Talk:MMR vaccine/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

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).


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 [1].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: [Editorial Note: This inaccurate and ill-informed statement demonstrates the partisan nature of this whole account of the matter. Those who have no detailed knowledge of the issues can rest assured this is not the only statement in this account that is inaccurate or misleading. Not a good advertisement for balance and impartial reporting of the facts in what is meant to be an encyclopaedia. It would be good to see a balanced account of the matter, but that the public will never get and certainly, it would seem, not from Wikipedia.] 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.

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. 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:

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 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)

Instead of povishly mocking the w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- to) are conducted. w hale -dot- 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 Wikipedia 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 w hale -dot- 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. w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- 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 Wikipedia when print to print enclopaedia is the ability to have links to external information, so Wikipedia 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 w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- to, but rather the manner or style w hale -dot- 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 w hale -dot- 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 Wikipedia, 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 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 | 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 w hale -dot- 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia:NPOV - do you argue that the Jimbo quote somehow authoritatively sets Wikipedia policy which all editors should act on? Just trying to get some insight on the social mores of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia: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 w hale -dot- to - the real value of w hale -dot- to to the reader of Wikipedia is the collection of links and texts on the issue, _not_ the viewpoint or opinion which the webmaster of w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- to link would not give undue weight in the article to the viewpoints of the person maintaining w hale -dot- to or the persons whose texts are quoted or linked to in w hale -dot- to. The title of the chapter of Wikipedia: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 w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- 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)
w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- 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. w hale -dot- 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 w hale -dot- 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 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 | 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 w hale -dot- 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 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 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 [2] Jkpjkp 14:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman, your assertions are themselves unfounded accusations. My denunciation of w hale -dot- 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. Wikipedia 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 [DELETED BY REQUREST, SEE [3]], 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 [insert vaccine of choice]". 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 [DELETED] 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 hale -dot- to/b/protocols1.html. The illuminati can be enjoyed at hale -dot- to/b/sp/for.html 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., your information has been immensely useful. I wonder if our kind editors above are still interested in promoting an outlet of the PEZ. JFW | T@lk 01:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
This link [4] also provides useful detail into some of the controversial, unsubstantiated claims promulgated by the w hale -dot- to site. 01:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Don't you love people coming out of the woodwork with useful stuff? JFW | T@lk 22:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As a non-involved reader (responding to the RfC, I think that the link to w hale -dot- to should remain. The controversy over vaccine use is very empassioned, and quite real, and worthy of note. Perhaps a better answer is to note that there is considerable polarization in peoples views (including among scientists and researchers), and that the links do include a variety of views that individual readers may find disagreeable. Farseer 06:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)farseer

Hate to break it to you but there isn't really any polarization among scientists and researchers. The overwelming majory take the view that there is no evidence for a link.Geni 08:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Farseer, I think there are better resources available on this "controversy" than w hale -dot- to. As I stated in my view for RFC below, w hale -dot- to is more than just an anti-vaccine website. It is anti-absolutely-everything, including things you didn't know one could be anti to. There are already numerous external links here, some of them actually fairly rational. w hale -dot- to compares poorly to them. JFW | T@lk 11:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Whale isn't anti-truth, trouble is, the truth is a bit scary for medical drug using doctors. Whale is pro-nutritional medicine, for example, which is practised by medical doctors, and there is a nutrient that can replace every drug (apart from anaesthetics) and do a better job, without any side efefcts. So you can see why Jdwolff wants people to believe whale is anti-everything, and hope people believe her and don't look for themselves. Typical ad hominem ploy. 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary of w hale -dot- to controversy for RfC

A link to the website hale -dot- to w hale -dot- to has been placed on MMR vaccine, shaken baby syndrome, vaccination and many other articles which deal with vaccination or medical conditions with perceived links to childhood vaccination. The tone of the webpage has led to its deletion by several editors, including myself, Jfdwolff, and Geni. A discussion was initiated on this page to attempt to clarify the point of view of the editors involved. This discussion appears above. The final comment on the topic was recorded on November 15 and the site remained unlinked until the November 25th when it was re-added by Ombudsman with the edit comment "perhaps those questioning value or merits should submit an RfC? The flimsy objection is a very slim reed to hang upon, as site is well known & an invaluable resource for critical viewpoints". The site has also been added to other pages by anonymous user(s) with the IP 86.128.*.* on the page shaken baby syndrome and the page smallpox vaccine by User: No further discussion has been attempted on this or any page, thus prompting this RfC.

A summary was provided by Jkpjkp above:

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 only thing that I would add to this summary is that I primarily object to the commentary on w hale -dot- to and not the individual assertions made on the linked vaccine-related articles. I do not feel that the data represented in these linked articles needs to be colored by commentary on hale -dot- to/b/sp/for.html Illuminati mind control, hale -dot- to/b/protocols1.html Jewish conspiracy, hale -dot- to/v/biowarfare.html genocide via vaccination, hale -dot- to/b/columbus.html Roman Catholics, hale -dot- to/b/janus.html psychic assassins, hale -dot- to/b/skull.html Mormons, hale -dot- to/b/cronkite.html Walter Cronkite, hale -dot- to/b/demons_q.html Demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone, or hale -dot- to/b/implants.html links to alien implant removers

I would like for this RfC to serve as a discussion of linking to hale -dot- to w hale -dot- to on all vaccine related pages. InvictaHOG 19:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As is well-known by now, I am strongly of the view that not every link is suitable for inclusion. This is a somewhat policy-free zone, but I think w hale -dot- to is exactly the type of site we should not be including. It does not rationally examine the evidence. Rather, it just piles up anything that could remotely reflect badly on vaccination, prescription drugs and any element of the medical establishment. That's not information, that's defamation and witchhunting. They may represent the views of a minuscule amount of people, but even anti-MMR parents are not likely to identify with some of w hale -dot- to's more rabid diatribes. I agree with InvictaHOG that w hale -dot- to is not a suitable source to be linked from in "external links" anywhere on Wikipedia. I have incurred the wrath of several people on Wikipedia with this position, but this has simply strengthened my view. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree with the comments of InvictaHOG and JFW. While discussion about the controversies surrounding vaccination is welcome, the w hale -dot- to website is not an appropriate forum for that discussion, especially in light of the website's anti-Semitic overtones (e.g. references to Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and intimate association/obsession with questionable conspiracy theories as reviewed by InvictaHOG. Andrew73 12:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I visited w hale -dot- to and looked around for a while with an open mind. I was interested to see that, as a healthcare professional, I belong to a "cartel of drug pushers and Satanists," among other things alleged by the author(s). I did not see verifiable data or studies regarding the MMR vaccine or any other topic covered by this bushel basket of conspiracy theories. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions about the state of medicine or any other topic, worldwide or in their particular corner of the globe, and everyone who has appropriate resources can publish those opinions. However, simply having an opinion and publishing it on a website or blog does not mean Wikipedia must link to it. The site is poorly formatted and rambles in several sections without providing any references other than internal links to diatribes elsewhere on the site. Based on this, I must agree with Andrew73, InvictaHOG, JFW and the other editors who have been removing the links here and elsewhere - w hale -dot- to does not meet the standard for inclusion in any section of Wikipedia. – ddlamb 06:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
As fringe as w hale -dot- to might be, it underscores the strength, conviction and emtional depth that runs against a real or perceived monopoly on matters medical by the mainstream allopathic tradition. I understand the feelings of our esteemed colleague editors trained in this great tradition, and their disdain for w hale -dot- to. However, it remains a simple case of information suppression, and this I find most distasteful of all. Intersofia 13:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Umm we are not suppressing information. If we lauched a DOS attack against the site would be suppressing it but we are not.Geni 13:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
We're doing pagerank-induced bandwidth suppression. Good. Intersofia: the other criticism sites say pretty much the same as John. Most of his material is not original, but it's just collected for maximum damage. If the site is notable for its criticism of monopoly of medicine by the medical sciences, then its link does not belong here either, as this page is not about the monopoly of medicine by the medical sciences. JFW | T@lk 22:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that links should be apropos... not to the hale -dot- to/ root of the site, but to a particular page; [hale -dot- to/vaccines/mmr.html] is the portal page for their articles on MMR vaccine. (Funny their own search engine didn't find it..) Intersofia 01:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Intersofia, I see that you have an interest in the "vaccine controversy", etc. and have been responsible for placing the w hale -dot- to link into articles in the past. I understand that you are also an inclusionist and believe that removing the link is information suppression because the proprietor of w hale -dot- to feels strongly about the subject at hand. Would you be supportive of an effort to place links from w hale -dot- to on the pages of Judaism, Catholicism, and Mormonism? The site is equally passionate about these subjects and, despite the abusive claims made, the ideas are certainly held by others. If a conclusion is made that w hale -dot- to is an acceptable link, I expect your full support in an attempt to include the site on all pages where its strong emotion will help assail the information monopoly. InvictaHOG 02:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
On one hand you are talking about religion - nothing could get more intimate and passionate than that. Vaccines as a matter of health should not be so controversial, but they are when you have forced governmental immunizations and corporations (understandably) in denial scrambling to avert enormous financial liabilities. I think the paranoid conspiracy mentality that some parts of the w hale -dot- to site obviously shows are silly, and even offensive to some. But as some have said, on some pages pertaining to particular, well focused subjects, such as the MMR vaccine, w hale -dot- to has summarized viewpoints that are interesting and representative of people who oppose vaccination. I believe that people are intelligent and mature enough to judge information for themselves; wikipedia should not be censored and should not try to "shield" or "protect". When several editors want to add a link, and it is clearly sectioned as an external link, I see it as an advantage to have all the links readily available, avoiding the googling which can get you those pages anyway.
Vaccination should not be a matter of faith, and unlike divine subjects, with proper clinical trials and unbiased statistical analysis, the truth about them can be known and should be known. From what I have read, w hale -dot- to is "out there" ... definitely on the paranoid side. But it's an interesting reference, there are a lot of articles a propos the controversy. Properly labeled as an "extreme site" with "mostly negative views" on vaccination I don't see the harm in keeping the link. I don't support putting it in articles where the only effect would be to create anger and controversy, particularly in religious articles as you mention, where no possible resolution can be had, because, again, those matters are questions of faith and belief, and not of scientific and material proof. w hale -dot- to exists, they are expressing a viewpoint on a heated subject (and on the question of vaccination, it is not an "extreme marginal" viewpoint - as some have characterized it), they have put the energy to articulate their position, as such they ought to rate at least an external link. IMHO Intersofia 22:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, now that we've determined that some subjects are not to be graced by the prescence of a w hale -dot- to link, can we explore others? Should McDonald's have a link to the hale -dot- to/b/sp/mcdonald.html McDonald's Bloodline of the Illuminati, wherein McDonald's is accused of ties to Satanism? Or are multi-national corporations off-limits? How about the Kennedy family? Should the JFK page have the link to the hale -dot- to/b/sp/kennedy.html Kennedy Illuminati page wherein he is accused of close ties to Satanism and the Mafia? Or are families somehow not special enough to have links to w hale -dot- to? Should the page on Henry Kissinger mention that hale -dot- to/b/wilder1.html he conducted human sacrifice? Should the articles on whales and dolphins include hale -dot- to/b/doo.html the sacred geometry of whales, wherein we learn that the Illuminati are trying to destroy cetaceans because they are afraid humans will link with them and be able to defuse nuclear weapons? Or do dolphins and whales not deserve such colorful and (yes, comical!) ideas. Is the same true for all animals? How about sexuality? Should homosexuality have links to hale -dot- to/c/cantwell_alan.html Dr Alan Cantwell, author of Queer Blood, AIDS and the Doctors of Death? It may be important to warn them that the US government is trying to kill them. International relief organizations like the hale -dot- to/b/red_cross_racket.html Red Cross could feature warnings that they are controlled by the Illuminati. How about countries? Shouldn't the Scotland page feature a warning about hale -dot- to/b/hen.html the alien landings? Maybe you're just interested in medical pages. Should the page on osteoporosis feature hale -dot- to/w/osteoporosis.htm a claim that calcium does not treat osteoporosis? In fact, should every possible medical site just have a link to w hale -dot- to because, you know, its humorous anecdotes are just perfect for all those diseases that doctors and the US government have created? Or just controversial ones? How about psychiatry, even Tom Cruise doesn't like that one? Should we just go ahead and add that hale -dot- to/p/psychiatry.htm the Brain Biocenter in New Jersey negates the whole field by curing depression? Or are we just stuck celebrating the wonderful weirdness of this colorful menagerie of paranoia on the vaccination sites? Please, share your criteria as an inclusionist so that we can move forward, including the minority viewpoint in some places but, apparently, not in others. InvictaHOG 07:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Just stop the waffle about censorship. As for w hale -dot- to being moderate on the vaccine issue... whahahahaha (ROTFL). JFW | T@lk 22:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... They are extreme ... but the viewpoint that vaccines are not all good is not inconsequential, and it is shared by an sizable minority. The oddly named whale site is just a very colorful (and indeed comical at times) outlet for that opinion. Intersofia 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I must say that I'm disappointed that I have seen no response to my request for further commentary regarding the inclusion of w hale -dot- to on non-medical and non-vaccine related sites. I wish to comment on the edit war currently underway at the shaken baby syndrome site between Ombudsman and multiple editors. I would like to invite Ombudsman to join the RfC process instead of arguing through edits. I do not believe that w hale -dot- to is appropriate in any article, personally, but would argue that there is an even more compelling argument in the Shaken Baby Syndrome case. The linked page on Shaken Baby Syndrome has a direct link to the page on hale -dot- to/a/bayati1.html Mohammed A. Al-Bayati, where a direct link to a consulting firm [5] and a book for sale [6]. I feel that this is another example of the inappropriateness of w hale -dot- to in general. I would appreciate comments not only on Shaken Baby Syndrome, however, but on my previously raised questions regarding the criteria for inclusion of w hale -dot- to in general, not just on the vaccine topics thus far chosen. InvictaHOG 11:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this an example of good debate? A link to Bayati's home page where he sells a book is shown as why w hale -dot- to is inappropriate! Good grief, and talk about wearing blinkers. Don't you know the vaccine companies make money on vaccines, like $8 Billion just on sales? The medical doctors just market the drug industry products, UK ones even get a bonus of over £2,000 every year. In their magazines they go on about how to increase their income by selling more flu vaccines, and so on. When you know vaccines are unsafe and ineffective by government statistics (eg smallpox vaccine hale -dot- to/a/smallpox_hoax.html ) then the whole charade is shown to be purely a money making enterprise. Herbs and nutrients are more effective than 98% of drugs hale -dot- to/v/pharma_hoax_q.html. Look into it on w hale -dot- to, all the evidence is there. Scary but true. And comments about Fascism--if you look into it you will find we are living in a fascist state, as Mussolini said Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism as it is a merger of State and Business. It is easy to see we are living in a medical monopoly, and you couldn't get that without a political/intelligence etc monopoly too. Scary but true hale -dot- to/b/tyranny_q.html. So medical fascism is what we have, obviously, and all the evidence is on w hale -dot- to eg hale -dot- to/m/therapies.html which is why they will do anything to keep w hale -dot- to pages suppressed. I'd be doing the same. w hale -dot- to certainly isn't 'moderate' Jdwolff, that is typical agnostic thinking, can't be bothered to do any research and form an opinion. When you do 8 years of research and find out it is a 'hoax' to put it politely, you have to point it out, rather than being 'moderate' and showing your ignorance. 'Comical' sites don't get suppressed, do they. When medical doctors, who are reared on vaccines, are the ones exposing aids/gulf war syndrome/cot-death/shaken baby syndrome/autism hale -dot- to/vaccine/articles4.html etc vaccine connections then the writing is on the wall, one wall is w hale -dot- to. You can't knock it down, so you'll just have to ignore it, which is what the medical profession have been doing to non-drug cancer cures, vitamin C cure of infectious diseases hale -dot- to/a/levy4.html and cot-death hale -dot- to/w/sids.htm, ozone cure of infectious disease, electronic cure of infectious disease, and so on. It is the 100 year old medicines war being brought to light. Exposing the smallpox vaccine hoax was child's play, the wonder is that they all swallowed it hook line and sinker. It is ironic that over 100 years ago one of the greatest medical men of his day wrote an article for the Encylopedia Brittanica hale -dot- to/v/creighton.html exposing the smallpox vaccine--that only saw one edition, and he was effectively then almost thrown out of his profession. 21:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC responses

