a certainty rating of low and very low respectively, and the 2 cohort studies listed have more URTIs in the vaccinated group compared to the control. Would not be opposed to a removal of said information. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)