Talk:Thiomersal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
[edit] Cleanup
The article is yet again a mess. It deserves the cleanup tag. --Leifern 16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say it still does - there's FAR too many links, at the very least. Michael Ralston 11:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The MSDS links, in the Toxicology section, appear to be broken. At least, all I see are blank pages. I've tried 4 different browsers all with the same result. Perhaps they should be replaced with links to:
-
- http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/highlytoxic.html (for the highly toxic designation)
-
- or
-
- http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/chip.html (for both info on both T+ and N) Earthsound 21:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- The link to the MSDS under the Material Safety Data Sheet section is also not working. I found 18 results for Thimerosal at msdsxchange.com. The 1st result for Eli Lilly and Company is here:
-
- Oxford University's MSDS on thimerosal is available at http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/TH/thimerosal.html.
-
- Also, according to that MSDS, some of the info listed in the chemical infobox is wrong. For example, the chemical name in the data sheet is "Mercurate(1-), ethyl[2-(mercapto-kappaS)benzoato(2-)-kappa0]-, sodium".
-
- Some interesting studies and/or analyses on the subject:
-
- TOXNET (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/) is a great resource, especially their HSDB.
- Earthsound 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC) & again Earthsound 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- TOXNET (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/) is a great resource, especially their HSDB.
-
-
-
- Well, it seems the current MSDS main link is working, but the symbol links aren't. *shrug* Earthsound 22:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Trying to help
I have only edited a few articles, but I have dove into this one because it is so disorganized and hard to read. It is all over the place. There is no flow of information. I removed alot of redundant /irrelevant infomation. I hope this is ok. I know it can be reverted back to the old way if needed so I can't be doing too much damage :)
For instance, there was a long synopsis of the article Deadly Immunity. I changed it to a short summary and left the link to the original article for the reader to come up with their own conclusions. There were also criticisms of they Kennedy article, but without the long synopsis the criticisms were out of place so I bulleted the criticisms and provided the links.
Hope that is ok. This is kinda fun. Becca77 21:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Oh boy
I really rearranged ALOT. Hope that is ok. Maybe I should work on some other articles for awhile? The thimerosal one still needs alot of organizing between sections 2-5. Becca77 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Cleaned out lots, intending on putting some back - needs to be reorganized/condensed/rewriten Becca77 14:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Need help with links
I'm still new at Wikipedia. Would like input. Does anyone think we should try to tame all the external links? Maybe change font size to 85%? Or add a news links section, opinions section, published studies section, etc? Or prune some out? It looks disorganized.
-
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style Wikipedia:Guide to layout Becca77 01:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anyone?
Trying to read Wiki policy on external links. Wikipedia:External links Learning alot. I've noticed the studies cited in the "References" section of the article page could not have been used to create the text of the article. The references to the article text already have the outside links at the end of the sentences/paragraphs etc. These are good studies, however. I propose we change the section heading to "Published studies" instead of "References" and reduce the font, clean up the titles of article to make easier on the eyes.
I know there has to be someone watching this article :) What do you think? I want to start pruning but don't want to step on someones toes. I'll wait a day or so for someone to answer before I start to do anything. Becca77 14:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about that; I've been watching from the shadows, applauding quietly. Keep up the good work! Perhaps "Bibliography" or "Further reading" for the additional material that's not actually referenced? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thanks :) I changed it to Further Reading. I have questions - what is the length of this article supposed to be? Is does Wikipedia have a specified length for their articles? How many links are appropriate? Becca77 19:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- There's no hard and fast rule on either issue. As long as the layout is comprehensible and sensible and the article doesn't descend into rambling, bickering or trivia, the length can continue to grow. If an article becomes unmanageably long, individual sections can be spun off into separate subarticles. (This happens frequently for country articles and long biographies, for example.) Generally we try to limit article size to somewhere in the range of thirty to sixty kB, but some grow beyond that. (If you want to break off subarticles, it's a good idea to discuss it first on the article's talk page.) I'll note that George W. Bush is about 90 kB long.
- The number of external links is a bit of a judgement call. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a web directory, but informative external links can add to the value of an article. If an article has more than twenty or thirty entries in its 'External links' section, I'd be inclined to start pruning. Different people have different philosophies, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I was hoping to balance out the POV of the links. Trying to make sure both sides are represented equally. If it isn't equal I think it will just be a matter of time before they are messy again. Right now there are 43 links in the external links section. That's not including any links to outside info in the article text. Should I take some out? Which ones? They are all pretty good links. Becca77 22:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think I'm pooped-out working on this one. I don't know if it's worthy of the clean up tag being removed yet, but I'm pretty much done. Someone else can take over :) Becca77 04:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Edit/revert wars?