I've come via RfC. Whether or not it is accurate or valuable, the content of w hale -dot- to does not represent even a significant minority view. It is so idiosyncratic as to not be of general interest--even to those with interest in the topics it addresses. Its inclusion, even as a link, is inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource. -- Alan McBeth 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There is actually a Wikipedia article called Vaccine controversy. This page already has a link to w hale -dot- to at the bottom. I would not be averse to placing a link to vaccine controversy on MMR vaccine under see also if it ended this controversy and w hale -dot- to were to be removed from the other pages. There is also a large list of vaccine topics created and maintained by a proponent of w hale -dot- to Ombudsman (who has not joined in this RfC for some reason but continues to place w hale -dot- to into pages, I might add) which has a whole host of extraneous topics which has been linked to any and all vaccine pages. InvictaHOG 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that there seems to be an on-going battle? at Smallpox about having links to Vaccine controversy from the Smallpox article. Anyhow, that edit made me aware of Vaccine controversy (I think I have noticed it in the past bu forgot about it when I suggested Medical controversies (above). I checked to see what pages link to Vaccine controversy and found that a link to it had been posted here. Maybe we need to think LARGE about how wikipedia is going to deal with controversial biomedical issues. Other storms are brewing for issues such as animal use in experiments and genetically modified organisms. I tried to make a start at Animal testing for using Wikiversity as a way to promote research, collection of references, and careful evaluation of sources as a way to deal with POV wars (see). --JWSchmidt 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an important issue, and something we will need to address on Wikipedia. Perhaps a proposed policy? JFW | T@lk 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Large amount of biased editors

I see the large amount of biased editors on vaccination here [7], so Wikipedia is heavily biased on medical matters, which you can see easily on all the vaccine pages, obviously written by medical people/vaccinators. Same with all the vaccine disease pages eg mumps [8]. All of the non-biased Wikipdeia editors should strive to maintain Wikipedia as an unbiased Encylopedia, unlike the written versions, that were purged of anti-vaccine articles, eg Dr Creighton was the last in 1888 At least allow external links to sites critical to allopathic medicine, but even external links get removed. One has to ask what are they afraid of? 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to have you address the specifics of this RfC. The website w hale -dot- to has been cited by several editors as an inappropriate link for many reasons which are not related to its vaccine-related content. If there are aspects of the writing on other pages which you have problems with, be bold and add a NPOV, referenced section. If there is a editing disagreement, discuss it on the talk pages. If that does not resolve it, an RfC might help get different opinions. This RfC is for w hale -dot- to and, in particular, where, if anywhere, it is appropriate. InvictaHOG 01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
"many reasons which are not related to its vaccine-related content." These come down to one reason that is pure ad hominem or word game propaganda ploy, so invalid--you find buzzwords (protocols, child sacrifice, satanic, conspiracy etc) to hold up to the crowd so they will not look at the, in this case, vaccine & vaccine diseases articles on w hale -dot- to. The medical industry have conditioned people to believe 'anti-vaccine', or 'conspiracy' people are nuts, paranoid. Just neat mind control, and I see on the mind control page they are trying to suppress that under 'brainwashing'. Not sure what being bold is about, I don't have time to edit text and then have it removed, just links get taken out in under 3 hours. It is all on w anyway, if Wiki wasn't biased there would be no need for w hale -dot- to, obviously. I know you like to sound reasonable, but that is just for effect IMO, so when you suppress w hale -dot- to links you can then say you had a fair discussion. 07:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
One of my favorite guidelines on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. I have not lodged accusations against your motives and would appreciate it if you could return the favor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with user created content, not a mere collection of links. I hope you agree that pages like vaccine are better when contributors add well-referenced, NPOV prose instead of simply adding links. It would be a poor page if it were simply dominated by outside links with instructions to "go read, it's all there!" You are right about w hale -dot- to - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling. InvictaHOG 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
"the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia". This is classic Name Calling propoganda ploy, are you aware of that or do you think you are dealing with an idiot? Not only that but you are doing exactly what you accuse w hale -dot- to of doing! Also, I don't believe your reasoning for a moment, it is just an excuse to stop people looking at w, you are implying wiki readers are mostly idiots. Even links to articles on w hale -dot- to get removed, for example, one of Dr Irwin Stones articles--see how long this article link stays up [9], I have replaced that 3 times so far. Secondly, from your profile [10] I can see that you are an MD/physician [11], so it would be expected that you would attempt to suppress sites critical to allopathy, using Name Calling, rather than reasoned argument, but I am used to that, as w is very well documented, and impossible to refute, especially over vaccination. 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we have come to the point where we must agree to disagree. For those who did not follow the link provided in the paragraph above (, w hale -dot- to has begun to incorporate quoted parts of this debate with commentary into its pages. I would ask you to respect the Wikipedia official policy which forbids personal attacks such as "Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme." I will invite you to return the focus of this debate upon w and away from those participating in it. A variety of different subjects such as religions, political figures, organizations, and professions are expressly accused of conspiracy to commit evil deeds by w hale -dot- to. What will be our criteria, if any, for including a relevant link on these individual pages? InvictaHOG 21:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
That wasn't personal, that was just analysing your method of attack, in this case Word Game It was to be expected that you would interperate that as personal, no one likes to be exposed as using well established propaganda ploys. I thank you for helping me analyise that ploy into it's 3 catagories---1. Use of Buzzwords as you demonstrated eg satanic, sacrifice, etc 2. Use of Buzzwords with slides attached which you also used, eg paranoid, conspiracy, conspiracist, conspiracy theory, anti-vaccine--it is noted that Wikipedia has given a whole page over to playing Word Game [12], quite something! 3. Basic abuse. I can't ever see a medical editor agreeing with w, impossible, so agreeing to disagree is the way, just stop taking down links to w hale -dot- to articles. 10:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
PS. I wouldn't dream of being 'personal' for a number of reasons. 1. As the saying goes--we resort to abuse when reason is against us. I have put a lot of thought/reasoning into my beliefs so resorting to abuse would be making out I had no argument. 2. I don't like to be emotional, I find hostility is something I like to avoid, and judgement, as they are all ego reality. 3. It would be a lower tone behaviour (ego), and I like to keep up tone (essence) 11:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would discourage trying to make blanket statements about people based on their placement in Wikipedia categories. Thomas Szasz was very critical of psychiatry - as a psychiatrist. Criticism of medicine is healthy. I am very critical of medicine. There are numerous links critical of medicine and vaccination in this article. But w hale -dot- to has other problems as stated above. I find your statement "w is impossible to refute" rather interesting. Has anyone tried to refute a whole website, and why should it be irrefutable? JFW | T@lk 21:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your criticism of medicine is quite in the same category as w hale -dot- to. If we just take the smallpox vaccine research at w hale -dot- to--it is impossible to refute the fact the vaccine was ineffective and dangerous, as the governmnet statistics show, and the MMR vaccine and so on. If we take the cancer research at w hale -dot- to it is impossible to refute the facts as shown, likewise the fact dozens of disease cures have been suppressed along with the causes of most diseases These facts have to kept hidden from the public, so medical editors such as yourself have to invent spurious reasons to delete links to whale eg: Jdwolff "All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia." Not quite up to the standard of Hog who is using Word Game, but at least you are honest, although that is basic Word Game, I guess. 10:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jdwolff: "I would discourage trying to make blanket statements about people based on their placement in Wikipedia categories." You keep trying to maintain your cloak of impartiality, along with your medical editors. I can understand that. Medical politics is my speciality, which is why I like to remove pseudo-cloaks of impartiality. If you are an MD/MB you are an allopath, which in my definition is a drug-using medical doctor. A vaccine is a drug. I use 'allopath' to categorise your type of doctor as opposed to homeopaths, herbalists, naturopaths, nutritional medical doctors etc. If any of the Wiki physicians aren't allopaths I would be surprised, but anyhow, it only takes one allopath editor, such as yourself, to keep information critical to allopathy off Wikipedia. 12:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) - so now I'm an allopath and not a vaccinator. And I am not the only opponent to the w hale -dot- to links. There is plenty of criticism of allopathic medicine on Wikipedia. Sorry. Strawman. Whale is not synonymous with criticism of allopathy/drugs/vaccines. So far all defenders whale have used this tactic. Oddly, Ombudsman (talk · contribs) has been reinserting w hale -dot- to links on those pages from which they were deleted, but has not joined this discussion. JFW | T@lk 13:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

An allopath is a vaccinator

Spelling it out: an allopath is a vaccinator, a vaccinator is an allopath. All the physician editors would be allopaths/vaccinators, so opponents of w hale -dot- to. Allopaths only use the products of the drug industry---pharma drugs such as vaccines, which is why I call them vaccinators, especially when they are pretending to be unbiased over vaccination. Allopaths also use surgery and radiation for cancer. You can see from these quotes hale -dot- to/v/quotes2.html how the allopaths 'sell' the products of the drug industry, and you can see from these hale -dot- to/v/pharma_hoax_q.html that herbs and nutrients are more effective with few or no side effects. So anyone should be able to see that it is only their medical monopoly that keeps pharma drugs on the market (apart from the 2% that are useful, like anaesthetics). I would have thought Ombudsman has had enough discussion, as even I can see it doesn't lead anywhere, it is just talk, talk, talk, and then you medical/allopath/vaccinator editors carry on suppressing links critical of allopathy/vaccination, using spurious arguments called Word Game/Name Calling hale -dot- to/vaccine/propaganda3.html. 19:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff clears throat, straightens tie and brushes dust off white coat.
John, the discussion is indeed going round in circles. I think you are just as guilty of the Word Game as any other editor. I find it odd that you specifically find anaesthetics useful. How about antibiotics? Or, let's rephrase that: should pneumonia become the old man's best friend once again? Or shall we briefly touch on the steadily improving statistics of cardiovascular disease, most of which is the result of big pharma pushing those wretched anti-cholesterol pills, beta blockers, ACE inhibitors and of course that scandalous toxin aspirin, originally produced by the epitome of Big Pharma, Bayer? Only right they lost their patent early. Etc etc.
I think my response to your site was initially less hostile than incredulous. It's like a suburbanite reading for the first time that there are opponents of civil aviation. Away with progress. Remember that politician from the early 20th century who said that aeroplanes had no big future? Well, he was right. They pollute, those planes, and hundreds of people die annually in air crashes, and you get DVT from the cramped economy class seats. But would we do away with airline travel? Of course not! And would we take anyone seriously who would suggest this? I doubt it. Because even with the best conspiracy theories ("coverup - frequent air travel causes cancer", "revealed - air pilots frequently drunk on flight") one will not get an audience.
I think it is a shame Ombudsman has not participated here, and has been unwilling to show his true colours. He could have involved other editors and actually made this discussion more focused on issues and less on whale vs vaccinators/allopaths.
Now back to the actual discussion. This all started because Wikipedia has a policy (WP:NPOV) that states explicitly that not every minority view needs mentioning. You can say what you want, but most information on w hale -dot- to is not widely accepted. There is no reason to presume that the "external links" section of articles should not fall under the aegis of this NPOV policy. Hence, links have been removed. So far there has been no indication that this has changed, and I see no reason why we should suddenly be including links to whale. Sorry. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
It wouldn't make any difference who participated here, the allopath editors such as yourself control the medical pages, and no amount of talking is going to change that apart from give the illusion that talk does something. A bit like politics really, the illusion of a democracy, then they do what the Corporations want. You are being judge and jury effectively, but I never thought Wiki was much different to the usual encylopedia, and it is only because of the likes of Ombudsman that it has a sliver of balance. Of course you are going to defend drugs, you are an allopath. As for progress, Linus Pauling proved nutrients would reverse heart disease hale -dot- to/w/nutrition.html, decades ago, but if you want to still use drugs go ahead, there are millions of ignorant people out there still, who will believe you. When you say: "I see no reason why we should suddenly be including links to whale." Does that mean you are spokesman for all the Wiki editors? Or just the medical ones? And links to articles on whale----does that mean all the articles on whale are not acceptable? 08:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

How about antibiotics, John? Old man's friend? Shall we give 85-year old Eric with a pneumonia a massive dose of vitamin C, or shall it be co-amoxiclav?

