Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:32, 11 November 2005

Dr. Andrew Wakefield's report

19/8/05 12:22 GMT: Following quoted text deleted because 1) false 2) no reliable reference to substantiate it (which of course there cannot be as it is false information).

"He now campaigns against the MMR vaccine on more or less a full time basis, travelling to the United States and Europe to lecture on the vaccine's alleged dangers."

There is a lot more information like this on this page, but Geni needs to justify his/her actions in deleting wholesale information added by others and replacing it with inaccurate incorrect and misleading information which presumably suits some personal objective of Geni's.

Anon The Editor

Current version remarkably UK-centric, not that that's a bad thing. But notably lacking from the article is any description of any purported benefits of the vaccine. Doesn't measles kill people? Doesn't mumps cause sterility? Doesn't rubella cause birth defects? Doesn't the vaccine prevent these things? Hasn't it been shown to be effective? Is the net effect of the vaccine beneficial? If anyone has facts/figures on these they should be added. -- Nunh-huh 23:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suspect it's UK-centric because unless you live in the UK you won't believe the hype and hysteria there is here on this issue. The media seem to take it as read that the govt is trying to force a dangerous vaccine on the public (though in fact anyone can have the alternative if they pay for it - and if they really feel MMR is dangerous then they should).

Exile

I quite agree. But with the controversy back in the news over here, I felt that the article needed to be updated - I'll leave it to the real experts to fill in the medical details. :-) -- ChrisO 23:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It just seemed a bit jarring to go right to side effects, as though one takes the vaccine in order to cause them<G>. It's not YOUR versions' problem, it seems to be every versions' problem. I hope someone can find out some figures. :) - Nunh-huh 23:44, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just added more text on why vaccination works. May sound slightly non-NPOV (but I'm biased). Would welcome more neutral npov-ing. Alex.tan 06:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's much better, Alex. Thanks. -- ChrisO 09:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As a GP (Family practitioner) in the UK I feel that the UKcentric POV is relevant. I have recently seen 7 cases of MUMPS in young adults (last case seen by me 5+ years ago). The squabble over single vs multiple vaccine,whatever its motives has resulted in significant morbidity in my patients, I await serious sequelae.

Egg allergy

I've just heard that the MMR vaccine is partly made using eggs and that infants that have an egg allergy cannot be given it. Could someone source this and include it? violet/riga (t) 18:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

for the most part it isn't true though .Geni 15:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proper referencing

A lot of research is quoted in this article, but I think it should be formatted like in other articles - not just a link to a website but with the full citation and PMID to boot. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Editorial Note"

I removed: inserted by an anon editor. If there is contreversy over the accuracy and impartiality, the talk page is the place to reach consensus; "editorial notes" aren't appropriate. Boojum 16:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Re immediately prior note regarding removed text - originally "inserted by an anon editor."

This was not an issue of controversy. The text was factually wrong. It was factually wrong with a transparent agenda. Further, whilst the offending text appears to have been removed for the moment, no doubt some 'anon editor' will reintroduce it to continue to give readers a false view. This was just one example of numerous factual inaccuracies in what reads like partisan diatribe and polemic. There are too many financial, political and pharmaceutical interests for the facts to be made public:

Anon The Editor. 22:50, 16 August 2005 GMT (Another anonymous contributor to join the ranks of other anonyms like 'Boojum', 'Jfdwolff' and 'Nunh-huh' - it seems all a bit like Who's Who, but without the Who's Who bit).

Beg pardon, are you attacking me for not being famous? I can't tell quite how you mean to insult me here, can you clarify? The appropriate thing to do with inaccurate facts is to delete them or correct them, or discuss in the talk page how they should be changed. Nowhere in the policies of wikipedia does there seem to be acceptance of putting "Editorial note: this is all wrong" in the middle of an article. Boojum 19:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Dearest Boojum, you are not being attacked. Interesting interpretation. No-one can know if you are famous. You are using a pseudonym - 'Boojum'.

