Talk:Generation Rescue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Can we get a lock or something on this thread? This is the second time I've reverted the file after an unregistered user removed the entire criticism section. It's not particularly impressive or well-done, but this sort of vandalism is exactly what gives wikis bad names in the first place. It's getting old, particularly given the amount of possible issues this group has. 198.30.95.209 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - Gattsuru

Contents

[edit] Geni

Let me guess, User:Geni is at work here again, confusing his own opinion and tendentious rhetoric for neutral presentation of an issue. Without a doubt, he'll simply revert my edits without explaining them. He still hasn't taken me up on the challenge of injecting himself with thimerosal, by the way. --Leifern 03:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

nah reverting you on this oacasion would make no sense since the previous version was also POV. Now I fail to see what your "challange" has to do with anything at what it will atchive. Still if Leifern will start by finding a source for thimerosal we can disscuss it further.Geni 04:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have decided on your own that the public should be kept in the dark about the controversy surrounding thimerosal; if you feel it is so safe that patients don't need to provide informed consent, you should put your own health at stake. Just write to the quackwatch guy, and I'm sure one of his MD friends who still have a medical license (he doesn't) can prescribe it for you. --Leifern 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Cream

Could someone please provide a reference for the "magic cream" statement? Seems derogatory POV. Becca77Talk/Email 05:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You go a source.Geni 05:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As it turns out, the original description of the cream was completely misleading and probably intended to give the reader the impression that this was akin to snake oil. Nobody is asserting that the cream is magical; but one person appears to think that the effects are like magic (the same way someone with pneumonia might feel about antibiotics). --Leifern 23:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darryn Sikora's opinion on websites

Undoubtedly, we can find any number of opinions on any number of websites that present information on any side of this and other matters. Darryn Sikora is a psychologist and has less professional basis than I do to opine on the "slickness" of a website. Including such quotes is bad practice and sets the precendence for any number of opinions. It should stay out. --Leifern 17:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I kinda though that too, but since I am new at this I didn't want to cause any problems. The quote doesn't seem to fit. Becca77Talk/Email 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
they are in a position where some level of knowlage of autism is required. Thus the quote is relivant.Geni 23:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
There must be hundreds of psychologists and other self-proclaimed "experts" out there in this field (I have met a fair share, and most are useless). Sikora's quote is ambiguous (is "slick" good or bad?) and addresses none of the substantive issues related to what the website is trying to relate. The quote goes out and stays out. --Leifern 14:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to substantiate vs. substantiate

Geni and anyone else who cares to read this:

  • The word "substantiate" does not mean to prove or conclusively persuade. It means to give weight to an assertion by presenting facts and logic. It could constitute anything from anecdotal evidence to reams of evidence. An attorney in a criminal case substantiates his or her case by presenting facts in the form of evidence, but so does his/her adversary.
  • The sentence as it's phrased speaks of the organization's intent, not whether it is successful or not.

In other words, inserting the term "attempts to" is at best just adding wordiness and is at worst an attempt to discredit the organization by adding weasel words. In either case, it has no place in this article.--Leifern 19:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I still disspute that they even do that. As such attempt to is correct. Otherwise you are stateing an opinion as fact.Geni 22:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I hate to break this to you, Geni, (although I guess it's time someone did) but your "dispute" carries absolutely no weight here. It is only your opinion. I think this is the first time I've seen someone so blatantly admit to a POV bias. --Leifern 23:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


Geni - Leifern is correct. Substantiate means "try to verify information" or "try to establish with evidence". Adding the words "in an attempt" is just plain redundant. Wikipedia calls that weasel words. See: Weasel_word and Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms. Becca77Talk/Email 23:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


You rule out the posibilty that they are trying to appeal to people's emotions. There is no legit way to do this. Leifern. You owe me for an irony meter.Geni 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I went to gen rescue site. Counted 26 scientific papers posted on their site. Since Wikipedia doesn't like "weasel" terms (the word "some"), should the article state that they have collected 26 scientific articles? If so, the entire sentance needs re-arranged because as it stands it will read "26 scientific papers, opinions and journalism" which is misleading. It would have to say "collected opinion pieces, journalistic reports and over 2 dozen scientific papers" if the article is to be accurate. Becca77Talk/Email 06:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
How about inserting "and various" after the scietific papers bit?Geni 06:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of See Also links