And no, I am not a spokesperson here (only Jimbo Wales is). I am simply repeating the above views of several editors. And indeed all the articles on whale are not acceptable. Tabeh. JFW | T@lk 11:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"all the articles on whale are not acceptable." Thanks for being open about your suppression. That must be 300 articles not acceptable to allopathy, which includes these vitamin C journal articles hale -dot- to/v/c/index.html. If you had read them and the books on vitamin C you would know the answer. Try this one by Dr Levy first hale -dot- to/a/levy4.html. That is why w hale -dot- to exists, in a nutshell. 12:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
w hale -dot- to. Nut shell. Yes. The contents of it are largely drivel (I can't say it is _all_ drivel, I have not read all of it.) Midgley (talk · contribs)

Is that why Whale exists? Because of vitamin C? With Dr Levy MD's 1260 references? Very exciting. Ignore vitamin C at your peril or feel the (w)Rath of Pauling's ghost descend on you with subclinical scurvy, measles and the common cold. Also increases histamine levels to unacceptable levels, causing a syndrome really, really resembling shaken baby syndrome. Thank God people get taken to court nowadays for suggesting that people should rely on ascorbate for AIDS and flush their antiretrovirals down the loo.

I'm actually really surprised you have only one of your links on orthomolecular medicine. One would expect a lot more of them.

The military-industrial-medical-pharmaceutical complex is very, very evil by ignoring vitamin C. And the whole world needs to learn. Because the internet can break the vitamin C secret, as Dr Cathcart MD suggests in the page with the worst HTML formatting since Sir Tim developed the worldwide web. And Wikipedia must be infiltrated at all cost. And every discussion on the talk page needs to be supported with numerous URLs to w hale -dot- to to boost its PageRank.

John, just go away. Start your orthomolecular blog and expose Wikipedia as dominated by the allopathic mafia. It's a massive coverup. Everything. JFW | T@lk 15:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I am disappointed to learn that the proprietor of w hale -dot- to (apparently 86.128.*.*) is both promoting his site in this way and using it within the debate to make points. I do not feel that a website, such as w hale -dot- to, which updates itself to attack Wikipedia editors belongs here. w hale -dot- to has created a false logical fallacy and given it the catchy title "Name Game" to detract from honest criticism based upon demonstrable links (see the multiple instances above) which reveal paranoia about a wide variety of topics. This is interesting, as w hale -dot- to uses terms such as "demonic" to describe things such as the hale -dot- to/b/terms1.html US government. I'm not sure of a word with more of a "slide" attached than that. I'll repeat - this RfC is against w hale -dot- to, not against vaccination critics! InvictaHOG 16:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

'Promoting' and 'increasing page rank' is inferring a financial incentive similar to spamming, which isn't the case with whale. I didn't invent Name Game, it is a old propaganda ploy [13]. Using words such as paranoia, conspiracy, anti-vaccine etc, are Name Game. Also using buzzwords such as satantic, demonic, is appealing to fear [14], so yes, you would use that to detract from the vaccine information on w hale -dot- to, and you ahve been very successful at that, as in all the talk there hasn't been any mention of that apart from calling it 'paranoid'. I would put more orthomolecular links in but they get removed eg [15]. I have a proper orthomolecular blog called w hale -dot- to, which you suppress links to its articles on orthomolecualr medicine, eg Irwin Stone. I am sure you would like me to go away, and you are doing your best to put me off by taking out any links I put in, and no doubt, will block me in due course, when you have gone through this charade of 'talk'. Yes, suppressing vitamin C is evil, I agree on that. Midgley (talk · contribs) calles w hale -dot- to drivel, well he would wouldn't he, as he is promoting vaccination. Hardly a fine example of debate though, but we have got used to vaccinators like him shying away from real debate. Whale is anti-vaccine, so that is a red rag to vaccinators/allopath editors Midgley, Jfdwolff & InvictaHOG. Bit of a kangaroo court! I am pleased that 'paranoia' has been the best you can come up with, though, it shows the paucity of the vaccinators arguments, not to mention orthomolecular medicine. john 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on finally getting a username, John.
Whale is not a blog. On a blog people are allowed to leave comments. We only get our face into whale by suppressing w hale -dot- to on Wikipedia.
Could you explain why orthomolecular medicine does not believe in vaccination? If my memory serves the concept of vaccination was seen as proof of Hahneman's similia similibus curentur. Now of course orthomolecular medicine is not homeopathy, but why the anti-vaccine stance? And why does the medical establishment need to be attacked so vociferously for denying the obvious truths of orthomolecular medicine? Can't there be an "agree to disagree" that one finds with the classical homeopaths, who seem to have found their niche?
I will briefly return to the reason for my original opposition to the w hale -dot- to links. How many people actually subscribe to the ideas you have put forth on your site? Having an internet presence alone is not adequate reason to be considered notable. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for ortho med, but when you look into vaccine diseases you find the reduction in poverty was the reason the death rate declined. That was mostly improved nutrition, and vitamin C levels. The one ortho MD that has written about vaccination, and has had 40 years experience of third world children (Aus Aborigines) called it a hoax, just from the stats, but more so when you know the Bechamp disease theory is correct and not the Pastuer one. I would provide a link to the relevent articles, but you tend to remove them, and my time is limited. Blogs are mostly easy cheap internet presence, they do have comment facilities, but the only one I tried to post a comment, Orac knows, he never allowed it to be put up! john 12:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This is getting humorous. I specifically pointed to w hale -dot- to's use of the word "satanic" to appeal to fear, play the "Name Game," etc. And now I'm accused of appealing to fear? Circles, circles, circles. InvictaHOG 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of extending this pretty pointless talk, I have to point out you were the one who used the word 'satanic' on this medical forum. I am collecting research into satanism as I want to find out what it is all about, that would be more likely to put people off my medical pages, on your argument. You used that word to 'appeal to fear' and to use an 'logical fallacy' (your link) whereby the fallacy is that articles on satanism would make my articles on vaccination invalid. That is called Word Game by people who researched propaganda. john 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. A quick suggestion: The primaries (User:Jfdwolff, User:Ombudsman, User:Whaleto) could voluntarily erase their own comments here, re-sum it all up in a single short paragraph, and then cease to comment for a short period (say, two weeks), and actually let other people's comments on the supposed RfC show through. I find the RfC concerning the w hale -dot- to content to be interesting; the filibustering is not.
User:Whaleto in particular seems upset at the way his site is being "snubbed". If you are so proud of your website's cirulation, why are you so worried about links from here? If you don't believe in the integrity of WP as a whole, why do you want to "be here" so badly? If you do believe in WP's integrity (as a site), why are you so adverse to just letting its processes run their course? Either way, there really isn't any call for this overabundance of responsive rhetoric.
To comment on the RfC in particular: I find it difficult to justify the removal of any relevant link, however "unpopular" or "fringe", but relevant perhaps ought to mean "relevant in a specific way to this specific topic". Even views held by a single person in contradiction to the mainstream ought to have some inclusion, if only by virtue of the fact that the contradictory view has so few supporters, where the topic in question is such that only opinions have any relevance and no conclusive proof of anything will ever be found.
Most of all, I think everyone involved needs to focus on the fact that for WP External Link sections, factuality makes for a poor standard when deciding what goes and what stays. I'm quite certain that both w hale -dot- to and contain articles that are complete fabrications, and articles that touch close to the truth. Neither should be generally excluded from links.
So, it's undeniable that, removed from the burden of having to prove a site 100% factual before linking to it, w hale -dot- to can fulfill the burden of relevancy easily. Where there are already a number of links in an article (like MMR vaccine with,,, and, w hale -dot- to needn't be in there; that's just a circulation grab. Articles like Vaccine controversy, which will never cover their broad topic, really benefits from pages like w hale -dot- to that contain multiple links in their own right. And while articles with fewer outside links like Shaken Baby Syndrome might like a link from w hale -dot- to, perhaps a link to something like the 5Percenters[16] would provide more specific, better organized information that will probably make the case quite a bit better than w hale -dot- to could (and after all, w hale -dot- to has a link that goes there!).
So there's some guidelines that might be seen as a reasonable compromise.
Lord Dust 10:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
PS. John, write up a WikiPedia article on w hale -dot- to! Your patterns of writing make me inclined to think that your writing skills are subordinate to your speaking skills (which I bet are top notch); Drop the article on my talk page and I'll vet it for you, if you like. At a million hits per year (although few advertisers count Alexa numbers anymore, and you'd better believe those sharks know what's going on), I'd support an encyclodpedic entry; the only thing you'd have to do is leave a little space for people to argue the case against... :)

Lord Dust, you suggest that discussion ceases...

No. I suggest that that you and the other primaries cease writing in order to allow other people's comments show through. That is why the RfC was started, was it not, to garner the opinion of the rest of the community?

...and that the external links are tolerated.

Broadly, no. In two out of the three examples stated above, I recommended against w hale -dot- to's inclusion.

I ... wish to record that most contributors to this discussion are against linking of w hale -dot- to. JFW | T@lk 12:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This talk page is getting length warnings, and the majority of the content is from just two contributors. This indicates to me that other contributions are being missed here, drowned out by the "shouting" of the primaries involved. Why don't you take the time to move your commentary out of the RfC section, so these other contributers can be heard?

The point I am making is there is a significant minority who are against vaccination and they need a voice...

Excellent point, and the only one relevant to the RfC in question. Please stop here.

I am not here to get my hits up, I am here to spread good information... Hits grab suggests a commercial site, which I am not.

Your good information, by your own admission, is spread via people reading your site. A person visiting your site to read the content is referred to as a "hit". Ergo, you are here to get your hits up. Playing word games with this one reduces your site's credibility, not enhances it.

If you can imagine trying to convert a Catholic you would get some idea about the task. john 12:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I similarly despair of converting Protestants, atheists, and Ikea-worshippers. Please continue, we'll have Godwyn's Law (incorrectly!) invoked before you know it!

Interspersed commentary and deep editing cuts by User:Lord Dust, to make a point. When reverting, do try to keep the comments below intact.Lord Dust 19:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jfdwolff. While the database on it may be large, the fact that it includes unusual topics such as alien implant removers decreases the utility of this website for the Wikipedia audience. w hale -dot- to should not be linked to in Wikipedia. Andrew73 14:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
True. I'd counter by saying that we're not linking to alien implant remover articles (I hope). Further, if any other site that covered such a broad range of topics ran a "positive" alien abduction piece, we wouldn't immediately tear down all links to that site from WikiPedia, nor ban links to that site concerning other topics.Lord Dust 19:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments on the topics at hand and would also like to see this debate move to less acrimonious waters. I must ask, however, if you would support a link to hale -dot- to/b/cronkite.html Walter Cronkite and his complicity in the "Great Swine Flu Massacre" on the Walter Cronkite, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford pages? InvictaHOG 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not remove my comments InvictaHOG. If you make a comment I should have the right of reply. See the whole story on swine flu vaccine hale -dot- to/vaccine/swine.html. The pig breeders refused to use the swine flu vaccine (hence its name) so the makers managed to get the government to us it. john 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
John, it is not necessary (or appropriate) to delete my comments to make a statement. If you wish to reply to a statement that I have made, please simply reply. Do not delete my statement and replace it with yours. I reverted your comment because it replaced mine, not to suppress your right to reply. InvictaHOG 21:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall deleting anyones comments, not something have done knowingly. I thought you deleted my last comment, as it vanished with a comment by you on my edits page. john 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's okay if you did it inadvertently. You placed a comment within my first comment under w hale -dot- to link and a portion of my comment was deleted in the process. Fair enough, though, I know it can be hard to learn the ropes as I'm still doing so myself! InvictaHOG 18:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Now that is a decent header Andrew! People need to know that, which is why Jdwolff gets her knickers in a twist when I point it out. It would be good for you allopaths to appear unbiased, of course, and most even hide it from themselves. You can see 86.1I.29.123.42 has vanished, which shows where he is coming from. He never could hold up an argument. I'd be more upset if you allopaths weren't trying to block links to w hale -dot- to. john 08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
My knickers are fine, thank you john. If it makes you happy I will proudly bear the title "vaccinator". I go round the wards at night secretly vaccinating old ladies with the anthrax vaccine. Just stop bleating man. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
That wasn't to hard was it? I like to bleat until I get fed the truth. Might as well admit what allopaths are. As to anthrax vaccine, that is reserved to kill off the military (lost count at 160,000 invalids), for old ladies the recommended vaccine to finish them off is the flu jab, works a treat, did for my father in law. john 13:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Golly, it seems you need to be fed the truth some more then. Such as what you can do with my knickers instead of getting them in a twist. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Enough, my imagination is running wild! I prefer nurses uniforms though. :0) Unless you finish the job with them in case the flu fails? :0). Better to wear stockings there. john 14:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Stolen copyright material"

Since most of the whale site appears to be stolen copyright material from publishers, and whale appears to offer no editorial content of its own, it's my view that any links to that site should be transferred to the source of the material that appears to be stolen. The website in question is not an information source or reference material. The operator appears to have no credentials or professional qualifications. The purpose of links on wiki, as I understand them, is to source material. We cannot to be sure, for instance, that whale material purporting to be editorial copy from recognised publishers (albeit the copyright property of others) hasn't been altered or in some other way corrupted. Clearly it isn't a source that can be regarded as authoritative, as we cannot properly tell what we are reading.