Regarding your comments on deletion and correction, I entirely agree. It is a shame others cannot respect valid edits made to false and misleading information. The sentence "He now campaigns against the MMR vaccine on more or less a full time basis, travelling to the United States and Europe to lecture on the vaccine's alleged dangers." is simply invention but someone using the pseudonym 'Geni' keeps on reverting 1) any deletion of it and 2) any substitution to correct it with correct factual information. Check the page history for edits that just address that sentence and you will see that. It is beginning to look very much like Geni has the page on a watch list and every time it changes Geni just reverts the page back to the version s/he wants which contains this particular item of false information. There are numerous other items of just plain false information in the page. Another editor has been trying to make corrections also I see from the history but Geni just reverts everything regardless. Anon The Editor. 05:24, 20 August 2005 GMT

Missing info

I think it was a BBC documentary I just saw on the TV. It had following points missing from this article:

• Large epidemiological study in Denmark, which showed no link between MMR and autism.
• Dr. Wakefield claims having found living (measles?) viruses in the blood of some claimed victims of MMR, possibly explaining the link between autism and MMR. Other research teams have failed to find such living viruses.

If I knew more, I'd add this to the article, but I hope someone finds these points useful for further editing. -EnSamulili 19:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Characterization of websites

I have taken out the descriptions of websites as being "sites promoting MMR" or opposing MMR, or whatever, as these characterizations are ridiculous. To describe the BBC as a site supporting MMR, or whatever, is absurd. Naturally, antivaccinationists wish to imply that there is a matching for-and-against, as this gives their views equal prominence. But to falsely characterize media organizations in this way is wrong.

Whale.to link

I would prefer that this not have to go to RfC. The linked website whale.to begins with the statement

It is naive to think the medical cartel are looking for the truth regarding autism and MMR, and wouldn't put themselves before the children. For one thing allopathy is resting on shifting sand/lies, they fear if one is exposed the whole pack of cards will come down like Kissinger's domino effect. They will lie, steal, cheat and kill, before that happens, as history shows clearly. At the top the Illuminati run the show through their monopolies and corporations, and they create all the wars, run the illegal drug trade, and so on, and have been top of the dung heap, robbing the taxpayers blind, for 200 years. For one thing there are 500,000 people with Autistic spectrum disorders in the UK alone, do the litigation/payout maths.