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't found a unified policy regard the number of See Also links in Wikipedia. In fact, most articles directly or indirectly reference a large number of links of relevance, and I don't think that Ombudsman's links constitute clutter or abuse. If the selection seems biased, there is nothing to prevent you or someone else from adding links that balance it out. So on the premise that we'd rather provide more than less information to the reader, I'm reverting to Ombudsman's version. Before reverting that again, please respond to this entry. --Leifern 11:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See also is supposed to be to the point. A brief look at any article created or patrolled by Ombudsman reveals that he tries to maximise linking to his own "article series" of vaccine skepticism. The links are always the same (2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference is always there). Generation Rescue is not directly involved in the Thimerosal debate, otherwise the article would mention this.
InvictaHOG (talk • contribs) recently narrowed down this use of "see also" on numerous articles, and Ombudsman advanced no specific arguments for reinclusion other than rv: gratuitous deletions (which is untrue because this has been discussed).
I will await your response, but I feel strongly that the removal was justified. JFW | T@lk 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there's any question that Generation Rescue is involved in the thimerosal debate - in fact, their founding is based entirely on the premise that thimerosal is causing or contributing to pediatric neurological disorders. If that isn't clear in the article, then that's a shortcoming in the article, not in the links. It may well be that Ombudsman is inserting those links that he feels furthers his pov; but the remedy for that isn't necessarily fewer links. Also, each of the articles he references should pass their own NPOV requirements - in principle, links should be deleted for lack of relevance, not for bias. --Leifern 13:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
With the usual paucity of comments, Ombudsman kindly integrated thimerosal and vaccine controversy into the article body. Naturally, this proves my point that the remainder cannot be integrated into the article, and I have therefore removed the remainder of them. If "see also" is used to chase a user around all anti-vaccine articles then the obvious remedy is indeed fewer links. The relevance is minimal for most, and that is the bias. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chelation therapy for autism

Leifern writes that chelation therapy is standard "medical" practice for autism. True, chelation therapy is standard care for lead poisoning, but my sense is that it is far from accepted medical practice for autism. Just because mercury "poisoning" has been posited as a basis for autism, one cannot say that this also by extension "medically" validates the use of chelation. Andrew73 14:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: chelation is not in itself an alternative form of medicine (whatever that means, anyway). It is indeed indicated for heavy metal poisoning. The premise for its use for autism is that many cases of the condition are caused by heavy metal poisoning; if one is convinced that premise is true, chelation would be indicated as part of mainstream medicine. The controversy rests on the premise of whether autism is caused or aggrevated by heavy metal poisoning, not on chelation per se. This is why this sentence must be precise. --Leifern 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Bollocks. Just because someone is delusional enough to believe that a standard care for one condition will be useful for another condition does not make it standard for that second condition.--Ensrifraff 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the clarification, but to again be precise, the use of chelation therapy in the setting of autism is alternative in as much as the view that autism is caused by heavy metal poisoning. Andrew73 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian thimerosal study

Someone should update the page to reflect the new McGill University study published in the Journal Pediatrics. Researchers found no correlation between thimerosal and autism, although they did note that there was a higher prevalence of autism in the subjects who did not receive thimerosal-containing vaccines. The full article can be found here. The citation is:

Eric Fombonne, Rita Zakarian, Andrew Bennett, Linyan Meng, and Diane McLean-Heywood Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations Pediatrics, Jul 2006; 118: e139 - e150.

Hopefully this should put this so-called "controversy" to rest. (the preceding unsigned comment was left by user:68.83.221.88) 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

lol...reports of the imminent demise of the thimerosal controversy are premature, not to mention just plain dead wrong. Eric Fombonne's erroneous conclusions are nothing more than the product of a preordained outcome, not unexpectly in keeping with the serious conflict of interest problems characterizing the credibility of virtually all of the drug industy's thinly veiled attempts at fabricating exculpatory evidence. Ombudsman 00:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course since the guy works for a hospital that line of attack is unlikely to work.Geni 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, young Canadian autistic kids don't really exist. Fombonne just made them up. Neurodivergent 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since 1931

There is no reason to think that autism did not exist before 1931 as JB Handley strongly asserts.[citation needed]