Deleted above user (must be same guy Jdwolf reposted) text accusing me of stealing material. This is very basic Name Calling, a thief! Publisher suggests a book, all books are out of copyright or permission obtained, eg Dr Kelley cancer book, Paul Stitt book on food giants. Sorry about that.john 23:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Whaleto, I restored's comments that were deleted. Since this is a talk page rather than the actual article, the aim is to keep all the comments intact for the purposes of discussion, however disagreeable one may find them to be. Andrew73 03:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think slander is part of discussion. It doesn't look good for you to support that, just as it didn't look good for Jdwolf when she posted his last slanders. You shouldn't let your great desire, as a vaccinator, to suppress links to an anti-vaccine site, get in the way of decent behaviour. Being anti-vaccine does attract a lot of vitriol, as you can see at the bottom of this page hale -dot- to/vaccine/propaganda3.html, unlike being pro-vaccine or pro-status quo, and this is probably someone by the name of Wright who follows me around (demonstrating his usual lack of argument by being abusive). john 09:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a little off-topic, but what always kills me about these people who use words like "allopathic" is that if they can enlist one half-assed Ph.D in geology, or a bowel surgeon with a grudge, or some guy who got his medical degree by mail order, they plaster them everywhere like they're Moses down from the rock climb. The whale site, for instance, appears to be stuffed to the nostrils with pages where some retired pediatrician or other vents some "allopathic" notion that went out in the 1950s. 86.1I.29.123.42
Hi David, I'd love to know an allopathic notion that went out in the 50's? Who is the bowel surgeon, and why does he have a grudge? Dying to know. And what exactly are the documents I have stolen copyright of? As to 'publishers'--what does that mean? Do you mean book publishers or magazine publishers? If you could be more specific, and the word 'appears' suggests you have no evidence, don't you think? I am sorry you don't like the word 'allopath', if you can come up with a better word to describe pharma using medical doctors, then please supply it. 'Half-assed' isn't a word I'd use to describe Viera Scheibner, but then, you never did like vaccine critics, as you can't debate their research except with ad hominem as you have just demonstrated so well. 'Grudge'---that isn't someone I have on my website, could that be you by any chance? john 14:50, 17 December 2005
PS: There can't be any lawyers in your reality as using copyrighted material is like giving them a big bone to chew on (my leg) in my reality, and I have a few assets they would like to feed on, maybe you live in a shoebox? Of course, I am curious too about my motive, not having any vaccine damaged kids, or any financial interest or connection to any medicine or type of medicine? Oh yes, who is the mail order degree guy? (UTC) john 15:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Improves readability or highlites a slander, Andrew? john 16:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
That's why I put the statement in quotation marks! Andrew73 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


"the strain of mumps component" <-- What does this mean? It is in the "MMR controversy" section. --JWSchmidt 16:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That was the mumps portion in the last MMR vaccine called Urabe. That mumps component caused it to be withdraw when it caused meningitis hale -dot- to/vaccine/mmr15.html. It was replaced by another mumps strain called Jeryl Lynn. john 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Combination and Mixture?

Three vaccines, measles, mumps and rubella, are mixed and called, reasonably enough, MMR. They are not chemically combined, and in all respects they just sit there next to each other. It doesn't seem to me to help people think about them if they are presented as something new, separate, and different from the sum of their parts. The effects of each come on a different time from innoculation, becuase the vaccine strains, like the natural diseases, have different incubation periods. Midgley 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So they are mixed but not chemically combined, and sit next to each other? "Each dose of the vaccine contains sorbitol (14.5 mg), sodium phosphate, sucrose (1.9 mg), sodium chloride, hydrolyzed gelatin (14.5 mg), human albumin (0.3 mg), foetal bovine serum, other buffer and media ingredients and approximately 25 mcg of neomycin. Grown in chick embryo. Human diploid cell (Wl-38) culture, WI -38 originates from a female fetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" in the 1960s." Just neomycin: "Neomycin is too toxic for parenteral administration and can only be used for infections of the skin or mucous membranes or to reduce the bacterial population of the colon proir to bowel surgery or in hepatitic failure."--BNF 5 (1983) Neomycin interferes with B6 uptake, and B6 is used to treat autistics--something to ponder. john 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Idly, I should note that B6 is used to treat autistics - without any proof of effectiveness. Michael Ralston 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors quite obviously would describe something as drivel becuase it contains a point of view or opinion other than their own - I on the other hand describe w hale -dot- to as drivel because it is drivel. It is not a credible reference for any of the material copied from other sources such as the rapid responses of the BMJ, because without making a word for word comparison with the original, or comparing hash signatures of the two versions, nobody should rely upon th ematerial not having been altered. Digital signatures are well understood. Midgley 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So I am now being accused of altering articles? I am not surprised a vaccinator (care to tell us of your financial connections to vaccine companies?) can't come up with a better argument. As if anyone needs to fake documents to take apart vaccination, anyone with two brain cells could do it. And I note the slur on my character, another one for my Name Calling page. Why would I spend 10 years collecting documents and risk it all by lying? I would have to be insane, which is what you are implying. Digital signatures, what an earth are they? Only the on line BMJ is valid, what a thought. Also a bit of a slur on the internet, but the internet is what is breaking the vaccine paradigm, so that is to be expected. john 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The point would be that, unlike, say NBC, or the CDC, or any licensed physician or professional journalist, the operator of a site like whale actually has nothing to lose by error or falsification. There is no regulation, or complaints proceedure, or professional reputation (and hence employment), or commercial brand to be damaged. The PDF form of documents \(apparently not used by whale) would have been an added security, but there is nothing to reassure visitors to such a site that what they are seeing (mostly lifted copyright material in html format which is no less stolen than the old format MP3 sites used to steal artists' music) is true, and has not by error or design, been altered to deceive. Hence whale is not a plausibly reliable source of information, and should not be used for sourcing fact. As evidence that there are crazies in this world with weird conspiracy theories, who are willing to cull and select information to give a particular and inacurate impression, then it's just fine., please avoid personal attacks. The discussion is finally converging to something useful, but referring to any user as "crazy" is not reasonable. JFW | T@lk 12:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite, but it a neat way of shooting yourself in the foot by admitting you have no argument. Crazy, stealing, and into fraud and distorting evidence. And it venerates 'authority' which is just another propaganda ploy. Just blindly follow authority, and don't, for God's sake ever think for yourself. When we attack someone we are actually giving a description of ourselves. john 16:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I do not wish to go against the main point you're making; When it comes to the subject of journalism, read yellow journalism
If you can access the BMJ online read also Journalists accused of wrecking doctors' lives in 2005;330:485 (26 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7489.485
One of the quotes credited to Professor Tallis is:
"Too often health reporting gives equal coverage to the views of those who could put the facts in perspective and give them the correct interpretation and those who do not wish to do so or are unable to do so. In the case of MMR only sheer luck has so far prevented medical journalism from producing a public health catastrophe,"
I have been disappointed to find that even a few clinicians -here on Wikipedia- quote from the press because they believe to be right instead of reading the original article themselves, thus unwittingly compounding the confusion.
--Aspro 17:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
As I hit enter it came to mind that there is now the quadvailent version (with chicken pox added) and that again (in the wild virus) has a tendency to suppress the immune system and so might repeat questions in the press about safety. Should we start another page (MMRV)and pre-empt it?
--Aspro 17:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, journalists like Brian Deer (ably supported by Wikipedia who have a page devoted to him) have been trying to wreck Wakefield's life. ''"MMR only sheer luck has so far prevented medical journalism from producing a public health catastrophe". '' You seem to have missed the autism epidemic caused by mercury vaccines and MMR, and to use a term Midgley likes it is is pure 'drivel' that MMR has prevented anything, as any casual study would show you (measles deaths had declined by 99.4% before vaccination---chew on that). If you have a problem with measles, mumps etc let the naturopaths, homeopaths, nutritional MDs deal with it. I love the myth that journalists are too blame for anything, they are just the mouthpieces for the Corporations as anyone who studies history and media properly would attest, for example, the last serious media investigation into a childhood vaccine (DPT) was by a provincial US paper in 1984! 20 years ago. When you own the media, government and medical profession it is a bit rich to complain about the odd truth that leaks out, but they want their cake etc. john 21:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
To use an analogy: Progress(?) is made in the fashion of setting a gyrocompass to guide an aircraft on the intended course and each time a suitable time has elapsed looking out at the ground below to see how far one is off course and make the appropriate correction.
Am I detecting that you're frustration is coming from the feeling that due to an apparent lack of transparency (in research and development of vaccines) you don't know whether the course errors was down to poor pilotage, unreliable instrumentation or simply wind drift? In other words, you sense a lack of accountability? --Aspro 00:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Vaccination is unsafe and ineffective, as easily proven just by statistics, eg smallpox vaccine. Also the whole industry is run by the makers, while they are immune to any litigation---the taxpayer pays for that (only 1 in 100 or 200 vaccine damaged kids ever get compensated in the UK--those that apply that is). Eg, all of the government advisory panels are industry controlled, one was even chaired by a Merck man. So the MMR vaccine got 2-3 weeks of testing, done by the makers! All safety testing is done by the makers! So you can imagine the incentive to test for contamination or stray germs---the polio vaccine still has the SV40 cancer causing monkey virus! And no study has ever been done by the industry using 100% unvaccinated kids as controls. You can imagine the level of mind control (information control) needed to keep these facts from the public. Just compare the parent vaccine leaflets with the package inserts, for example, to see the lies. And even when they put serious vaccine side effects in the data sheets that will not help you in court, and if you get awarded payment for an MMR death (has happened), they will not admit legally that MMR causes death. I could go on. john 10:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Boys, do you really need to conduct this conversation over here or would you prefer a blog or personal email? It's not really about the content of this article or even John's external links. JFW | T@lk 13:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is ALL about text content and links out. Let me summarise: it's is about allopaths (aka vaccinators) like Jfdwolff wanting (and doing so, so far) to block all links (and remove any text edits on MMR vaccine, and the other vaccine and vaccine disease pages) to www.w hale -dot- to, the leading site critical of vaccination (an allopathic medicine), using the excuse that I am paranoid (insane) because I have conspiracy stuff also or I am changing articles or using copyrighted articles or books, in other words I am a fraud, liar etc (this is known as Name Calling in mind control/propaganda research). You may not know it unless you are familiar with medical politics and opinions but nearly all of the medical pages on Wikipedia are written by allopaths (known as physicians on Wiki), not only that, they keep off any edits that they don't approve of, which mostly means any texts critical to vaccination, and the other alternative non-allopathic beliefs about the vaccine diseases. Also any text or links that reveal the vaccine link to Shaken Baby Syndrome or Cot-Death, also the Vitamin C cures for infectious disease, heart disease, also cot-death prevention. And even a link to an Irwin Stone article [17] is being blocked, believe it or not. john 15:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And with this summary we can close the discussion. You have not actually said anything new since your arrival here. Your points: (1) there are vaccinators, (2) they suppress whale links, (3) in order to downplay this importance of the john view, they use name calling, mind control, propaganda and the CIA. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not bad summary, was that for the jury, as I don't see any jury about only you playing the judge? Is that part of the game, to pretend there is a jury, and an unbiased one, or are you using the other vaccinators/allopaths as the jury? I never mentioned the CIA. Name Calling is a mind control or propaganda ploy. Propaganda is mostly information control which is part of mind control. john 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On Talk:Sudden infant death syndrome I have written a critique of your link, and similar points can be leveled against almost every link to whale that has been inserted. They are fringe views, sometimes even held by people who once got a medical degree (as a Brit you should know that UK graduates have the title MBBS or MBChB). So far you have not produced any evidence that the views contained in your links have a significant grassroots support. Our neutrality policy states clearly that fringe views do not need to be covered on Wikipedia[18], and as that whole page is accepted policy I don't see why those lines, straight from Jimbo, should form an exception. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Being judge and jury again I see. Your 'fringe' or 'grassroot' support theory doesn't hold up to much critical analysis, the truth isn't the truth just because it has wide support, as you are attempting to prove. As Shaw said "The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong." He certainly did some pretty fine thinking. For one thing it suggests people can't think for themselves in evaluating evidence, and guess who is going to be the judge of whether evidence comes before the Wiki readers, yes, a vaccinator who doesn't want anyone to see the evidence that drugs such as VACCINES are implicated in some shaken baby syndrome cases. Even when that evidence is presented by scientists such as Scheibner (cue Name calling), Mohammed A. Al-Bayati, medical doctors such as Dr Kalokerinos, H Buttram MD, Mark Donohoe, Ed Yazbak MD. Of course I am just playing your game of medical degrees--which is not a valid argument, in that you can't judge an argument on credentials, although you can certainly fool most juries by medical credentials. In reality the media is owned by the same people who own the vaccine companies (to put it simply), which is why the last media investigation into a childhood vaccine was in a provincial US paper in 1984, on DPT, so the only reason this is a 'fringe' viewpoint is because 99.999% of people rely on the media for information and have never heard of it! Also any study of medical politics will show the real thing that runs medicine is politics, not the truth, so that is 3 points to show your argument is totally invalid, when one would be enough. As to the credentials of Dr Kalokerinos that you are making out to be worthless, so as to invalidate his evidence, I don't agree. They look pretty fine to me and I'd let people make up their own mind on that hale -dot- to/vaccines/kalokerinos.html. Not many people have a book about them called Medical Pioneer of the 20th Century. I wont hold by breath waiting for Wiki to put a page up for him. john 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much weight I'd put to the claim about Dr. Kalokerinos being "medical pioneer of the 20th century" when the book is an autobiographical account! Andrew73 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Another argument that doesn't make any sense, you allopaths are running the gamut of useless arguments. Read it, I have. john 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
John, whatever argument we throw you, it's going to meet with the same barrage of defiance, reference to your pet "name calling", "judge and jury". But you do not address the argument itself. I asked for proof that anyone takes Archie seriously. Instead you refer to a vanity biography. We should not need to read someone's biography to understand what prompts yourself and like-minded people to hold the views they hold, and more importantly whether they have any grassroots support. I quoted policy to you, and you made fun of my most simple question: why should we abandon the view that your site is full of fringe material? What makes it non-fringe apart from the persuasiveness of the arguments? JFW | T@lk 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It is not defiance, I am just arguing my corner, as you are yours. I am interested to hear there is a yardstick we can put on people to see if they should be linked on Wiki. I would like to know what is acceptable so I can see if he fits it, and I also would like to run the rule over some of the other linked articles and people. Is it peer reviewed articles published, years in clinical practice, personal recommendation from well established scientists? You see, I would rather you put it in writing as I think it is unfair if you are the only one with the rulebook, as people who own the rulebooks can be tempted to move the goalposts, especially if no one else can see what is in the book. Secondly, I don't accept that you are qualified to be the judge for the reason you are an allopathic physician and Dr Kalokerinos is an orthomolecular physician, so you are biased from the position of medical politics, quite apart from your ignorance of the subject, which you are demonstrating now by trying to keep him off Wiki. Thirdly since you have orthomolecular scientists eg Irwin Stone [19] and Linus Pauling [20] on Wikipedia I find it extraordinary that you don't want the physicians on also, as what use is the science if no one puts it into clinical practice? Fourthly, and most significant, you already have two on, Dr Klenner [21], and Abram Hoffer [22], so not only should a link to put to his articles or my page devoted to him, but a page should be put up to him on Wiki. He duplicated most of Fred Klenner's clinical work, and did much more besides, so he is deserves a page more than them. john 15:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Who's Dr Kolikokonos? If he's one of those allopaths, I wouldn't trust him.
I wouldn't listen to someone who can't even spell his name even though it was written a few lines above. I see you still don't have an argument David, although I prefer that to calling me names. john 15:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
He may be an allopath nominally, but I don't think I'd trust a person who describes himself as "medical pioneer of the 20th century" [sic] in his autobiography. Andrew73 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
He started as an allopath but he would be better described now as a nutritional medical doctor or orthomolecular physician. It isn't a good idea to trust anyone with your life or business without checking up on them, and I always marvel at how the average person thinks medicine is run by truth, not the reality, that it is run by politics, as this allopath demonstrates. He is against him purely because he is not an allopath, using any old (pretty flimsy in this case) rationale. john 22:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Suppressing w hale -dot- to orthomolecular medicine documents by allopaths