User Geni has repeatedly remove wholesale sections with little or no discussion or grouns except "NPOV" on this page and at least one other vaccine-related page. According to the edit comment by Leifern this is vandalism. Are this kind of edit/revert wars just a fact of Wikipedia which happens and the more persistent one wins, or are there more rational tools to resolve issues like this? Jkpjkp 08:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome to talk pages. This is our first line of resolving casual edit arguments (there are many layers and options). Wikilove dictates that when an article starts pushing a POV, we *should* try to talk about talk about it, and if possible, find language that everybody can agree upon. For example, the financial interest arguments that have been reverted portray lawsuit issues, and could be seen as POV pushing for portraying the issue as "big pharma" vs. "poor victims", rather than "opportunistic lawyers" vs. pharma, or whatever (as there are many POV's). So, the avenue to take for major edits (say, more than one or two words) would be to make the edit, and then explain the edit on a talk page. That way, a revert can be discussed, or the language can be approved, or improved.. Ronabop 13:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ethylmercury into the tissue, etc.
User:Geni seems to believe that it is POV to contend that "ethylmercury is introduced straight into the tissue of children with undeveloped immune and neurological system" and then reverts all edits with this sentence, including copy edits. The wholesale edit has been reported as vandalism, but I want to take issue with the view that the sentence is POV. It is true that ethylmercury is introduced straight into the tissue of young children with these vaccines, and it is true that these children have undeveloped immune and neurological systems. It is only POV if these are inconvenient facts. --Leifern 12:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I note that your edits have had more substantial claims than that, but lets address that one sentence, for the sake of brevity. How is that statement different from "saline is introduced straight into the tissue of children with undeveloped immune and neurological system"? You seem to be implying that ethylmercury could or would have a substantial effect of some type on an "undeveloped immune and neurological system", which is not a NPOV AFAICT. Perhaps you could rephrase with something like: "ethylmercury is introduced straight into the tissue of children, and some advocates would argue that this has an effect on the immune and neurological systems of small children". In short, the sentence in question implies some form of causation.
-
- A reader may draw that inference, but that doesn't mean the implication is made. --Leifern 15:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Either way, if one passage seems POV to someone, it's hardly reasonable to repeatedly revert half a dozen changes. Reading Wikipedia:NPOV, the rational and wikipedia thing to do when seeing something which one thinks is POV, seems to be to try and rewrite the passage to be NPOV. Jkpjkp 19:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- In addition, edit conflicts are generally simpler to manage when only a few sentences are changed... some editors are touchy when they see large numbers of changes. Ronabop 13:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Hey, be bold! Looking over your edits, maybe an article on "Thimerosol (social commentary)" would be a good place to put all of that info? The info isn't lost that way. Cleanup can mean deletion, new articles, etc. Ronabop 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think what I did (or tried to do) was consolidate all the long stuff that went off topic & moved it into the links section. Also - I wanted to put in something about the the case in Texas where Judge Ward got the 2004 IOM internal transcript that showed the meeting was predetermined not find causality between vaccines and autism. And how Judge Ward ordered the vaccine manufacturers to produce all documents relating to payments made or stock ownership by the IOM panel for the Immunization & Saftey Review committee. But I cannot find any references to this in the mainstream news media. Becca77Talk/Email 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No worries, Becca77. Sometimes Wikipedia articles need a good solid shaking out by a new editor. Information is all still in the article history for anyone that needs it.
- Wikipedia articles have a nasty habit of creeping growth; editors will in passing add a sentence here and a paragraph there, sometimes to push a particular viewpoint but often just because they think the article needs the info. Eventually we end up with a jumbled mess, and someone needs to sort and trim. I'd say that the tempest in a teacup above is mostly between Geni and Leifern and doesn't really have much to do with your own work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can't at short notice think of any problems with Becca77 edits.Geni 15:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
It seems to me that "straight into the tissue" sounds POV, it strikes me of having elements of hysterical speech (for the record, I am personally undecided on the controversy). For example, if saying someone was hit in the eye, the npov way to say it would be "hit in the eye" and NOT "hit right in the eye." The latter feels like it has an invisible exclamation point at the end of it. What's wrong with "into the tissue," or for that matter, simply "into children," or "injecting children with?" I mean, of COURSE its injected into their tissue - where else would it be injected, their clothing? The only reason I can think that the word "tissue" might be necessary is if the critics are concerned for some reason that it is injected into muscle or fat rather than into the bloodstream or digestive tract where some sort of metabolism of it would take place - I frankly doubt that that's the case, though - I doubt people critical of injecting mercury into children would be OK with it being administered IV... but if I'm wwrong on that point, then the word "tissue" might be needed. Also, then, the reason for that concern over IV, etc. should be explained. If that's not the issue (as I suspect), then its just there to trigger emotions. "Straight" shouldn't be needed in either case. Jafafa Hots 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I should add, overall this article looks pretty good. I was expecting something along the lines of the bigfoot article - that one is scary! Jafafa Hots 17:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There was a discussion earlier about what kind of injection it was, whether it was subcatenous, intramuscular, intravenous, etc. The term "tissue" was the compromise we ended up with. The phrase is in the context of the charges made by those who are critical of thimerosal, and "straight into" would be a reasonable paraphrasing of what they think. They usually express themselves even more strongly, but we are trying to capture the essence of their views, not the polemic flavor. --Leifern 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asserting views