I strongly feel that a website which places this at the top of the page, in a position generally deemed indicative of the content, is not a worthwhile link for Misplaced Pages. IMHO, the Illuminati, war, illegal drug trade, et al with regards to the MMR vaccine represent a fringe view which, NPOV or not, does not need to be referenced in a well-balanced article. I would invite Ombudsman and any others who feel otherwise either to reconsider or to simply discuss the matter below. Research articles should be allowed to stand on their own merit without such commentary; I would be in favor of references within the site being included within the text. InvictaHOG 00:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of povishly mocking the Whale.to archive resource with the 'fringe' mantra, it would be more accurate, and less misleading, if the term 'suppressed' was substituted for describing the type of knowledge archived there. The webmaster apparently has good reason for his disillusionment with medical authorities out of touch with the immense scope of human suffering caused by vaccine injuries, as he describes how such a tragedy happened to his family at Whale.to. The fact is, upper echelons of the medical establishment are completely disconnected from such grim realities, now visited upon the general population in epidemic proportions, is underscored by the vast differences in health and mortality between the two spheres as evidenced by the Whitehall Studies. The rebellion known as the post-autistic economics movement is symbolic of just how far out of touch those at the top of hierarchies can actually get. So really, who is on the fringe here? The medical establishment and drug companies? Quite likely, as they are still in denial about the millions of children now diagnosed with autism, whereas Leo Kanner in all his years as the foremost authority only found a couple dozen. Or the millions of families who have seen their children regress rapidly? Often, this reality strikes their children immediately after a single, undeniable reality, vaccine injections. The trickle-down economics of medical research funding has stymied their efforts to ensure common sense scientific studies (the type of studies archived at Whale.to) are conducted. Whale.to is representative of such families, and the broader population at large, even if such 'forbidden' terms like Illuminati are used on the website. It is perhaps a colorful way to vent about what others might refer to as the smoke-filled-room politics and shady deals taking place at the highest levels of government and commerce, where the moral compass points straight down at the bottom line. Ombudsman 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how the Whitehall Studies or French economists relate to the Misplaced Pages article on MMR. Indeed, I fail to see the value of inclusion of a site which uses inflammatory rhetoric about the Illuminati (in concert with "allopathic medicine") orchestrating wars and running drug rings. Stay on target and explain why such incendiary commentary is preferable to individual references within the article documenting the concerns which you feel should be addressed. I do not believe that we should include sites which belittle those who feel there is a link between MMR and autism and I do not believe we should include whale.to. I've diagnosed autism; I've cared for autism. If there are data which provide a way to rid the world of autism, it should be in the article! InvictaHOG 03:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are the one who needs to step back a little, to allow yourself a chance to see the economics that have precipitated the vaccine injuries, and to grasp the social order that precludes medical authorities from making decisions in the best interests of the general public. When choosing external links, expressions of outrage, especially from the family members of vaccine injury victims, should be tolerated much more readily than the fabricated realities resulting from 'research' studies designed with pre-determined outcomes (determined by economic factors) and compromised by rampant conflicts of interest. Ombudsman 04:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Economics are not at issue here. Whale.to's value to the MMR wiki is. All references should stand on their own merit and be held to the same standards. Again, I would not link to an impassioned and inflammatory missive from a scientist vis a vis failure to vaccinate any more than I support whale.to. Conflicts of interest in scientific papers are clearly stated so that anyone can decide whether they should impact opinion. InvictaHOG 04:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a big strength of Misplaced Pages when print to print enclopaedia is the ability to have links to external information, so Misplaced Pages can be used as a starting point to look into the issue. Suppressing links to a siginifact information collection relevant to the topic appears to me as suppressing a significant view, and not NPOV. I can understand a concern that the whale.to link can be viewed as a minority view and would be "too visible" as just a link alongside links to more wide accepted views (having too much weight) - but maybe that concern could be answered by appropriate labeling or sectioning of links? Not simply "pro" or "anti" vaccines, but maybe something like "links to citizen's organizations advancing critical views on vaccines", "links to governmental organiztions advocating for vaccines" etc? Jkpjkp 06:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not object to the data. I object title line which boldly states of allopathic medicine "They will lie, steal, cheat and kill" and that "they create all the wars, run the illegal drug trade, and have been top of the dung heap". The "minority view" is not at question here; suppression is not at question here. I think that the MMR debate is important and would love to see the links separated from the inflammatory commentary. Indeed, the linked article by Dr. Yazbak is mostly opinion with little discussion of fact. However, I would not target it for deletion because, despite the lack of scientific merit, it does not resort to incendiary language. No degree of labeling will change the fact that whale.to is much more than a repository of helpful information. It is a clearinghouse of ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated slander. Please, find a way to move the debate into less confrontational waters. InvictaHOG 08:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on your position - let's see if I understand this, you do no object to the viewpoint presented in whale.to, but rather the manner or style whale.to presents it in. More specifically, You characterize whale. to as a clearinghouse of ad hominem attacks. To elaborate on this - could you present an example link pointing to a page where there is such an ad hominem attack? The quotes seem like attacks / characteristication of a certain profession / institution rather than any person. Jkpjkp 08:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Medical fascism" is not ad hominem? JFW | T@lk 10:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the usage whether it is or isn't. Misplaced Pages article ad hominem: "(Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger". If I said that a (fictional) vaccine researcher John Smith is a medical fascist, and thus his research should not be included in Misplaced Pages nor linked to it, and the research warrants no further discussion, I would be making an ad hominem attack against John Smith. I would be directing discussion to the messenger instead of the message. On the other hand, if someone claims that "Freedonia seems to be sliding into medical fascism." and supports the claim with arguments, it is not ad hominem (as it is not an attack on the messenger), but a claim regarding political situation in Freedonia. Jkpjkp 13:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The insults are aimed at the whole profession. I'd call that ad hominem. JFW | T@lk 18:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course you can call it ad hominem, but that doesn't make it so. But I think this comment is very enlightening and maybe here have the essence of the motivation to suppress links to whale.to - I see a viewpoint here that the medical profession and institutions should not be subject to criticism, but instead are somehow entitled to protection from being discussed critically. I think this viewpoint is very antithetical not only to the basic ideas of Misplaced Pages, but also rational thought and discussion in general. The process of setting oneself to remove all links to the "wrong" kind of information (e.g. links to other "fringe" or "non credible" sites) sources seems to me to be a version of collective crimestop. Jkpjkp 01:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism is one thing. Name-calling, villification and character assassination is another. You clearly think this is acceptable. JFW | T@lk 01:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are two different things. It's also helpful to note how words like "fascism" when usedin criticism have rational, reasonable meaning (which can be looked up in a dictionary or enclopedia if unclear), besides often being used os blanket labels. And how words like "obsessed", "fringe", "extreme" etc. can be used as a rhetoric device to call names and label the messenger rather than the issue. But I don't think we're progressing here - maybe instead you could answer the question below about what the policy is that you say you are acting on, and do you feel the Jimbo Wales quote as such is policy which should be followed? Jkpjkp 07:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dictates that extreme fringe views do not need to be propagated by Misplaced Pages. I have explained to John on the Ombudsman RFC page that the POV of whale.to is so utterly fringe that it needs not to be covered, even as an external link. I think "links to citizen's organizations advancing critical views on vaccines" is spin. I have never seen more rabid opposition to vaccination, conspiracy theories and all.