Still going on [23] by InvictaHog. You are going to have to come up with a better excuse than Name Calling (ad hominem). john 11:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Allopaths fake 'near consensus' against w hale -dot- to

Allopaths suppressing links, eg on anthrax vaccine---- (last) 07:19, 1 January 2006 Jfdwolff m (w hale -dot- to is a poor resource - there is near-consensus on Talk:MMR vaccine against whalea) [24] I have to laugh at your contrived near consensus, that is 3 allopaths at my last count. That is a kangaroo court of allopaths or a rigged trial where you lot are judge and jury. And your best argument is the old propaganda ploy called Name Calling or Ad hominem, where you are attempting to discredit whale by drawing attention to emotive subjects there, eg, satanism, conspiracy, Illuminati mind control, Jewish conspiracy, genocide via vaccination, Roman Catholics, psychic assassins, Mormons, Walter Cronkite, demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone, or links to alien implant removers etc (thanks Andrew73). john 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not suppressing information (as evidenced by the fact that there are hundreds of other links that we have not targeted). We are simply removing the site which you created and have seemingly joined Wikipedia to promote without addressing the real concerns that have been expressed in this RfC. In fact, Ombudsman has not contributed to this RfC yet continues to place the links to your site without discussion here. Not one user here has answered my very simple question - if w hale -dot- to is to be included on the vaccination Wiki pages, is it also to be included on the many other non-medical Wiki pages? If not, what are the criteria for inclusion and are they consistent? If so, will everyone support the linking of whale on the Wiki page of every subject that whale criticizes? Every voice on this page which at first advocates for whale disappears when this subject is addressed. InvictaHOG 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Straw man argument. Ad hominem variation. Don't make me laugh with your 'real concern' comment. The other subjects have no bearing on the whale medical pages. Instead of holding up various subjects with fear attached for most people eg satanism, which is basic Ad hominem to muddy the water, you are now still using those other subjects in a different way. Still ad hominem. And you have taken it upon yourself to delete all w hale -dot- to links without any real justification. It is obvious allopathic suppression, who do you think you are fooling with all this fake concern? To answer the question which doesn't need answering as it is irrelevant to the argument, but I will humour you---if whale has documents on subjects with Wiki pages then obviously external links should be put in especially if whale is the only source for that document on the internet eg some mind control books hale -dot- to/b/books.html. I do admire your persistent ad hominem, but if I have to put all of the medical documents on a seperate site to avoid your ad hominem ploy, then I will do so, persistance is one of my strenghts also. As to your comment 'criticise', I don't offer any comment about many subjects, I just file the evidence, so I take it having a filing cabinet of documents on a subject is evidence of 'criticism'. john 12:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

w hale -dot- to

I have created a stub at w hale -dot- to. I recommend that debate about that website take place there instead of here, to make it easier for other people to follow the issue. --Arcadian 22:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Pablo-flores has nominated the page for deletion. If you feel that w hale -dot- to belongs in Wikipedia, the place to make your case is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/w hale -dot- to. --Arcadian 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Strange, looking at his page that he should be the one to nominate, as he doesn't look to ahve any interest in alternative medicine. john 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is that necessary? Wikipedians have fine feelers for what is notable and what is not. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The anti-vaccine content in the new template

Any thoughts on the basis for User:arcadians introduction of a line of (seemingly) arbitrarily selected anti-vaccine organisations in the newly created template? Why, for instance, is Safeminds selected, when this organization is primarily a group focussed on litigation against manufacturers? Should we not have a line of vaccine manufacturers, and organizations giving positive information on the benefits of vaccination? And if not, why not? Maybe Arcadian can explain why we need this template at all, which seems bound to set off a new round of questioning over why viewpoints which command 0.0000000005% of evidence, and barely more support are given the prominence the antivaccine fringe get here. 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This represents a compromise, perhaps, at least it's a better substitute than Ombudsman's laundry list of topics. I wonder if there's a better word than "controversy," since it's not contorversial in the medical community but an issue that opponents of vaccination want to push. Andrew73 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you for your interest, welcome your perspectives, and direct you to Talk:Thimerosal#Summary_of_See_also_disagreement_for_RfC and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaccination_critics where the issue is being discussed in greater detail. I'd also encourage you to look at Wikipedia:Why create an account? -- you may find that getting an account helps you in many ways. --Arcadian 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for thanking me for my interest, welcoming my perspectives etc. But could you perhaps address the question I'm raising. It does seem like a legitimate question to ask. Why is the litigant group Safeminds included in this template, and not maybe the Institute for Vaccine Safety? [25]?

Even User InvictaHog's ad hominem against w hale -dot- to is dubious

It hasn't escaped my attention that most of the bogey words (demons, implants, etc) that User:InvictaHOG is using in his false ad hominem ploy against w hale -dot- to links are also on wiki pages. Playing along with his ad hominem argument for a moment, I am mighty curious to know how come it is OK for Wiki to have pages to Alien implants, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Skull and Bones, Demons, Satanism, but NOT OK for me to have them?? And I don't even offer any comment on most pages. john 09:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

But as all your other material forcefully pushes a point it is only fair to assume that material is there for the same reason. JFW | T@lk 10:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
and the articles in Wikipedia are subject to the same process as other Wikipedia articles, whereas essays on external sites are not mutable or correctable. Midgley 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New idea and compromise on w hale -dot- to

Although most of the edit war has thankfully died down, there are still some instances where reversions continue on an almost daily basis (I am certainly guilty of this!). Because most, if not all, of the people arguing against the w hale -dot- to site believe are opposed to the presentation instead of the information, I have begun indexing commonly inserted links (see Lily Loat for an example) into WikiSource so that they can be linked without the w hale -dot- to connection. I propose that all non-copyrighted primary texts be placed into Wikisource. If text is copyrighted and cannot be placed into Wikisource, I'd favor not linking to it, either - no sense in supporting copyright violation (if it exists, I'm not saying it does!) InvictaHOG 07:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your are a pediatrician. john 15:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
What would that have to do with anything? Michael Ralston 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
he has been deleting all my links to vaccine criticism. john 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
They're not your links John. They are the Wiki's links. And the Wiki isn't yours. And the fact that he's a pediatrician is irrelevant. I'm presently doing geriatrics. So what? Stop ad hominemming if you can. JFW | T@lk 14:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of the people arguing against are allopaths/vaccinators, and using ad hominem, which appears to be a valid argument on wiki. Bit of a cheek really considering the time I put into it. And your Wiki job on Loat [26] isn't much to write home about compared to mine hale -dot- to/a/loat1.html. And it would be hopeless with the longer books, but I suspect you wouldn't want anyone to read them anyway. john 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
John: You don't seem to appreciate that to call someone an "allopath" is to ascribe to them a ridiculous label invented by a 19th century German quack who left no proof that he ever cured one person of anything. It's ascription is, of itself, an ad hominem insult, somewhat more lofty, but in reality of no greatly different order to any person calling you a "crank" (which of course they wouldn't, as this breaches wiki etiquette). Am I wrong? 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you have Allopathic medicine on Wiki even, so someone who practices allopathy is an allopath. The other term is 'conventional' or 'orthodox', but 'conventional medical doctor' doesn't really work does it. It doesn't matter who invented the label, as it doesn't matter who decided to call the Yew tree a Yew, or why he chose that name. And words gain numerous meanings over the years, as you can see in any dictionary, so the term is the best I have come across to describe drug using medical doctors. If you have a better word then supply it. Allopaths have to be distinguished from other medical doctors who use nutrients as in orthomolecular medicine (eg Archie Kalokerinos), or other non-drug modalities, and from those that use homeopathics, or natural healing etc. I am talking for the layman, so I can explain medicine to the layman, I am not too bothered what medical people think, the politics gets in the way there. It is a wonder to me that allopaths, as I call them, don't like to be labelled, eg as 'vaccinators', which was a common term for over a 100 years. They seem to be in denial, and that maybe because they can pretend they are unbiased over vaccination, and are in control of what they believe over vaccination, when, in reality, they have no choice but to believe in it, and people like Wakefield give them an example of what happens to non-believers, and he touts single vaccines. If you don't like being labelled allopath, then maybe you don't like being labelled, but as the saying goes--"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by the right names." Crank is used in ad hominem and is usually used to describe someone who isn't into allopathic thinking on a medical subject eg vaccination, as Dr Hadwen said in 1925: "A man is eminent as long as he is orthodox. When he begins to think for himself he becomes a crank." Another is quack which allopaths throw at non-allopaths (you only have to look at Quackwatch to see the list, the ACS had a huge list), or anti-vaccinator--I was called a Nazi here for being one of these. john 19:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

medical monopoly

Hey, John? Have you bothered reading these articles you use to support your arguments? Because, you see, they don't actually do that. The Allopathic Medicine article clearly and repeatedly states it was a term founded by homeopaths and NOT used by practitioners of conventional medicine. The article basically says it IS a term that is fringe and not generally used. (ps: whoops, forgot to sign.) Michael Ralston 14:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but who wrote that article? Allopaths, or medical people who write most of the medicine articles here. I know allopaths don't like the term probably as it was coined by a homeopath who said they only treat symptoms. I know conventional/orthodox, what I call allopath MDs don't use the term, or like it, and I figure the other main reason is because they don't want to be put on a level playing field with other type of doctors, or MDs. They want to believe, and everyone else to believe, their medicine is top dog due to science not politics. If they can avoid being labelled then it keeps the public in the dark, as labelling reveals certain, hidden in this case, truths. john 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay ... and this quiet conspiracy includes HOW MANY people? Michael Ralston 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Resorting to conspiracy talk is a retreat into ad hominem, by the way. We have a medical monopoly hale -dot- to/a/medical_pol_b.html, but not many medical people know that in my experience, as who would want to know that if they were a medico, the medical Pandora's box is the box of all boxes hale -dot- to/a/hoaxmed.html. Bit like the army, at the top some (eg Butler [27]) know wars are fought for oil and gold hale -dot- to/b/war.html, but all the foot soldiers haven't a clue, although this last war is breaking down the mind control on that. john 09:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything that isn't a conspiracy or a hoax? How would you know that anti-vaccinationists aren't involved in a hoax as well? Especially when they could be engaging in mind control? Yes I agree with John that allopathic medicine has been granted a monopoly by the government over health care, at least in terms of medications and devices, reimbursement by insurance companies, etc., but at least this recognizes that allopathic medicine uses the most rigorous scientific methodology. Andrew73 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who declared it a conspiracy, not me, john. You just avoided the word - but it's not the label used that makes it an ad hom, it's the contents of the claim. And I'm sorry, but citing *yourself* isn't evidence. And if you don't see the difference between scientific practices and military practices, then... erm. Michael Ralston 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow the money is the test that usually applies. I wish I could make some money out of it. Your 'scientific methodology' isn't true when you look into it, otherwise we would be using Vitamin C to cure infections hale -dot- to/a/levy4.html, heart disease etc, and prevent cot-death, as Linus Pauling said, most discovered 50 years ago. I document the whole sorry story hale -dot- to/m/therapies.html. john 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that medicine isn't free from commercial influences. And I wish that vitamin C was proven to be more efficacious. Andrew73 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It has been, 60 years ago hale -dot- to/v/c/index.html, but commercial interests and medical politics suppress it. john 16:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Much as I hate to be seen as a guy who steals candy from children, could I ask John to explain his theory of how "commercial interests and medical politics" suppressed the wondrous healing powers of vitamin C, when vitamin C was synthesized in the 1930s by a pharmaceutical company - Hoffman-La Roche - which was the world #1 producer of vitamin products for the remainder of the 20th century? Does John know something they didn't? 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Get a name, I don't like talking to numbers. You can manage to do that? john 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Pretend I asked it, then. I've got a name, after all. Michael Ralston 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"etc". Yes, that is the difficult one to cure. Midgley 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing the MMR vaccine here, or John's worldview vis a vis medicine? JFW | T@lk 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The MMR vaccine page is not a NPOV, but I can't be bothered at the moment to have an edit war. An external link here hale -dot- to/vaccines/mmr.html would partly satisfy me, but even that would be reverted. john 16:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I would question how effective vitamin C is as a treatment/preventative to the MMR diseases, with my diet containing a lot of vit C, and D too, and many vegetables and fruit, and anything else you can think of recommended on those sort of pages, and yet I caught mumps shortly before the MMR was available to me. After having it, I didn't catch the others, although I did catch chicken pox many moons later. In later years, I knew several 19/20 year olds who caught mumps last winter; none of them had kept up to date with their boosters. I didn't know anyone who caught it who had. I would bring this up, but of course it would be hear-say, not proper evidence. And, I'm sure, irrelevant. I'm intrigued though. Does John agree that diseases can be caused by germs? 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)

Heck no, diseases are caused by depletion of vitamin C due to allopathic treatments. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A bad paragraph

"Controversy has arisen regarding the efficacy of the MMR vaccine, because some scientists and parents contend that the vaccine might be linked to the development of a number of conditions, such as autism, bowel disorders such as Crohn's disease, and the brain disorder Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD)."dif

It isn't about the efficacy, certainly not on the text given, but about safety.

I do not believe that controversy arose because of that, either, it arose 150 years ago, and this is another instance - of finding something to claim a vaccine causes. Losing the first clause to the comma would do no harm to the meaning.

"have attempted to link" might be reaosnable phrasing.

Is there still a _scientist_ who _contends_ that there is a link to CJD? THat was a specific evidence-free claim in our Antipodes based on the possibility of nvCJD agent being in BSA, and instantly eliminated by reading the ingredients - there being no bovine serum albumin in MMR!