Geni- first of all, you are making an assumption - that is not what Wiki is about. Second, casewatch/quackwatch and Steven Barnett are NOT creditble sources to use as references. StarBucks 17:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence for either of your claims?Geni 19:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Sure I can back up my "claims". As for my claim that you are asserting your own views see: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view under the heading "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?" and "What is the neutral point of view?" As for quackwatch/casewatch/Barrett see: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]StarBucks 21:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- You are saying that court documents are not evidence? Quackwatch & ratbags are equally unreliable. Racketeering & SLAPP lawsuits? And what about asserting your views? You assume the Geiers motivation is money. You cannot write that in a Wikipedia article. If I feel like it is POV then I am certain others do too. It needs rewritten. The quackwatch reference is ridiculous. Read the CJR (a reputable source) about "smear campaigns" [13]. StarBucks 13:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- since all those cases were defested I'm going for yes. Ah yes crj alexa rank of 53,584. I feel bringing up acuastions of smear campians in this case is ..ironic.Geni 17:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have read quite a few articles in quackwatch and casewatch, and they clearly are opinion pieces written by someone who a) believes that an MD degree (though no longer a license) confers upon the holder some authority that really shouldn't be questioned; b) uses sources selectively and anecdotal evidence when it's convenient; and c) knows very little about science. It's a blog that sometimes has useful information and other times is out to lunch. The fact that so few medical doctors are signing up with this guy sort of proves the point. The argument about Geier's financial interests is ridiculous, for the simple reason that it would condemn everyone who made a living by pursuing their passions suspect. I'm letting it stay, because any critical reader will see that the argument actually strengthens Geier's credibility rather than weakens it. --Leifern 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I disagree. Quackwatch is an opinion site. It is not a mainstream organization or media outlet. It should go in the external links and keep the article references only from reliable sources.
- See:
- Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles
- Wikipedia:Cite_sources
- -- StarBucks 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Most medical doctors do not wish to get involved in conflicts where your oponets will have no scurpels in trying to neutralise you.Geni 17:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don;t know how I feel about the talk of financial interest. I think the whole money thing takes the article off topic. I thought the article is supposed to be about the chemical thimerosal and then leads in to the the controversy over the chemical itself. I know the thimerosal controvesry is suspected of being about money - but the whole issue of lawsuits and who is going to make money or who is trying to protect their money is so involved it could fill up a whole article itself.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Such causality is disputed by mainstream medical and scientific organizations as unproven at best and possibly disproven.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The above text taken from the article is POV because there are some mainstream medical & scientific organizations that do believe the theory is plausible. It is also redundant because the story about the FDA/CDC/IOM etc and their findings is directly below it.
-
- name one.Geni 16:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- The above text taken from the article is POV because there are some mainstream medical & scientific organizations that do believe the theory is plausible. It is also redundant because the story about the FDA/CDC/IOM etc and their findings is directly below it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Geni, my watch list said you made a comment and I couldn't find it!! Anyway no one can make the assumption that there are not any mainstream medical or scientific organizations that don't find the theory plausible. Dr Bradstreet is a Harvard Certified Medical Education Instructor in autism, Dr Jane El-Dahr of the Tulane University Medical Center; Dr V.K. Singh of the Utah State University Biotechnology Center; the University of Michigan Department of Pharmacology; Dr Vas Aposhian of the University of Arizona; Dr Anne Connolly of the Washington University Hospital; Dr Walter Spitzer of McGill University; the Department of Pediatrics at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; Dr Jim Adams of the University of Arizona; and Dr Jill James, a former FDA researcher, now with the University of Arkansas, Department of Pediatrics; Dr George Lucier retired from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences where he was Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program & also appointed the Chair of the Organizing Committee for the White House Workshop on Scientific Issues Relevant to Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Methylmercury, Dr Boyd Haley, who is a Professor and Chairman of the Department of Chemistry with a joint appointment in the College of Pharmacy at the University of Kentucky. Anyway- I am not trying to get in to a war or anything. But like Starbucks said, no one should find the article offensive. An encyclopedia article is not supposed to offend anyone, it should just state the facts. Anyhoo - that's just my .02 cents. Becca77Talk/Email 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I believe the request was for "any mainstream medical or scientific organizations"... a selective grouping of individuals such as Jeff Bradstreet certainly does not a "mainstream medical or scientific organization" make. Ronabop 22:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No need to be sarcastic Ronabop. Stick to the argument at hand. How many other facts are taken from news pieces - on both sides. StarBucks 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is the talk page. There are no rules against copying info to a talk page, just the article, no? Even so, it doesn't make it any less true. C'mon, guys. I am not trying to debate anyone on their beliefs. What I am saying is that it is a POV statement that doesn't belong in an encylopedia article. Becca77Talk/Email 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- so you can't find any organisations?Geni 12:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is the talk page. There are no rules against copying info to a talk page, just the article, no? Even so, it doesn't make it any less true. C'mon, guys. I am not trying to debate anyone on their beliefs. What I am saying is that it is a POV statement that doesn't belong in an encylopedia article. Becca77Talk/Email 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- From article:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The issue is further complicated by accusations of financial interest on either side of the issue.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That's true, so maybe we should just provide links as references and remove the rest (below):
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Notably, critics of the use of thimerosal suspect that the establishment consisting of pharmaceutical companies [15] [16], the government [17] [18], and medical organizations have a strong interest in denying such a connection for fear of financial liability and widespread distrust in vaccinations in general. On the other hand, those who assert a connection between thimerosal and neurological disorders are routinely accused of being quacks, hysterics, and fearmongers [19] [20]who in some cases would have much to gain if lawsuits were successful (or likely to gain from their employment as expert witnesses)[21].