Misplaced Pages is becoming a force to be reckoned with, and several organisations have sought (generally through proxies) to improve their profile by inserting links to their sites on Misplaced Pages pages. We need to be watchful that links are indeed provided to be informative, and not to advertise site content. Even if the links were sectioned, this site is too bizarre to qualify for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 08:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be making the logical error of judging a book by its cover. Although your English is fine, you do not seem to be fluent in the language of those families visited by the tragedy of vaccine injury. You are welcome to retain your own pov as you see fit, but rejecting a link due to your intolerance for differing views seems antithetical to the essential purpose of the Wiki, to further institutional memory. Ombudsman 09:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See my response below. I find your tone offensive; I'm not "intolerant for differing views" - I'm simply acting on policy.

As for the phraseology of whale.to - this is not "the language of those families visited by the tragedy of vaccine injury". It is the demagogical tone of incitement, hate and intolerance; it speaks of "medical fascism" and equates bona fide practicioners with the likes of Mengele. Thankfully it is a view only held by a handful of people and therefore does not need a forum on Misplaced Pages. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

On which policy are you acting on? Below you say that you are acting on Jimbo's quote on Misplaced Pages:NPOV - do you argue that the Jimbo quote somehow authoritatively sets Misplaced Pages policy which all editors should act on? Just trying to get some insight on the social mores of Misplaced Pages here. In any case, I don't think the Jimbo quote applies to this case, arguments can be found below. Jkpjkp 11:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages:NPOV I didn't find any mention of "extreme fringe". Under "Undue weight" there's a quote from Jimbo Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see Misplaced Pages:Flat earth problem)." - maybe this is what Jfdwolff if basing the deletion opinion on. But I think this doesn't really apply to a link to whale.to - the real value of whale.to to the reader of Misplaced Pages is the collection of links and texts on the issue, _not_ the viewpoint or opinion which the webmaster of whale.to holds or presents. Also, the "Undue weight" section covers the inclusion of viewpoints, not external links. If there is some other generally accepted principle of deleting resources when someone things that "extreme fringe" viewpoints are represented in some way, maybe Jfdwolff can refer us to the document where that principle is accepted. Jkpjkp 10:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that I'm acting on Jimbo's quote about "extremely small (or vastly limited)". I don't see why the external links version should be different from the remainder of the article. What makes you think NPOV does not apply to the external links section? JFW | T@lk 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the particular Jimbo quote doesn't apply here because including the whale.to link would not give undue weight in the article to the viewpoints of the person maintaining whale.to or the persons whose texts are quoted or linked to in whale.to. The title of the chapter of Misplaced Pages:NPOV you are basing your argument for the deletion of the link is "Undue weight", and discusses the issue of when inclusion of material from a certain viewpoint gives that viewpoint undue weight. The MMR vaccine article was currently 12 links, and inclusion of the whale.to link in no way will give undue weight to the link. Jkpjkp 11:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, you are arguing that the viewpoint represented in whale.to is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority. I don't think that is correct, as a critical attitude towards vaccines is of course only a natural part of a process to make vaccines better, and held very widely by many vaccine proponents. Anyway, it's not really applicable here, because whale.to is a resource, a collection of a wide range viewpoints, writings and facts by dozens or hundreds of persons or publications. Jkpjkp 13:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Do either of you honestly believe that allopathic medicine is responsible for all the wars and drug trade for the last 200 years? If so, you are the first people that I've encountered who believe that. If not, then how can you argue that this is not an extreme minority view. InvictaHOG 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What I personally believe or do not believe is not really that relevant here - and your comment feels a bit like you're trying the discussion from the issue at hand to people who are discussing it. Jkpjkp 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, InvictaHOG is trying to explain that because so few people subscribe to this POV (and it's immaterial whether you do or not) it is not notable. Does whale.to have members? Is there a membership statistic available to prove that their organisation has 200,000 members? Or is it just the lifework of a disgruntled loner obsessed with vaccination? At the moment we have no indication that the latter is not true.