Is there a salveageable phrase in there? Midgley 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I wondered who had put that in. Ombudsman, Dec 28th. It really doesn't add anything useful, and indeed is inconsistent with the existing paragraph a couple later, noting why the claim relating to CJD was incredible. I rather think it has been in the article before, noted to be rubbish, and removed - that seems bad. Midgley 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for noting the problem, but the paragraph in question was added nearly two years ago by User:ChrisO, and was left unaltered on the date referenced. Ombudsman 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal aid says 1992 for the start of funding (£15 million by the end). It seems odd, and surely partial, that the entry noting legal iad funding was started... does not also note it was temrinated, and why - no hope of success in a case since no evidence of a link had been found after the expenditure of a phenomenal amount of money. WHo introduced that? Midgley 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On vaccine controversy we now mention that legal aid was withdrawn in 1995. JFW | T@lk 13:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The entries above are inaccurate. Although legal aid has been stopped on a couple of occasions, legal aid is still funding 4 ongoing MMR vaccine damage claims in the UK. I am the solicitor instructed by the Claimants. Peter Todd - Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors

Medical Controversy

There is controversy regarding this vaccine; as such, it is a medical controversy. This categorical classification is useful and should be restored. 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

assorted reversions with bad description

The description is inaccurate. As is the attack. The reversion was unreasonable. Leifern shows a pattern of behaviour since I edited a page he appears to feel a proprietorial interest in, and declares a personal interest in the subject of. This is a bad use of admin powers. Midgley 09:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, don't have the "powers" associated with it, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Setting that aside, my interest is in providing readers of Wikipedia that are accurate and NPOV. --Leifern 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh good. So the description as "revert" was in fact "change", but to a situation as before. The previous statement may be a reasonable expression of Leifern's own impression of his conscious intentions. It can be sustained no further. This isn't unusual, and most people settle down to a stable adjustment in due course. Midgley 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
"Reversion" is the common word in Wikipedia for, well, reverting an article to a prior version. There is talk of "revert wars," etc. It is not my invention. As for your various armchair diagnoses of my mental state and motivations, I can only shake my head in wonder. --Leifern 21:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
A revert is done by clicking the "edit" link when viewing an old version, and then saving without making any changes. No admin power required. Michael Ralston 23:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a bit of an aside; LINE 15: The MMR vaccine was designed to be a trivalent single-shot vaccine that protects against all three viral diseases.
It comes across a bit Tautological; but haven't seen anything as good as this, outside the pages of Feedback in the Newscientist for a long time - so am reluctant to change it. It is not quite the same as the following gripe[[28]]
Also, suspect there are more than three viral diseases on this planet!... Re:- 'All three viral diseases' . Surly there are more?--Aspro 00:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Measles, mumps and rubella - all three? Valvular heart disease is an entity but I tend to use IHD - Ischaemic heart disease.Midgley 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You know very well, that I gave that reference to the BMJ article to point out (in a way that I thought -avoided criticism any of the previous authors), that it is 'possible' for a reader of this article [MMR vaccine] to think: What...? What in the h*** are they waffling on about!..? In other words: the grammar, choice of syntax etc., should not distract from the essence of the message. When it comes to written word, one is not afforded the luxury of seeing the eyes of the recipient glazing over ( to indicate that one has lost them).
--Aspro 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Got you, now. You could have a go at "According to standardized adverse effect reporting" whic I'd tend to render as adverse effects reported... and I'm not sure about reported even. Midgley 00:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Japan study

Regardless of the nonsensical data interpretation hailed by medical authorities, the raw data clearly shows that when neither the MMR nor the single jabs were commonly used, there was a noticeable dip in autism rates, as Wakefield points out. The lack of balance elsewhere in the section, especially with regard to the lack of balance in describing the fatally flawed Cochrane Library, begs for a pov tag. The fact is that the same viral strain of measles used in the MMR is showing up in cerebrospinal fluid and antibodies are turning up in the gut of kids diagnosed with autistic enterocolitis. While propaganda is creeping into this article, hard evidence implicating the MMR is piling up around the globe. There is absolutely no reason for this article to be so biased in favor of the medical establishment's erroneous pov. Ombudsman 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather, the "fatally flawed" characterization is more appropriate for the studies speculating the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The facts about the viral strain of measles showing up in CSF and in intestines has not been widely replicated. Andrew73 14:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
How many times has such a replication been attempted? Are you really saying that because something isn't "widely replicated" it has to be "fatally flawed?" --Leifern 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Think there is a bit of deeply embedded confusion here.:::* The 'speculation' was first put forward in a clinical report. As such, -if one reads it- this is quite a reasonable possibility to put forward (although perhaps not quite so publicly).
  • Looking for viral components in biopsies is different: it is part of the process of providing scientific proof to the speculation. Outside of med. school and in the real world, science seldom comes up a water tight case for the first few attempts (consider the dopamine hypothesis - still no proof for, but plenty against) so again, the uncertainty about these viral component results are par for the course.
  • So is reanalysing other studies, to look for weaknesses, or wringing more information out of them (e.g., Japan Study)
  • To dismiss these early studies and statistical reanalyses out of hand by calling them fatally floored is to insult the hard and dedicate work of all the support staff that do the tests on the biopsies and other dirty and tedious jobs to very exacting standards and advise on the design of best protocol that their departments can perform with the very limited resources available to them.
  • It also shows an over simplified impression of science.
  • It may detracts the public at large from realising that this work promises new treatments.
  • The cutting edge of sciences is always filled with uncertainty and doubt which is why it is so much fun and rewarding to work in. It would bore the pants off many if it was as easy and certain as a differential diagnosis learnt by rote.
I would not go as far as Ombudsman by saying anything shows anything clearly yet -in the strict scientific sense- but there are numerical associations when using a study with a cohort of 10,000 (i.e., the Japan study),(previous epidemiological studies lack this power) These [Japan study] are 'figures' and as such are not a subject of belief or disbelief -but just are, and so equally, can't just be dismissed. Hope that makes things clearer.--Aspro 19:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
What are antibodies being introduced as evidence of here? Is the difference in opinion on these between obudsman and John an indication of less than complete agreement, or an instance of any argument whatever being picked if it serves the moment's purpose? Is the raw data to hand, since it is being discussed, witha graph to show the alleged dip? Midgley 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that it appears that certain studies are "fatally flawed" depending on one's point of view. If certain editors can criticize as "fatally flawed" the extensive epidemiology evidence that has concluded the association between MMR vaccination and autism as highly unlikely, I can imagine that if similar rigor were applied to studies like the Amish, Homefirst Health Services, etc., that these "studies" would also be viewed as "fatally flawed." Andrew73 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That is a good observation.
If editors were able to keep the art of 'rhetoric' separate from the practice of 'argument' there would be less confusion and disagreement and misunderstanding.
"Fatally flawed" is the language of rhetoric, it dose not belong in science. Used in 'argument' it is known as poisoning the well or sometimes as loaded language. So, I urge other editors to avoid this term. Remember (all) most of this rhetoric was originally: generated to sell news papers with the rest cobbled together afterwards -to reassure the public. Now its propagating around like Richard Dawkins's memes.--Aspro 22:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes "fatally flawed" does carry around it certain emotion...all of the studies linking or dislinking MMR vaccination and autism need to be viewed with a more objective, disinterested perspective. Andrew73 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

un-reviewed opinon and argument in rapid responses: WP:RS??

I don't think the reference to a set of rapid responses to the BMJ is a reliable source. References to any that get published - IE have had at least editorial review and perhaps peer review, are. BUt as it goes anything that can't be got into this page can be got into a rapid response, and then pointed to as though it enhances the article. I suggest removing that reference, or at least making it to teh paper, not to the mob scene afterward. Midgley 14:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The source of a certain emotion,,2087-2114632,00.html An anti-vaccinationist win. Midgley 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, Adrian. Brian Deer != Dan Olmsted. JFW | T@lk 01:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Registered symbol and trademarks

From the talk page of Andrew73

I reverted your edit that removed trademarks. For one thing, registered trademarks must be noted under the U.S. law.
What's more important is that "Attenuvax®", Mumpsvax®, etc. are products that Merck sells. Merck wants the trademark symbol on them, just like any good capitalist company. The wikipedia needs to reflect this actual fact in order to maintain NPOV. If you find some WP:style_bullshit that says trademarks are out, fine. Otherwise, I'm putting them back in incessantly. Heathhunnicutt 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree that these are registered trademarks. However, as a stylistic issue, for example, the pages for Coca-Cola and Pepsi do not include registered trademarks for Coke or Pepsi. I can't quote WP:style chapter and verse that they should or should not be included. However, I don't think any user would confuse Attenuvax, etc. with being generic terms; that's why they're capitalized. Plus, while these trademarks are printed in the product insert, they are not seen elsewhere such as in journal articles or other scholarly writing. The presence of these symbols commercializes the tone of the article and reduces it to the appearance of a product insert. Andrew73 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's one thing to compare Mumpsvax to Pepsi and note the discrepancy in trademarks. Could a more thought-provoking comparison be of Mumpsvax to Urabe Mumps vaccine? The fact of the matter is that these really are products, and them having the appearance of products is a factual representation of reality. They may be helpful, good products, but they are products. Heathhunnicutt 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I made an effort to improve the appearance of the registered trademark symbol in the Formulation section, and to remove any redundant labelling of trademarks. However, my inclination is that the trademark symbol for M-M-R® II should percolate up to the top of the page. Heathhunnicutt 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style [29] to see what other people had to think. Again, registered trademarks are not used in the academic literature. For example, a 1998 article in Pediatrics [30] that describes these MMR vaccines does not use these symbols. For me, this is primarily an aesthetic issue, as I think these symbols are visually distracting and do not add any informational value. It's apparent that these are branded products, and the symbols are redundant. Andrew73 02:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) is the "bullshit" you were looking for. Attenuvax is Merck's trademark, not Wikipedia's. What responsibility does Wikipedia have to protect Merck's trademark? You say that trademarks must be noted under U.S. law; can you cite the relevant part of the U.S. Code for that, or refer me to some other authoritative source? I think you'll find that the burden is on the trademark owner, not on the rest of the world, to ensure that the trademark does not fall into generic usage. Besides, I don't think Wikipedia is mistreating the trademarks by omitting the stylistically ugly ® and ™ symbols. You'll notice that the only place you tend to see those symbols is in advertisements, where the trademark owner is publicizing the "trademarkness" of the mark, or competitors are making it clear that they do not claim ownership of another's mark. You don't see them in newspapers, encyclopedias, books, or magazine articles. As I've said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a press release or an advertising medium. Neither style nor content should be dictated by a company's marketing department. --Rob Kennedy 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I echo Rob Kennedy's thoughts on this one. Again, you don't find these in any other media form, why should they be in Wikipedia? Andrew73 17:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced that products are encyclopaedic. This goes with the general tendency in academic medical journals to use generic names. Midgley 23:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with you about what's encyclopedic although I'm not sure I disagree, either. But either way, that's a different issue. The issue at hand is how to represent trademarks in articles, not whether the trademark should have been mentioned in the first place. --Rob Kennedy 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, get rid of them! Just stop providing a crevice for Midgley to pry on. Obviously, every drug is topic worthy, and they are all products. I don't care about the trademark symbols. By the way, you don't understand what the "law" is, Rob. It's cases as well as codes and trademarks are a part of the law of torts, so look it up yourself. Personally, I don't care if the Wikipedia respects trademarks nearly so much as I care that it represents topics accurately and completely and does not kow-tow to the Establishment that it's out to replace, such as Physicians who want obscurity for articles on drugs. Heathhunnicutt 07:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember looking into this way back (can't remember which article). The outshot was that though companies like to come on heavy about trademark symbols, there is no legal requirement to use them in article text and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) reflects that. You can find this confirmed in house style guides for many major publishers: for instance, Chicago Manual of Style "In publications that are not advertising or sales materials, all that is necessary is to use the proper spelling and capitalization of the name of the product". Tearlach 11:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Chicago Manual of Style reference. I've removed these symbols as per consensus. Andrew73 12:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Heathhunnicutt; I don't know what the law is. I don't know how to quickly find out what it is, either. You said something is required by U.S. law, so I hoped you would have some better information about it than I, and that you might be willing to share. Sorry to impose. --Rob Kennedy 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Rob, must be noted under U.S. case law, or Wikipedia foundation could theoretically be sued. One day, that will probably change the policy. Anyway, all I wanted to say is that my IP does not start with 68 and I am not floriola or whomever; i.e., not involved in the revert war this led to. Don't really care that much about trademarks, just that the products get their topics covered. Heathhunnicutt 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Human Albumin

Currently, this article contains a contradiction.

From the controversy section:

In 1996, in New Zealand claims by an academic from Melbourne University that MMR contained a human blood product, serum albumin, and could therefore spread Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease caused anxiety. This did not last, since serum albumin was demonstrably not an ingredient of the MMR vaccine.

However: Mumpsvax is grown on Medium 199 + SPGA. SPGA contains human albumin. Meruvax (Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) is also grown on human albumin. I didn't look into Attenuvax, yet.