-
-
-
-
-
(Reset indent). First of all, Becca77, thanks for your efforts here. Should have said that before. Since one of the defenses against the accusations of a cover-up is "why in the world would anyone do that?" we do need to explain the suspicions of financial and other interests. And since we're supposed to be even-handed, accusations against the critics should also be noted. This is not a simple task, since shrill accusations often tend to reflect poorly on the accuser as well. --Leifern 00:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Leifern, you are right. Some of it is about money. Take a look at today's the Hill [22] [23] [24]
- I believe that the majority of people who believe that kids were injured by thimerosal want justice first and foremost; but that is just my POV. Regardless of who is right or wrong - being offensive is just bad karma. The disputed statement about expert witnesses - how can that be changed to be less offensive? Of course, expert witnesses get paid for testifying because it is their job - it shouldn't be portrayed as an evil thing. Fombonne wasn't made out to be a bad guy when he testified for Aventis Pasteur in their MMR case. And the other quote Such causality is disputed by mainstream medical and scientific organizations as unproven at best and possibly disproven bothers me a bit. Even Dr Fineberg of the IOM said that the epi studies "can never prove to the point of absolute certainty an absence of an association." So what to do?? How can one write this article? It is so complicated. Becca77Talk/Email 10:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hoever as a general rule expert witness are not ruled to be incompetant by the judge. Secondaly you appear to be comitting the argument from ignorance logical fallcy. It is of course imposible to prove a negative. At best we can show that the odds of X being the case are below a certian level.Geni 12:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Geni, it is not impossible to prove a negative if the proper scientific studies are carried out. It would be impossible using epidemiology only. For example, it was not determined that asbestos and cigarette smoke cause cancer by using epidemiology. However, that isn't even the point. We are here because we all want to contribute to Wikipedia and should try to work together regardless of our own beliefs. Let's try to find a solution that everyone is comfortable with. You would like to include the reference to casewatch. I would like to reword it to be less offensive. What do you think of this paragraph (warning - rough draft):
- There is concern on both sides of the debate in regards to motivating factors. Those who denounce thimerosal suspect that government agencies and pharmaceutical companies are denying a connection for fear of financial liability and the creation of mistrust in vaccinations. Those who deny a connection between thimerosal and neurological disorders are have charged thimerosal's critics as being medically and scientifically unqualified, emotionally distraught or interested in pursuing litigation.
- And then add the references in after the appropriate text. Unless Leifern or Starbucks are still disputing the casewatch link. If Leifern feels strongly about keeping the terms "quacks, fearmongers, hysterics" I will concede.Becca77Talk/Email 14:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is never posible to a proe a negative under any condtions outside maths. your suggested text seems accceptable.Geni 14:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hoever as a general rule expert witness are not ruled to be incompetant by the judge. Secondaly you appear to be comitting the argument from ignorance logical fallcy. It is of course imposible to prove a negative. At best we can show that the odds of X being the case are below a certian level.Geni 12:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think Becca77's proposed paragraph is fine. As far as proof is concerned, we need to express ourselves carefully. Clinical trials and even large-scale longitudinal studies are notoriously difficult to measure (see the Framingham study) and will always be open to dispute. Geni's mantra that you can't prove a negative is a little confusing - you're dealing with the way hypotheses are phrased. For example, it is almost certainly false to say that "all autism is caused by thimerosal," for a number of reasons. But the statement "thimerosal in vaccines administered to young children is a contributing factor to neurological disorders" is a question worth researching. Those who advocate such a connection don't have the resources to prove this conclusively anytime soon, but they believe there is a preponderance of evidence to support the hypothesis and act as if it were true. I think it's false to say that they want "justice" - they want to a) prevent more children and adults from being exposed to harm; and b) research to be funded to find ways to mitigate and ideally reverse the effects they believe thimerosal has had on children. --Leifern 15:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is interesting to note that advocacy groups like Generation Rescue explicitly say that their children are mercury poisoned and, that many of the symptoms of mercury poisoning and autism are the same - but the implication is that autism, a psychological set of symptoms, may also be caused by other factors, not only mercury. BTW, congratulation to Becca77 for a great job. Intersofia 15:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's a couple of important things to note here. First, "autism" is not a clear-cut disorder, the way pneumonia is. It is defined as a fairly vague set of behavioral characteristics that manifest themselves in very different ways. An opthalmologist said that the diagnosis is a bit like saying someone's eyesight isn't very good - it's just too broad to be useful. So it's entirely possible - and in fact plausible - that autism is an umbrella term that describes several disorders with distinct etiologies. The Generation Rescue people have as their premise that what passes for "autism" these days is in fact symptoms of infantile mercury poisoning. Ergo, if you treat the mercury poisoning, the "autistic" traits go away. This isn't to say that *all* autism is a result of mercury poisoning, but that some significant portion is. They believe this is proven by the fact that a large number of children recover from their autistic symptoms when they are treated for mercury poisoning. This is what is called clinical experience, a well-known basis for medical decisions (or else why would doctors have residencies?) --Leifern 20:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I changed the text.
