dog manufacturer pet supply vitamin wholesale

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)

Exile

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)

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)

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 | 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).

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.

COMMENT: Who is 'I'? Absurd or not, it's not wrong, it's true, re BBC hale -dot- to/b/bbc.html. They are renown for promoting the industry agenda, eg Vivisection, like all of the media. The only programme critical of vaccination I have seen was a Channel 4 one, and that was as a drama documentary, which was lucky to see the light of day, and the discussion programme that followed was biased towards vaccination. The last media investigation into a childhood vaccination was in 1984, in a provincial US paper, the Fresno Bee hale -dot- to/vaccines/fresno.html, which say it all. And to remove sites 'opposing MMR' is just subtle suppression, as vaccinators don't like the public to know there are people who are anti-vaccine, or anti-MMR, such as w hale -dot- to. They want to make out anti-vaccinists are kooks, paranoid etc, the old word game propaganda ploy. You can see it in all it's manifestations on Wikipedia talk pages. The latest one is to find all of the hot subjects on whale that our outfield to most non-thinkers, eg baby sacrifice, satanism, protocols etc, round them up for use as 'buzzwords' to hold up to anyone thinking of looking at the medical pages. The Wizard of Oz was good at that, as I recall.86.128.165.240 22:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

w hale -dot- to link

I would prefer that this not have to go to RfC. The linked website w hale -dot- to begins with the statement:

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 Wikipedia. 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)

NPOV dictates that extreme fringe views do not need to be propagated by Wikipedia. I have explained to John on the Ombudsman RFC page that the POV of w hale -dot- 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.

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 | 08:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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 w hale -dot- to can count on my support. But w hale -dot- 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 | 08:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As a summary of the major points presented so far whether to include a link to w hale -dot- to, the "pro-inclusion" arguments include that a) w hale -dot- 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) w hale -dot- to represents an important view wrt vaccine damage. d) the criticial view of vaccines which is represented by w hale -dot- to is not extremely small. "Pro-deletion" arguments include a) w hale -dot- to is not to be taken seriously, but instead is extreme fringe b) the style of w hale -dot- to is inflammatory and abusive and thus not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia c) policy Wikipedia:NPOV a Jimbo Wales quote says that extremely small minority views should not be given undue weight, and the w hale -dot- to viewpoint falls into this category d) the "critical of vaccines" viewpoint is represented by other links so it's not necessary to include w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- to.

Interestingly, it seems that there's another wiki encyclopedia, Wikinfo, a kind of a fork of Wikipedia with

dog manufacturer pet supply vitamin wholesale

What's New

Info Menu