So what could this article say that is true? Heathhunnicutt 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any HSA in the vaccine though? Some of it is grown in eggs, and no shell makes it into the ampoule.
Yes. Recall that article you found on fractionation. The fraction of HSA which is extracted with the virus then becomes an ingredient. Remember, they are probably making an extract of the supernatant, anyway. Heathhunnicutt 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed live measles from intestine

Uncited long enough. "Proponents point to studies showing live measles virus is detected in the gut of these individuals.[citation needed]" (there were claims about nucleic acid sequences from Measles being found in gut, but not AFAIK live virus.) Midgley 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I was too young to remember any of this, but this is what I've been told by my parents. When I was quite young, I was given the first measles-mumps-rubella shot. A couple weeks afterwards, I came down with the measles. A few years later, I was given the second shot. Again, a couple weeks afterwards, I came down with rubella. There was supposed to be a third shot some time later, but my parents refused to have it done. I didn't seen anything here about the vaccine actually giving the viruses to children, so I'm wondering if this was a bizzare coincidence, or if there are other documented cases .. --Q Canuck 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • the history of smallpox vaccination is the history of the spread of smallpox by vaccination hale -dot- to/a/smallpox77.htm. Vaccines often cause the disease but it gets ignored. john 09:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
MMR is (as noted overleaf) a live attenuated vaccine. So a rash and fever a couple of weeks later is a common occurrence - it indicates that the vaccine has taken and that you will produce a high level of immunity. The wild disease is worse. I'm slightly surprised that you were expected to have a third dose - the schedule is two doses (line two of the article), and the second one was only introduced in the UK relatively recently, as it was thought one dose might be sufficient. The immunisation which comes in three doses is the DPT, and catching Measles or Rubella after a dose of that is no great surprise (although with maternal immunity around it should still be attenuated). What age were you? Both Measles and Rubella are not the only diseases which produce similar rashes - you might have caught twpo other diseases. The w hale -dot- to page is another heap of old assertions - I don't regard it as a reliable reference to anything, even history. Midgley 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Midgley, in the United States a three-dose series is required for admittance to public schools at age 4-5. Heathhunnicutt 19:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) differs as does Midgley 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, huh. Has that always been the case? I was going off childhood memories of my younger relatives. Heathhunnicutt 17:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The UK had hopes that only one might be needed, but it became clear later that the second one was needed. At both stages I recall it being promulgated that other countries used two doses. I've no recollection of any using three.Midgley 18:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I get the gut feeling that this section (Development) could easily start to include information that really should be in an article dedicated to vaccine production methods. Eg. The line The cells used in culture, virus stocks used, and animal fluids are all screened for extraneous material as part of the vaccine production. [citation needed]; This is -now days- all laid out in international standards and therefore does not (I think) merit repeating any more than once. --Aspro 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The ingredients of MMR are specific to MMR, so the bulk of the information belongs right where it is. Heathhunnicutt 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
In particular, the sentence you quoted belongs here. Readers should know right up front that the MMR is screened for safety. Heathhunnicutt 22:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Gosh! OK, I'll try again: (1) You started off with a tortology so it is a bit difficult to understand what your point is but here goes: There is already an article on growth medium. It just need 'Medium 199' description to be added. Why encourage somebody to set up an article just for one growth medium alone? Would it not be better to have it in an existing article to provide some greater context? Hence changed the link from Medium 199 to Medium 199. Or, if your using the word 'specific' to mean 'unique' then it is not unique to MMR II and thus again, does not need more than a mention.
(2) Safety: Production of tinned soup, bars of candy etc. are screened for safety (providing there exists a governmental food agency), it is a taken thing. The pharmaceutical companies PR departments may want to give that reassurance but is it necessary to give it here when reassurances of this nature do not -by and large- clutter up other articles on products that the pubic expect to be safe. Medical articles have a habit of filling up with rhetoric simply to modify paranoia upwards or downwards. So, am simply suggesting (to all editors): Be mindful of what gets added and to ask themselves is it 'superfluous' to the needs of the article and so nip it in the bud, rather than let it build up (like all the text on the MMR controversy). To this end I gave an example of what looks like unnecessary information: The cells used in culture, virus stocks used, and animal fluids are all screened for extraneous material as part of the vaccine production. [citation needed] However, if a competitor vaccine was not screened in such away, then that would be a worthy inclusion. The differences of MMR II to Priorix might be worth also stating at some point -as I'm sure someone will.--Aspro 11:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In the first place, I guess I misunderstood you. Your improvement to linking the growth medium is recognized. It is really much better for there to be a growth medium page somewhere. Then, if interest in growth media warrant new entries, that will happen on its own.
Some of the information specific to MMR belongs on the MMR page. Hopefully, this does not strike you as a tautology. The specific growth medium used is of interest to some readers. For example, in the removed 'controversy' section, there were conflicting claims concerning the use of human albumin in producing the vaccines. The use of human albumin in the production of MMR is falsifiable in the Popperian sense, and it is easy to find references on this particular detail. This detail and other details of the production of MMR vaccine are of central interest to some readers. The article might as well contain all the details they could be looking for, and perhaps redirect any concerns to sub-articles.
The reason I transferred that assertion (The cells used in culture, virus stocks used, and animal fluids are all screened for extraneous material as part of the vaccine production. [citation needed]) from Merck's documentation to this article (while adding {{fact}}) is that this detail is of interest and concern to many readers. It is a documentable assertion, in the sense that "if it is true, documentation detailing it must exist." It is part of an encyclopedic treatment of the vaccine's formulation.
Buds are new growths and nipping them should be weighed in the balance of how pretty the new flowers could be. Heathhunnicutt 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolving the Controversy

I took the initiative today in merging all the controversy text into the Vaccine controversy article. I think it will be better maintained there. Heathhunnicutt 23:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should at least mention the controversy! It is currently only a footnote. Perhaps a line in the introduction? Artbristol 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am quite sure that the controversy is not specific to M, M or R, singly together or on horseback. SO it is very appropriately handled in one place. Midgley 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I very much agree with Midgley that the controversy is already nicely documented on the article specific to it. Introducing reference to it in the MMR article is suspisciously akin to providing a convenient shoe-horn. Given the recent Canadian study further discrediting the controversial hypothesis, and other recent events, I am not even sure if the controversy could be considered an 'encyclopedic' piece of information, other than as an historical note. Heathhunnicutt 22:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Wakefield's original, now discredited, paper was pretty specific to MMR. I think the controversy should be mentioned briefly for 2 reasons:
1. Historical significance. Search for 'MMR vaccine' on Google and you will find plenty of reference to the [non]link with autism.
2. What will an average reader, who has heard of the controversy but doesn't know much about it, make of the article? It could look like some kind of 'cover-up'.
Artbristol 03:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the MMR reference was really press conference, rather than paper. Midgley 10:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Here is the latest. Someone needs to add this to the vaccine controversy page.

 Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):e139-50. Links 

Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations.

Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D.

Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal Children's Hospital, 4018 Ste-Catherine West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3Z 1P2.
  • BACKGROUND: The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorders has increased in recent years. Links with the measles component of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the cumulative exposure to thimerosal through other vaccines have been postulated.
  • OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to estimate the pervasive developmental disorder prevalence in Montreal, Canada, in cohorts born from 1987 to 1998 and evaluate the relationship of trends in pervasive developmental disorder rates with: (1) changes in cumulative exposure to ethylmercury (thimerosal) occurring through modifications in the immunization schedule of young children and (2) trends in measles-mumps-rubella vaccination use rates and the introduction of a 2-measles-mumps-rubella dosing schedule during the study period. METHODS: We surveyed 27749 children born from 1987 to 1998 attending 55 schools from the largest Anglophone school board. Children with pervasive developmental disorders were identified by a special needs team. The cumulative exposure by age 2 years to thimerosal was calculated for 1987-1998 birth cohorts. Ethylmercury exposure ranged from medium (100-125 microg) from 1987 to 1991 to high (200-225 microg) from 1992 to 1995 to nil from 1996 onwards when thimerosal was entirely discontinued. Measles-mumps-rubella coverage for each birth cohort was estimated through surveys of vaccination rates. The immunization schedule included a measles-mumps-rubella single dose at 12 months of age up to 1995, and a second measles-mumps-rubella dose at 18 months of age was added on after 1996. RESULTS: We found 180 children (82.8% males) with a pervasive developmental disorder diagnosis who attended the surveyed schools, yielding a prevalence for pervasive developmental disorder of 64.9 per 10000. The prevalence for specific pervasive developmental disorder subtypes were, for autistic disorder: 21.6 of 10000; for pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified: 32.8 of 10000; and for Asperger syndrome: 10.1 of 10000. A statistically significant linear increase in pervasive developmental disorder prevalence was noted during the study period. The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder in thimerosal-free birth cohorts was significantly higher than that in thimerosal-exposed cohorts (82.7 of 10000 vs 59.5 of 10000). Using logistic regression models of the prevalence data, we found no significant effect of thimerosal exposure used either as a continuous or a categorical variable. Thus, thimerosal exposure was unrelated to the increasing trend in pervasive developmental disorder prevalence. These results were robust when additional analyses were performed to address possible limitations because of the ecological nature of the data and to evaluate potential effects of misclassification on exposure or diagnosis. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination coverage averaged 93% during the study interval with a statistically significant decreasing trend from 96.1% in the older birth cohorts (1988-89) to approximately 92.4% in younger birth cohorts (1996-1998). Thus, pervasive developmental disorder rates significantly increased when measles-mumps-rubella vaccination uptake rates significantly decreased. In addition, pervasive developmental disorder prevalence increased at the same rate before and after the introduction in 1996 of the second measles-mumps-rubella dose, suggesting no increased risk of pervasive developmental disorder associated with a 2-measles-mumps-rubella dosing schedule before age 2 years. Results held true when additional analyses were performed to test for the potential effects of misclassification on exposure or diagnostic status. Thus, no relationship was found between pervasive developmental disorder rates and 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella immunization schedule.
  • CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder in Montreal was high, increasing in recent birth cohorts as found in most countries. Factors accounting for the increase include a broadening of diagnostic concepts and criteria, increased awareness and, therefore, better identification of children with pervasive developmental disorders in communities and epidemiologic surveys, and improved access to services. The findings ruled out an association between pervasive developmental disorder and either high levels of ethylmercury exposure comparable with those experienced in the United States in the 1990s or 1- or 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations.
PMID: 16818529 [PubMed - in process] 

Artbristol, if you rehabilitate the disjoint controversy page, it would be a lot nicer to highlight it from an article like MMR Vaccine. Heathhunnicutt 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose to insert the following text into the introduction
In the UK the vaccine was once the subject of controversy, due to a 1998 paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield purporting to show a link between MMR and childhood autism. Numerous studies have since failed to show any correlation, and the vaccine is considered safe by the medical establishment.
Any objections?
Artbristol 02:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It would have better context as the 2nd-to-last paragraph of Epidemiology. Heathhunnicutt 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I just added a "side-effects" section header on top of the two paragraphs that cover that topic. I think your text would really belong in that section, possibly the middle or last paragraph. Does that work for you? Heathhunnicutt 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Artbristol 09:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversions concerning Wakefield's report

My recent edits were reverted with the accusation that they were dishonest. Ignoring WP:ATTACK, I would point out that everything that I put in to the article has been referenced in detail from the No.10 website and the NHS website. There it states quite clearly that the "authors concluded they had no evidence that the vaccine was responsible". Therefore, the fact that the article says that the report showed there was a link appears to be incorrect. This statement is, in any event, unreferenced.

What about the edits I am making do you have a problem with? GDallimore (Talk) 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page for my initial comments. To respond to your supposed reference, here it is in full context:

In 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield, then of the Royal Free Hospital in London, reported 12 children who had autism and bowel disease with onset after MMR. The authors concluded they had no evidence that the vaccine was responsible but this study was widely reported in the press, causing parents concern and confusion.

At a press conference Dr Wakefield suggested giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer. This suggestion was not supported by his 12 co-authors nor by any scientific evidence.

The truth is that the Wakefield report did imply that that onset of autism and bowel disorder were coincident with the MMR Vaccination. Wakefield went on to speak based on this implication. The report was retracted when almost all of the coauthors came to reject this implication and the effect it had on public health.
Your edits seem to be phrased such that they will instill a certain point of view to the article. See WP:NPOV. The point of view you espouse is already well-enthroned at Vaccine controversy#The MMR controversy. A simple, brief, reference to it will suffice in the MMR article. You cannot get around the fact that Wakefield tried to tie the vaccine to autism. You also have failed to include all the dozens of references which clear MMR even from bowel disease, much less autism. In these ways, your edits seem intended to establish a plausible connection between MMR and autism, which is WP:OR and various other WP:BAD THINGS. Heathhunnicutt 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You could just change it to read something which conforms to your own reference. If you acknowledge that Wakefield's report: studied children who reportedly had onset of autism and bowel disorder after MMR vaccination; has been repudiated by further independent research; has been retracted by all reachable authors other than Wakefield; has been the source of and subject of the MMR/autism controversy; please see detailed controversy article. Heathhunnicutt 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:GDallimore
You are attempting to strengthen the assertions that MMR Vaccine is associated with autism. ([31]) This issue has been repeatedly hashed on the article's discussion page. There is already an article to the Vaccine controversy#The MMR controversy, and your link from "Adverse Effects" section has been allowed to remain. However, your continued insistance that Wakefield's report has not been retracted and did not make an association to autism is disingenuous. Your edits reflect a non-neutral POV, see WP:NPOV. Please desist from making POV-based edits to the article. Your most recent edit comment was "reverted per talk" -- although there is no such discussion on any talk page that I have checked. Heathhunnicutt 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I'm laughing. I contend that my edits do exactly the opposite. The version of the article I edited implied that the paper DID show a link between MMR and autism. This was the main implication that I intended to remove in my edits. The other problem I had with the article was that autism was mentioned under "adverse effects", when it clearly isn't and nowhere in the established literature on MMR is autism listed as an adverse effect.

Surely you can see that my edits actually move the article away from the POV that you insist I am trying to promote? If not, you need to read them more carefully before reverting. For example, my edits did not say that the conclusion of the report hasn't been retracted, but that the authors didn't reach such a conclusion in the first place, so their retraction is merely a formal distancing from the controversy. GDallimore (Talk) 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the confusion. Yes, the original paper showed a link between the "incidence" of MMR and autism, since the jab and the signs of autism appear at around the same stage of development. What the paper DIDN'T say is that the MMR was to blame. That was purely Wakefield's statement at a press conference. GDallimore (Talk) 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really agree with you. The paper studied the association of MMR with autism and bowel disorder, and whether they demonstrated that MMR was the cause, they did assert that there was an association. This assertion is inherent in their study population. It is quite common to assert an association without assert a mechanism, or cause. In fact, the assertion of an association has led to further research attempting to find a mechanism. I think you are splitting too-fine hairs and inadvertently lending credence to Wakefield. Just go ahead and say that the paper implied an association; that implication is inherent in the study. Considering that the effects of the publication and Wakefield's subsequent statements were to inexorably link the two, and that Wakefield was the lead author, and the inherenet assumption in the study... weakening the description of the report seems like "Apologia." Heathhunnicutt 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What you have written here does not match your edit history, does it? Here is the edit you established to which you have tried to revert: [32]

This is the section header, top-level, which you added: Association with bowel disease and autism

In which you wrote:

In the UK, the vaccine was the subject of controversy after the publication of a 1998 paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield reporting 12 children who had autism and bowel disease with onset after MMR. The authors concluded they had no evidence that the vaccine was responsible ....