- Leifern, wasn't sure if you wanted to keep other wording in - if you do I am fine with changing it back.
- Geni, I took out casewatch link - I didn't know if you all have come to an agreement on it or not. Can always be added back in. Becca77Talk/Email 16:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's a couple of important things to note here. First, "autism" is not a clear-cut disorder, the way pneumonia is. It is defined as a fairly vague set of behavioral characteristics that manifest themselves in very different ways. An opthalmologist said that the diagnosis is a bit like saying someone's eyesight isn't very good - it's just too broad to be useful. So it's entirely possible - and in fact plausible - that autism is an umbrella term that describes several disorders with distinct etiologies. The Generation Rescue people have as their premise that what passes for "autism" these days is in fact symptoms of infantile mercury poisoning. Ergo, if you treat the mercury poisoning, the "autistic" traits go away. This isn't to say that *all* autism is a result of mercury poisoning, but that some significant portion is. They believe this is proven by the fact that a large number of children recover from their autistic symptoms when they are treated for mercury poisoning. This is what is called clinical experience, a well-known basis for medical decisions (or else why would doctors have residencies?) --Leifern 20:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is interesting to note that advocacy groups like Generation Rescue explicitly say that their children are mercury poisoned and, that many of the symptoms of mercury poisoning and autism are the same - but the implication is that autism, a psychological set of symptoms, may also be caused by other factors, not only mercury. BTW, congratulation to Becca77 for a great job. Intersofia 15:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think Becca77's proposed paragraph is fine. As far as proof is concerned, we need to express ourselves carefully. Clinical trials and even large-scale longitudinal studies are notoriously difficult to measure (see the Framingham study) and will always be open to dispute. Geni's mantra that you can't prove a negative is a little confusing - you're dealing with the way hypotheses are phrased. For example, it is almost certainly false to say that "all autism is caused by thimerosal," for a number of reasons. But the statement "thimerosal in vaccines administered to young children is a contributing factor to neurological disorders" is a question worth researching. Those who advocate such a connection don't have the resources to prove this conclusively anytime soon, but they believe there is a preponderance of evidence to support the hypothesis and act as if it were true. I think it's false to say that they want "justice" - they want to a) prevent more children and adults from being exposed to harm; and b) research to be funded to find ways to mitigate and ideally reverse the effects they believe thimerosal has had on children. --Leifern 15:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Page Move Advisory
Good day.
The article at Dan Burton is being relocated to Dan Burton (U.S. Congressman). Please update the link on your Archived Talk page to reflect this move.
[edit] Summary of See also disagreement for RfC
This page on thimerosal exemplifies the ongoing dispute regarding the appropriate content of the See also section on a variety of vaccine and autism related topics, including but not limited to thimerosal, A-CHAMP, smallpox vaccine, autism epidemic, Dan Olmsted, Liz Birt, and controversies in autism (with long lists intact) and MMR vaccine, vaccination, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, Mark Geier, Edward Yazbak, Thomas Verstraeten, etc. (after condensing).
The concern of many editors, including myself, JFW, Andrew73, and Geni is that the lists under See also are inserted by one user, User:Ombudsman, represent pages that he/she has created, typically have little direct relationship to the page topic, and represent only one POV. Rather than add an equal number of pages to the See also section in an attempt to maintain POV, we have condensed many of the sections into two lists created and largely maintained by Ombudsman — list of vaccine topics and list of autism-related topics. These lists are comprehensive and contain all of the links which are being inserted plus topics which balance the POV. On several talk pages and edits, discussion has centered on a lack of Wikipedia guidelines governing the contents of the See also pages. Ombudsman has made it clear that resolution will not be forthcoming without outside comments as evidenced by the recent edit to Jeff Bradstreet "unless you can cite a mandates for turning vaccine article see also sections into a desert, or for similar gratuitous deletions, your campaign of suppression remains a disservice to the Wiki".
The Request for comments is this: on pages where a large number of tangential articles could be linked under See also, is it appropriate to condense them to linked comprehensive lists in order to maintain NPOV and readability? InvictaHOG 05:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
InvictaHOG has summarized the issue well, and I am in complete agreement. This is an issue mainly on pages that have been created/maintained by Ombudsman on topics that relate to vaccination, e.g. addition of these topics. The see also section ends up being a cluttered laundry list of some of Ombudsman's favored topics that only loosely relate to the article at hand. Furthermore, it serves as a vehicle for Ombudsman's anti-vaccination POV. Rather, a link to a list of vaccine topics is more streamlined, appropriate, and neutral. Andrew73 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have created and applied Template:Vaccines, which may help address the concern. --Arcadian 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent work and an appropriate compromise, IMHO! I'll take it as is, but would understand if Ombudsman et. al would prefer to replace pox party with something else more to their liking. List of vaccine topics could also be kept in the individual See also sections and removed from the box if people so desire. Great work! InvictaHOG 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's a promising start. Some of the categories might tend to grow to unwieldy sizes; in that case I might suggest creating sublists. (For example, in future it may be appropriate to create a List of vaccines and link to that rather than each individual vaccine. A similar approach might be reasonable if the template sprouts a large list of advocacy groups.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I don't have any objection to the proposed changes. --Arcadian 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- There has been a change to the template proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaccination critics. Further comment is encouraged. --Arcadian 16:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I don't have any objection to the proposed changes. --Arcadian 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with InvictaHOG's assessment that Ombudsman has been using the "see also" section to create a Walled Garden, a series of articles closely interwoven to push a particular point of view. While Ombudsman consistently avoids talk pages (apart from for welcoming new users), he makes his views abundantly clear in angry edit summaries, frequently using woolly and undefined terms such as "salient" or "gratuitous" while the edits from the other user are usually supported by comments on talk pages.