The discussion is turning a bit circular. InvictaHOG and myself assert that the site has no support base, while you claim this is not so. Could you provide evidence, please? JFW | T@lk 01:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I argue that it's not quite applicable to talk about the size of the minority of a general viewpoint of such a large collection of material, as the collection has so many viewpoints. Or, if one _must_ try to find a common viewpoint for everything on the site, it is something like "there is a negative side to vaccines", which is so obviously widely held (see the warning labels in vaccine packages, for example) that it in no way can be declared to be held by an extremely small minority. But I agree that we seem to not be progressing here - maybe someone else will comment on the issue, but instead of repeating what has said already, maybe we could discuss the issue of policy - can you answer the question above about policy? Jkpjkp 07:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are more reliable sources than this wretched site for the "negative sides" of vaccines. The policy question has been explained to you ad nauseam. JFW | T@lk 08:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Whale.to does not deserve to be subjected to the sort of 'hazing' tactics that apparently can be traced right to the rituals of medical school training, and from there to a drug industry bent on making sure children are injected with dozens and dozens of vaccines. Jfdwolff has vehemently complained about Whale.to, repeatedly referring to its 'lunacy', yet he is offended when the tables are turned and it is pointed out his words seem to betray an intolerance toward the views of families visited by the tragedy of vaccine injury. Why is attention deflected away from the value critics attach to the archived research? Well, at least one anthropologist seems to have a possible answer, having chronicled the hazing rituals that sleep-deprived medical interns invariably experience as they learn to prescribe drugs. If the single 'right' drug (or vaccine, presumably) was not chosen, a stern lecture, and humiliation in front of fellow interns, typically ensued. Granted, much is at stake, so the best alternative must be chosen, but this is not med school here, just a decision as to whether or not to include in important link to what vaccine critics regard as an invaluable resource. Whale.to is guilty of little more than evidencing hyperbole equivalent, yet opposite, to the rhetoric doled out during medical internship hazings. Jfdwolff hasn't set the tone for the debate any more than the doctors who've participated in the hazing of their interns; the tone is a reflection of the socio-economics of the broader debate, revolving around the financial stability of the trillion dollar or more global drug industry, and the tens of billions of dollars at stake in potential liability for drug makers. Overwrought denigration of Whale.to is little more than a smokescreen (whether the complainant realizes it or not), to divert attention away from the invaluable trove of archived research amassed there. Ombudsman 08:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to vaccine proponents calling for an end to research into the enormous amount of evidence linking vaccines to autism, Rick Rollens, the father of a vaccine injured autistic son, had this to say: Words cannot express my concern at your comment about our national autism research agenda being run by "crazy people" who believe vaccines played a role in the development of their child's autism. The great irony of course, IS that for the past forty years our national autism research agenda has been run by "crazy people", that is, those know-nothing shrinks in the world of psychiatry and their camp followers who first told us that autism was caused by a "refrigerator mother", to the latest nonsensical theory by these same nitwits that promotes this nonsense that thousands of children today have somehow sprouted autism genes, or better yet, that the shrinks have somehow finally figured out what autism looks like so now we have discovered all these kids, when in the past we somehow missed them! Talk about crazy! Wake up and smell the coffee. You are witnessing an autism epidemic right before your eyes. Please explain to me the last time you saw a genetic disease epidemic? The old dinosaurs who put themselves out as "experts" have set the world of autism research back 40 years with their antiquated theories and self-serving interests. Rest assured, the science will be done, the scandal of our lifetime will be exposed, the truth will be told to all, and those who purport to be today's so-called autism experts will be proven dead wrong.