These are the statements you have written which seem to me rather anti-vaccinationist POV. For one thing, there is no "association with bowel disease and autism" there is a "retraced paper by Wakefield claiming such an association." Heathhunnicutt 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So now you're accusing me of lying? Read the bloody sentence: The authors concluded they had no evidence that the vaccine was responsible. The entire scetion you quote was in fact lifted directly from the No.10 website, which might be offensive due to copyright violation, but you cannot accuse me of violating NPOV as a result.
Accepted that maybe the heading was a bit misleading, but it's certainly better than having it under "adverse effects" and if you actually read the content I added, you'll see that the conclusion is there is NO such association. So change the section heading to just "bowel disease and autism", if you want, don't revert a fully referenced and accurate discussion. You're seeing demons and dangers everywhere because there's so much misiniformation about this topic when in fact I'm the angel coming to remove the last vestiges of that misinformation.GDallimore (Talk) 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles exist on various things - leave this as one on the MMR vaccine

Otherwise WP heads for having many, essentially identical and repetitive pages, rather than focussing on individual topics. Midgley 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please let's tone the section on Wakefield back down to 3 sentences in one paragraph and a "See MMR Controversy" link. Heathhunnicutt 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And what more sensible place to discuss people's concerns about the MMR vaccine than this article? Think about it. Non-wikipedians wanting to know if MMR are safe are going to go to the MMR article, not some article on Wakefield or about vaccines in general. I think that the other articles should link here, not vice-versa but, in light of vicious response to my edits, have not yet undone what I see as a bad edit (made by an individual without consensus, as far as I an tell from the history) from some time ago to redirect people from this article to "MMR Controversy" - NB I did not add the link, I merely moved it out of the main text into a "main article" heading, so that once this article had a solid discussion of the issue, the other articles could be more easily linked here.
Heathhunnicutt seems to be waging a personal vendetta against my edits without giving any cogent reasons as to why and without apparently reading what I've been saying. Quite how my edits could be viewed as anti-vaccination as Heathhunnicutt has been advertising widely on other people's talk pages, I'm not sure.
Personally I think that, with a topic that people have such strong feelings about, it is vitally important that it is seen to be NPOV both for and against the vaccine. At present, it is too pro-vaccine so conspiracy theorists (such as whale dot to) will just dismiss the article as government and corporate sponsored propaganda when we all surely want the well-researched fact that MMR is safe to appear reliable. Let's make sure not to give ammunition to those who strongly hold the other POV and would like to discredit those whole support MMR. I mean, look at the current headings "MMR immunization eliminated historical epidemics". I'm not saying it didn't, but it's very POV to headline such a fact in a section heading. It also breaches WP:HEAD as I previously mentioned before my edits were reverted with the "explanation" that the heading should be more descriptive (how is "history" not descriptive?) or that the mere words "autism and bowel disease" were promoting a POV (?!). GDallimore (Talk) 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"And what more sensible place to discuss people's concerns about the MMR vaccine than this article? Think about it." -- OK:
  • The article is the most sensible place for people's factually-founded concerns about the MMR vaccine, such as real adverse effects.
  • It is important not to create any further confusion about the not-factually-founded autism/MMR concern, so it surely must be mentioned.
  • Given the Wakefield publication too much coverage in the MMR article lends it too much credibility.
This last is my main concern with your edits -- they seem to lend credibility to the Wakefield report. I realize now that you originally used material from an NHS publication, and so I believe you inadvertently captured the concilliatory 'spin' NHS had added to that particular communication to the public. I think that you pursue a misleading argument over semantics when you beg the question of how explicitly the Wakefield publication drew a conclusion connecting autism to MMR. Consider that it was a study of infants with autism or autism-like disorders, reportedly with onset subsequent to MMR vaccination and consistent with some causal connection between the two. Think about that. Why would you want to argue that the paper made a connection to primarily bowel disease and only by implication of study design to autism?
For what it is worth, here is my POV. I think it is slightly frightening that we use weakened neurotropic virus for vaccine in little children. It is known that there is a 9/100,000 rate of neurological consequences. Consider that the Wakefield study was on 12 cases. How did they recruit those cases? Getting back to my POV, I would rather see that rate decline, and I believe the vaccines could be reinvented with modern techniques. Also about my POV, I think Wakefield is not the ogre you described him as in talk pages. I personally believe he means well and may have observed something signigicant, but not a connection with autism. There must be some difficulty in discerning the difference in infants between autism and some other neurological problem. What is autism, after all? Of course more recent research into genetics is starting to reveal what precisely the majority cause of autism.
I think it is important that people have the facts on MMR, and just the facts. The most important fact is that not getting the vaccinations is dangerous. The article needs to make more of the modern Mumps outbreaks. The next most important fact is what the vaccination is, literally speaking. The next most important facts are the low-likelihood things such as adverse effects, and then come untrue controversies. Somewhere in there should be a section on economic impact and cost vs. benefit, probably right after ingredients and right above unlikely side-effects.
I do not agree that WP:NPOV requires that we include both "sides" of this argument in the MMR Vaccine article. Both sides are fairly represented on the Vaccine Controversies article. The only side that leads to WP:NPOV in a factual article is the factual side.
  • Does MMR have any connection to bowel disease?
No, that is not a known fact, although much research has been attempted to establish it as a fact.
  • Does MMR lead to autism?
No that is not a known fact, although much research has been attempted to establish it as a fact.
  • Did Wakefield publish a report that misled a lot of people?
Yes, that is a widely known fact and there is an article all about that.
Which of the above should this article, about MMR Vaccine, contain?
Only the last one, about the Wakefield report, is a fact.
The MMR article should report only on the fact that the publication was made and retracted, led to a lot controversy, don't worry about the details, here's an article with more.
Your edits bother me because they seem to be introducing little "connections" to the MMR-autism-whackos. Your introduction of the topic of bowel disease, re. the Wakefield report, is one such example. This little detail is not something the uninformed parent would likely already be seeking after, but you provide it. The most rigorous scientific literature (that I have found searching PubMed) has failed to find evidence for this bowel disease/enterocolitis being connected with Measles, Mumps, or Rubella strain DNAs. So the bowel disease/MMR connection is right now mostly thought to be untrue, and not that often referenced. Why add the detail, then, when it seems to lend support to the Wakefield publication? Why finesse the connection drawn to autism and highlight the look at bowel disease, which was not a retracted interpretation but which has not been supported by qualified subsequent research?
This page has been through a number of POV wars, and I will tell you that I have a tuned ear when I read this article. Making connections to unsubstantiated interpretations from the Wakefield report is a tactic that has been applied to this article in the past; in general, strengthening the assertions between this article and the Wakefield study has been widely discouraged.
Heathhunnicutt 19:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Urabe Mumps additions from an IP address

I did what I could with the material that was added relating to this news article: [33], which is now a reference of the article. In particular, the use of Urabe in UK seems to have concluded prior to the Wakefield study. Anyway, this is a call to editors to do more with the material that was added today. Heathhunnicutt 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I just removed more material. This material from the same IP address inserted references and assertions that deaths from measles were declining prior to the advent of immunization. That may be, but the decline in infections is more relevant to the article. Arguing that the deaths were declining seems like more anti-vaccionationist. I am thinking that a page {{sprot}} may soon be in order, if anonymous edits like this continue. Anyway, I removed the irrelevant and uncited material. Heathhunnicutt 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WI-38 additions

Heathhunnicutt - I'm not interested in getting a username, nor credibility thank you. The username "DingBats" seems to be taken, but thanks for the suggestion. I suspect that you can name call this session's IP address just as effectively as you can disparage a username, so I'm not sure how it would help you. I'll check to see if the username "Misc UF Dialup IP Address" is available if that focal point will help.

I'm just trying to put together a piece on the current Gainesville Florida measles outbreak and was startled to see the aborted fetus issue glossed over. I'm also not interested in reading the acres of wasted pixels above. You guys can duke it out amongst yourselves. I'd prefer to fix the obvious as my caravan passes by and let you folks bark over the rest. Your rephrasing is fine although rather sanitized. 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear -- I am the person who added the needed citations (references) relating to the abortion issue. If not for my doing so, your material could have soon been removed from the article. As it happens, what you wrote is true, so it should remain and therefore I added the citations. I do not consider you, in any way, a dingbat. On the contrary, you are unusually informed on the subject of WI-38 and while sometimes that is a sign of an extremist of one sort or another, you might not be one of them. On the other hand, this article has been plagued by dingbats in the past (see above discussions) and I am a little concerned that your addition could lead to dingbat attacks. I have hopefully thwarted dingbat additions by linking to an article that should be more interesting to extremists. Sorry you took my edit comment (about 'dingbats') personally. Also, note that you are not the same person (or are you?) who made the additions about Urabe vaccine and Wakefield's report, and the above comments in the Urabe section did not apply to you. I wonder if you thought they might, because you seemed to reply to them. Heathhunnicutt 05:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in finding out real information from Wikipedia and am dismayed to find pages that suffer from extremist fighting. As someone who is trying to lead a religious and ethical life, I would like to be able to understand issues fully to help me decide how to weave my way through the land mines. Animal slaughter and abuse is an issue for me. Feticide is an issue for me. The use of dangerous chemicals, medications and procedures in the health care industry is an issue for me. I had never heard of anti-vaccinationists until yesterday, and I wouldn't put myself in that group (as of yet anyway).

So if a Wikipedia page can give the information that I need, then it's a good page as far as I'm concerned. Now that I understand the components of the MMR II, I will recommend to my friends to not use this vaccination to address this current measles outbreak, but to consider the use of Attenuvax by itself instead. There are still issues with Attenuvax: the use of eggs and especially the trace of "fetal bovine serum". However, the balance of 1) actual health issues related to getting the actual disease, 2) the animal death and suffering connected with the vaccination, 3) the use of poisonous or otherwise questionable additives, and 4) the hysteria of the local health department is easier to calculate if you remove the voluntarily aborted human fetal (had too many kids) lung tissue out of the equation. It might make it easier to make a compromise for some of us.

I got measles when I was a kid and my 13 year old daughter got it in Europe (and rubella, in Germany in fact) a couple of years ago so I'm spared that decision right now. However, as she gets older we will have to make decisions on some of the others such as mumps. It will cost too much to fly her to Canada to catch the mumps, and she's getting enough to potentially have unwanted complications. She's also getting old enough to be discriminated against with respect to school admissions etc. She personally knew someone who died a horrible death as the result of a school forced vaccination (after a year of suffering, heart valve replacements, etc). Arguments of one in so many thousands, blah, blah, blah, understandably don't hold a lot of sway after something like that.

So I hope that Wikipedia will help me when we need to think about these things again and not be muddied by foolish and blind faith in the omniscient scientists and/or the rambling of the anti-vaccinationists. Formerly, now 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is A-OK to add the information to an article if it satisfies the following requirements:

  • True
  • Verified and with citations that are appropriate
  • Relevant to the article subject material

In the case of MMR Vaccine, this is a factual article that does not cover the philosophical issues related to the use of vaccines. There are many reasons this is so but the only important reason is that philosophical issues can be multiplied to the limits of human imagination and are rarely relevant to all readers. For this reason, philosophical issues are best handled in their own encyclopedia article.

As such, you should expect to find information on the philosophy of using fetal tissue in vaccines at the article Vaccination and religion. At the article MMR Vaccine, you should expect to find verifiably true statements about the vaccine itself. I hope that helps you find the information you seek and also helps you know where to contribute the information you feel should be added.

I am not sure why you seem disturbed by the recent page edits. The results of this discussion has been the addition of the following material to the page:

The Rubella component, Meruvax, is propagated using a human cell line (WI-38, named for the Wistar Institute) derived in 1961 from the tissue of a fetus that was aborted.[3][4][5] The use of cell lines derived from aborted tissue has led to some religious controversy.

Heathhunnicutt 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your adjustments were fine, that it was missing at all is part of the issue. It only said that animal tissue was required, and the human tissue and its origin was conspicuously absent. Somewhat separately, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth through out the talk page isn't a good indicator of a healthy page. Since I'm not particularly reading it all I know know whose "fault" it is and it doesn't matter anyway. For me, I guess I pontificate and grandstand at a low threshold.
The line: "The use of cell lines derived from aborted tissue has led to some religious controversy." doesn't hurt, but isn't necessary in my view. If it is unobscured that aborted human fetus are involved in MMR production, that's probably enough. However many people, once understanding the abortion connection, might naturally want to consider whatever contoversy there may be, so a reference and a link may fit. (Though not really rising to "religious" in my word view, but more of a moral/ethical issue: pre-religious.)
Suggested improvement: Make clear what Propagation Medium and Growth Medium are and how they are used. I still don't quite get what happens. The starter cells are placed on the propagation medium, which appears to be required for the cells grow and multiply. Then a growth medium is applied in some manner which provides nutrient type stuff and other necessities for growth. So roughly: take a chunk of human cells, stick a few rubella cells on it and feed them some other stuff. After waiting, harvest the new cells and start over. Was, then, now AlachuaWala 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is why the information on human cells was not called out explicitly when the formulation section was written. (Although WI-38 and WI RA-27/3 have been noted on the article since the formulation section was written.) When I added the "Development, Formulation, blah, blah" section the article was undergoing a wide-ranging edit war over the Vaccine controversy surrounding Dr. Andrew Wakefield's article connecting the MMR vaccine to autism. I was trying to push for a page that had more to do with the vaccine and less to do with the controversies. I feel that the controversies are usually better addressed on disjoint controversy-centric articles. Considering the environment around the article at that time, I did not entertain the idea of explicitly noting the use of human fetal tissue from abortion by-product. At the time, I hoped some future editor would introduce the material, so that citations could be added backing it up. Less than a year later, that has taken place. The Wikipedia is catching up to these issues faster than most other media that I experience.
To answer your questions about the material: the growth medium is a fluid or gel that the propagation cells "eat". In this case, the growth medium is like a substitute for the usual blood that would provide the human cells with nutrients, etc. Imagine a petri dish with the propagation cells in it and the growth medium poured over it. I am not sure at which stage they add the virus, which I believe they get by taking the original infected cells and lysing them, then filtering out the particles bigger than viruses and centrifuging down the virus. Anyway, the WI RA-27/3 human cells are those which originally hosted the Rubella virus. At some point the virus was isolated from those cells and from then on it is only propagated in whatever medium -- in this case WI-38 lung tissue. The WI RA-27/3 was a therapeutic (medical cause due to congenital Rubella infection), but WI-38 was "elective" -- all that is according to sources I have not verified fully, especially the bit about WI-38. I would add all this to the article, but it would be a project to go find all the citations. If you ever have a citation you want to add and need help doing it, let me know. In a sense, finding citations is the most important work that can be done on the Wikipedia. Anyway, without the citations, this explanation is my original research and there is a policy that I can't just add it to the article.
It is also because I want to direct the controversy to another article that I created the contrived statement on religious controversy. As long as there is some link to a page relevant to this controversy, I am satisfied. Sadly, Vaccines and fetal tissue was RfD'd long ago. Heathhunnicutt 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)