Ombudsman uses "see also" to link articles that have no direct relationship apart from in Ombudsman's mind ("all are examples of the barbaric treatment western medicine has given alternative therapies" etc etc). Normally the "see also" section should not have such links, and I don't think articles written and/or patrolled by Ombudsman should form an exception to this accepted rule. JFW | T@lk 17:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is interesting that Invicta, who has decimated mostly very short, focused 'see also' link sections, always seems to describe them as long and irrelevant. At the same time, Invicta and allies have been ferociously suppressing even faithfully archived Whale.to links, mostly to publications authored by article subjects, with little in the way of justification beyond an inconclusive RfC on the MMR vaccine talk page. Nowhere in the Wiki's policies does it say 'see also' links must be directly related to the existing content in an article. In fact, see also links should serve to help bridge pools of knowledge, rather than serving as politically correct blinds restricting the insights readers are allowed to peruse and pursue. 'Streamlined', as used above, comes across as little more than a code word for suppression. 'Condensed', as used by Invicta, similarly misrepresents the orchestrated campaign of decimation waged in the name of npov. Prior to the creation of the vaccines template, all other links were being deleted, regardless of relevancy, except a single link to list of vaccine topics. The real issue here, whether you admit it or not, is the nuisance deletion campaign, amounting to a virtual ban on vaccine article 'see also' sections, waged by Invicta, et al. Ombudsman 19:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Whow! Ombudsman on a talkpage! You are not actually addressing the concern voiced by InvictaHOG and myself that you seem to be using "see also" as a way to create a Walled Garden. This RFC has little to do with the whale.to links, but the RFC on Talk:MMR vaccine was far from inconclusive - only John and Intersofia were really defending the use of Whale links. You yourself did not contribute to that discussion at all, which nigh disqualifies you from passing any verdict on it.
- I think it is your complete lack of NPOV and an inability to collaborate on articles that is the nuisance here. You consistently misrepresent mainstream science, go at lengths to defend the views of people considered "quacks" (or worse) by the "medical establishment", almost always fail to mention criticism of these people from mainstream sources, and use various tricks to get your job done (e.g. creating categories such as Category:Medical controversies and then filling them with your choice pseudoscience).
- Sadly we all suffer the nuisance of having to deal with your quirks. I'd rather not be edit warring over a mindnumbingly poor-quality external link, but your stubborn behaviour simply demands otherwise. JFW | T@lk 20:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
My observations:
- A see also section should be short, not an exhaustive list of all topics remotely related to a subject. If a large number of WP articles might be of interest to a reader of this article then they should be summerised in another article (e.g. [Vaccine controversies], or [List of autism related concepts]) and that article should be included in relevant see also sections. The navigation box proposed above seems like another good solution. At this time, the see also section includes [autism], [autism epidemic], and [controversies in autism]. That seems a little rediculous. You should have only one of those three listed, probably [controversies in autism] because it seems most relevant.
- It was mentioned above that the linked articles "and represent only one POV." Although I recognize that selective inclusion of links can create a subtle POV, all articles should represent NPOV. If the linked to articles represent one particular POV then perhaps the bigger problem is with those other articles. But you do have to pick your battles sometimes too.
- Finally, I think that since inclusion of particular links in the see also section is controversial, a consensus should be reached on the talk page before any changes. At least until some common ground is found. If someone is modifying an article but refusing to discuss changes on a talk page then that brings into question whether they're making a sincere effort to work towards a NPOV.