I'm not sure Handley ever said that. There are others who say that a lot. Neurodivergent 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not that is exactly what he said is somewhat of a red herring. His point is what matters, and his point is quite simple. There is virtually no historical evidence that the symptoms most commonly associated with severe autistic spectrum disorders existed to any significant extent, much less in anything approaching the current autism epidemic levels. A collateral allergy epidemic has also emerged in recent years. The epidemics happen to coincide with the vast increase in the use of thimerosal and the extreme crowding of vaccination schedules. The overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that vaccines and other environmental insults, including dangerous vaccine additives (such as ethylmercury and ever more powerful adjuvants), have at the very least significantly fueled the raging epidemics of allergies and neurological disorders. Ombudsman 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a long answer for a simple fact-check. But if you want to argue that... There were no epidemiological studies of autism before the 1960s, so you can't say either way that there was no autism or how little autism there was. And besides, there is evidence that autism existed long before it was recognized. Before the 1940s, autism was called feeblemindedness, and what we call HFA today was probably not given a medical label. Even after the 1940s, autism was often missed; nowadays people have to look for specialists to make a proper diagnosis. The "epidemic" of autism has basically only occurred since the early 1990s. You say it coincides with an increase of the thimerosal dose per child. The coincidence is not clear, but let's grant that. The problem is that the subsequent decrease of the thimerosal dose per child to levels below those of the 1980s has not reversed the "epidemic" you refer to, and it clearly won't. You have to find a new theory then. Valid "overwhelming evidence" of the kind you speak of does not exist at all. Neurodivergent 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various 'Official' sounding users

The criticisms and Rescue Angel sections are well sourced and accurate. It is not your right, or place, to make wholesale edits because they don't support your viewpoint. Please feel free to discuss here what your issues are so that a compromise can be reached. KevLeitch 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Having responses to criticism is reasonable, appropriate, and typical.

[edit] Protected

This article is now protected. Please discuss in this talk page and try and find some common ground to enable you to move forward without engaging in edit wars. When you are ready to resume editing, ot if you want to contest this protection, you can place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to whomever whined about changes

This article was materially improved upon:

- Much more information

- Far more objective

- Criticisms were categorized and responses given

The KevLeitch above simply saved a version from more tha na month ago and called it good. My proposal is that KevLeit edit the more recent version using Wiki standards, rather than reverting back to a version with far less information.

Respectfully,

HQ Staff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.111.117 (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

It's interesting that your IP address resolves to Beaverton, Oregon. You wouldn't happen to be [**refactored**] himself, would you? -- DaveSeidel 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please respect privacy of users. If that IP belongs to that person it is against policy to disclose. I have refactored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. However, it seems relevant if the disputed edits originate from the person who runs the organization that is the subject of the article. This person can hardly be expected to contribute NPOV material. Interested readers can always look at the history of this page. -- DaveSeidel 12:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi:

We think the goal of locking a page is to resolve a conflict. My position would be that the page has been materiall improved, as cited above, from the page that people are trying to save back to. So, our proposal to unlock would be to:

- Revert to the page that Headquarters Staff last saved which is far more complete and allows responses to criticisms. From there, anyone interested in enhancing NPOV should feel more than free to do so.

And, I;m not affiliated with the group, FYI. I happen to support their position, but feel most strongly that the Wiki page about them should be balanced and present both sides. The person above who writes and the people who have created all this noise violently disagree with the orgnaization in question and seem unwilling to allow a balanced Wiki page to exist. This is unreasonable. Jossi, since you are willing to take the time to be involved here, please read the "Old" saved page and the "New" saved page and make a judgment call - we'll agree to start with whatever page you deem more Wiki.

SWW

The problem with the criticism section is that it is unsourced. The responses to criticism are also unsourced. For material to remain unchallenged in an article, it needs to be supported by verifiable reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi:

We would recommend the current version, the newer edits that Headquarters Staff put up, remain.

We would recommend the criticisms section be deleted in its current form. And, if anyone wants to add in sourced criticisms or responses, they should feel free to do so.

I've seen no reply from the other side, Ithink they are just trying to make this diffucut.

SWW

I will unprotect and remove all unsourced material. Editors can then endeavor to add material that is properly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub

I have unprotected the article and removed all unsourced or poorly sourced material. The article as it stands in not compliant with Wikipedia content policies as it is based solely in primary sources, so editors are welcome to find reliable, third party sources to support the current material and any new material. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording and re-organizing

I made some changes recently that, at least at first glance, look to be pretty extensive. However, it was more an action of shuffling and condensing in order to bring the article more in line with Wikipedia standards. Without removing criticisms or responses to the criticisms, I tried to shorten the sections as well as split things up into sub-sections. References are a bit more organized too, although there are a number of citations lacking on both "sides" of the issues. Any thoughts or comments on anything here? -- Tim D 12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Talk%7EGeneration_Rescue_ef19.html"