Ombudsman, your personal attacks are getting tiresome. Of course there must be research to once and for all settle the issue of vaccine-induced autism. I have stated numerous times that a more serious source than whale.to can count on my support. But whale.to does not appear interested in calm, rational debate - its webmasters have chosen to attack the medical profession in its entirety, and probably would disagree with the research methodology of any study that disproves links between vaccines and illness.

I have not been the victim of the "intern bullying" you describe, nor have I participated in it. But medical school has taught me to examine scientific evidence. There is no "scandal of our lifetime". Sorry. JFW | T@lk 08:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make such unfounded accusations. If anything, every effort has been made to excuse your denunciation of Whale.to as symptomatic of the drug industry turf war hyperbole. Your comments seem to be cut from the same cloth as the insults to which Rollens responded. The medical establishment culture, which has trashed parents like Rollens, has seen fit to manipulate research funding, while deflecting attention away from the obvious connection between vaccine injuries and autism, by casting aspersions upon critics. Hopefully, you will not continue make such accusations in the same vein. It is unfortunate that you deny the staggering magnitude of the vaccine scandal Ombudsman 09:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As a summary of the major points presented so far whether to include a link to whale.to, the "pro-inclusion" arguments include that a) whale.to is a valuable resource on the issue b) no policy has been presented which supports deletion of the link, as inclusion of one link does not give the site undue weight c) whale.to represents an important view wrt vaccine damage. d) the criticial view of vaccines which is represented by whale.to is not extremely small. "Pro-deletion" arguments include a) whale.to is not to be taken seriously, but instead is extreme fringe b) the style of whale.to is inflammatory and abusive and thus not worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages c) policy Misplaced Pages:NPOV a Jimbo Wales quote says that extremely small minority views should not be given undue weight, and the whale.to viewpoint falls into this category d) the "critical of vaccines" viewpoint is represented by other links so it's not necessary to include whale.to.

The issue of whether to include the link or not has been in state of an edit war for a while with different users doing addings/deletions of whale.to.

Interestingly, it seems that there's another wiki encyclopedia, Wikinfo, a kind of a fork of Misplaced Pages with a slightly different policy which appears to have policies designed to help avoid the drawbacks of edit wars and NPOV conflicts of this kind - see Jkpjkp 14:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman, your assertions are themselves unfounded accusations. My denunciation of whale.to has nothing to do with the drug industry but with the minimal contribution it will make to a serious article on the subject. Can you stop generalising? By opposing this one website I am not in any way denigrating the plight of the parents of autistic children, and you should be embarrased of yourself for even suggesting this. Has your personal vendetta no bounds?

Jkpjkp: there are other websites which address the vaccine/autism view with less invective. These are notable, useful and worthwhile referencing to. Even on Wikinfo there are guidelines on what content is notable. Misplaced Pages has no jurisdiction over Wikinfo. JFW | T@lk 17:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody said who is behind Whale. It's a guy called John Scudamore, age maybe 55 and lives in the South West of England, who is obsessed with collecting any snippet of material that supports the anti-vaccine fringe. A lot of it is selective clippings from young newspaper reporters doing those "jane was a bright, bubbly baby until she had her ". There's no pretence of balance, or providing a resource. The stuff is all readily available copyright material, essentially stolen, so there's no possible claim of making things available. It's the way stuff is selected and indexed that is how Mr Scudamore does his damage: making his visitors believe they are being presented with a menu of information. Analysis of his site over some years suggests that he believes the world is run by a secret society, which he sometimes identifies as the "illuminati". There was some web controversy a while back over his republication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious forgery {probably on Wiki, but I haven't checked) intended to promote the idea that the world is in fact run by a Jewish conspiracy. There was quite a lot of anti-semitic stuff at one time. Here is a link to one of his pages on this subject . The illuminati can be enjoyed at Ombudsman can feel free to wallow in this. Speaking for myself, I have never known of an anti-vaccinationist who didn't have something wrong with them. 86.134.160.129