Good luck to everyone Matt 01:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salon article
Salon is an online newsmagazine that publishes articles and rebuttals to these articles. There is nothing either contradictory or confusing about making reference to both the article and rebuttal; in fact, providing both is necessary for balance. I am reverting again. --Leifern 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Providing neither is equally balanced, and cleaner. There is over a screenful of external links on this page, and I run at a large resolution. We should try to trim down the gross redundancy and excessive quantities of links, because there is little to be gained from the laundry list of links unless we want to scare people away from trying to understand the topic - which is hardly what an encyclopedia should be doing. Michael Ralston 09:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I favor completeness over cleanliness any day. This is a controversial topic; people have a right to read the articles on either side. And what determines which links stay and which don't? Besides, the "accept" and "reject" lists are not that long. If you want to reduce the number of links, let's discuss criteria for exclusion and inclusion rather than making seemingly arbitrary deletions based on bogus rationale. --Leifern 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, let's start with the wikipedia policy of NOR, which also specifies what constitutes a "Reliable" source. Specifically, sources which are the opinions of individuals are not particularly reliable. For instance, editorials would thus not be so reliable. Michael Ralston 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. I've gone through it. RedOrbit.com was a broken link, I took out the links to blogs - as they're DEFINITELY not "reliable" by the WP:NOR criterion, and I took out a link to one editorial on the "reject" side to keep the lists equal length. I'd still like to lose the Salon articles, because I can't even view them - but this is a drastic improvement, I feel. Michael Ralston 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yet another note by me. Here's a policy I wish I'd seen earlier: Wikipedia:External_links and [25]. They seem to be confirming my intutition that we should, in fact, be trimming down the external links a bit. I'd also like to see some organization of the giant "Further Reading" list of links, possibly accompanied with trimming. As the policy states, POV external links should have the POV clearly indicated - some of the Further Reading links are definitely POV (NoMercury.org, for instance), and should be labled as such. Michael Ralston 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It says pretty clearly that Wikipedia is not a web directory, which is to say that it is not intended to be exhaustive. I can assure you that the links we have are nowhere near exhaustive of this issue. What we're left with are non-commercial sites that add substance to the issue; we should avoid a lot of redundancy, favor seminal texts that go beyond the brilliant prose criterion, and obviously not try to overwhelm the reader. But this needs to be balanced with the fact that this is a highly controversial issue with a lot more questions than answers. I don't think we should reduce just for the sake of reducing, though. --Leifern 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- The links may not be exhaustive, but I think they're exhausting. ;) I just don't think that they're all adding value. But for the Reject Theory/Accept Theory lists we have now (as in after my previous removal), I do think it's much better. I still think the Futher Reading section needs to be organized, at least, though. Michael Ralston 19:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- It says pretty clearly that Wikipedia is not a web directory, which is to say that it is not intended to be exhaustive. I can assure you that the links we have are nowhere near exhaustive of this issue. What we're left with are non-commercial sites that add substance to the issue; we should avoid a lot of redundancy, favor seminal texts that go beyond the brilliant prose criterion, and obviously not try to overwhelm the reader. But this needs to be balanced with the fact that this is a highly controversial issue with a lot more questions than answers. I don't think we should reduce just for the sake of reducing, though. --Leifern 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] External Links/Further Reading
Okay. I'm pretty firmly convinced we need to do SOMETHING about the external links. I understand some users would prefer keeping the number high - but I'm strongly opposed to having much more than 6-7 links in a subheading. External Links proper is okay (now) - but Further Reading isn't. It needs SOME sort of organization, but at the moment I don't see any clear way to achieve that. Thoughts? Michael Ralston 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- In the short term, the best I can recommend is that we split all the "Further Reading" links into the "Reject theory" and "Accept theory" sections. When links are all lumped together into one section, advocates may think they're helping their cause by flooding the commons section with links supporting their position (as if it was a "vote"), but when links are segregated, advocates may pursue different strategies. --Arcadian 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have split the links as described above. No links were added or removed. --Arcadian 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] material out of place
"Thimerosol (social commentary)" as an article is, as suggested high above, a good idea.
It is clear that a proportion of the attacks on Thiomerosal are actualy nothing to do with it, but rather are anti-vaccinationist activity. I suggest tht much of that be abstracted into that article, teh article on vaccine safety since the ostensible allegation is that vaccines with THiormerosal in are safer if it is removed.
I think that'll leave a page abut a chemical that used to be used more than it is. Do we have a tag for {explode and then merge most of the fragments into several otehr articles} ? Vote: for Midgley 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- for: I'm inclined to agree with this. Michael Ralston 01:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Deleting entire sections like this amounts to vandalism. Do this again, and I will report you and fight the battle. "Anti-vaccinists" are a figment of your imagination. --Leifern 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- No a good faith attempt to improve the article. Language such as "fight the battle" is unhelpful.Geni 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- You're kidding, right? --Leifern 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- No.Geni 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please revert your large, and frankly poorly considered edit, whcih a well as reduplicating the material that is now at an entirely suitable place - as linked in the article here - has also wiped out some improvement I made to text at the top of the page.
- I also do not like your description of a careful, previously announced, supported edit without the loss of so much as a single word as "vandalism" and "if it happens one more time I shall report you". I suggest that you do whatever editing is necessary to make it as though you had never posted that...
- I'd prefer you to undo your edit, we are both on line, so it won't need long...Midgley 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? --Leifern 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's an excellent idea, Midgely. It's common practice to break out article sections that grow too large into subarticles, leaving a short (a couple of paragraphs, give or take) summary in the main article. Might I suggest Thimerosal controversy as the name for the breakout article, to follow the naming convention established with vaccine controversy? TenOfAllTrades(talk)
-
- I can see at least one editor who in theory would be better placed to make that very short summary...Midgley 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I was right, it looks much better. The article which it sits quite well in is going to have to be turned into sub-articles I think, so it could be regarded as sitting there briefly, and then being an article in both trees - a fusion article or whatever. Midgley 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I would be fine with a separate article called Thimerosal controversy. The current "fusion article" is a POV fork based on a hijacked premise. --Leifern 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- this does not sit well with the second batch of threats issued by Leifern. Is this really how wiki-regulars are expected to behave? ^^that is damnably rude, and there is no excuse for it.
- We are I think agreed, ostensibly, that moving the coherent chunk of material I identified and moved to anti-vaccinationist into a separate article linked from both this and that article woudl be sensible. The summary would be short, but different for each article... May I suggest that you do it? I'm going to bed having just improved Chickenpox.
Midgley 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, what is rude is to try to bury information in a long, rambling article. Sure, I'll create a separate article on Thimerosal Controversy. --Leifern 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- But what you have just done is to paste it all back into this article. Or did you revert it removing subsequent edits? This is bad behaviour and poor editing. Was that a consensus or do you say one thing and then do exactly what you feel like? Midgley 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ehem, you'll see that the reorganization was just completed. You were the one who deleted the majority of an article, created a new one, and jammed it in their without anything approaching consensus. --Leifern 03:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- But what you have just done is to paste it all back into this article. Or did you revert it removing subsequent edits? This is bad behaviour and poor editing. Was that a consensus or do you say one thing and then do exactly what you feel like? Midgley 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, what is rude is to try to bury information in a long, rambling article. Sure, I'll create a separate article on Thimerosal Controversy. --Leifern 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The controversy section was interfering with the remainder of the article. On fluorine we don't have 50 KB on the water fluorinidation controversy. Thank God. JFW | T@lk 11:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- As was apparent, I had no problems creating a separate article about the controversy. I have a huge problem creating one humungous article that is based on a false or at least debatable premise. --Leifern 13:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, what you did was a thinly veiled attempt at promoting your point of view by burying relevant information in an article that was biased - that is in contradiction with the canons, as you put it. I'll concede the outcome is fine though not vastly superior to what we had, but boldness has to include merit. --Leifern 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Boldness conditional on merit? Where does WP policy say that? You view the material from one angle, I from another, both of us agree the outcome is "fine", one regards it as signifcantly better than the preceding situation. It appears we are both partly right, what is clear is that much of the heat - from Leifern - was unjustified, unhelpful, non-contributory to improvement. And now compounded by an assertion of bad faith. I've not asserted that of Leifern, although his RFD looks far more like pique than logic. Midgley 13:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Timeline
One reference seems to have been dealt with above here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thimerosal#Salon_article
The timeline of a chemical would usually start with its first synthesis and introduction, and include several of its uses, that timeline is really part of Thimerosal controversy is it not? Why not put it in that article? Perhaps by way of the talk page over there, since it is controversial. Midgley 15:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree - this article should deal strictly with the chemistry and uses of thimerosal and provide links to related articles, including the controversy, where the timeline belongs. --Leifern 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What acvtually does this "2002 - The USA Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) state that the last remaining doses of some pediatric TCVs are administered to US children" mean? That from that date no more TCVs will be administered, or that some TCVs will continue? Midgley 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Its simply means that the stocks were not recalled and destroyed. It was put in by people as a indication that profits came before reducing total toxic load in infants. Not POV sadly, but a fact of commercial life; all companies (even PCT's ) have to make similar commercial decisions (if not, then hey! - Oseltamivir for all my friends!). Now the good news: The stocks of this particular vaccine have -by now -all been exhausted! --Aspro 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- As a 'Time line' entry: it should really indicate that this date (2002) marks a decision - to wit: reduce the total amount environmental mercury load that comes from inoculations. Pragmatically, it is not banned outright, due to a lack of ways of dealing with bacterial contamination in some preparations.--Aspro 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't effectively say that, the phrasing needs changing. I'd suggest you can mark when something stops being made, but the date that stocks run out is a bit fuzzier and less use. I think the section belongs in a different article though... Midgley 09:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- As a 'Time line' entry: it should really indicate that this date (2002) marks a decision - to wit: reduce the total amount environmental mercury load that comes from inoculations. Pragmatically, it is not banned outright, due to a lack of ways of dealing with bacterial contamination in some preparations.--Aspro 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Its simply means that the stocks were not recalled and destroyed. It was put in by people as a indication that profits came before reducing total toxic load in infants. Not POV sadly, but a fact of commercial life; all companies (even PCT's ) have to make similar commercial decisions (if not, then hey! - Oseltamivir for all my friends!). Now the good news: The stocks of this particular vaccine have -by now -all been exhausted! --Aspro 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think the section is OK here, because it is after all documenting the history, but it needs to be accurate. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have also just published a study that suggests that autism rates are going down now. It discuses whether this is due to the reduction of mercury in vaccines or some other cause. Rather than hog it to myself until I have time to digest it properly I'll put it here for everyone:Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons--Aspro 10:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Is there any particular reason why the time line is in reverse chronological order? Do we do that anywhere else? For ease of management, I will be bold if I don't hear anything :) Brian Sayrs 00:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, updated. Brian Sayrs 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Linkrot affecting timeline - first reference there is now absent from Yahoo. Needs re-referencing or something...Midgley 02:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to reflect that a new citation is necessary. Brian Sayrs 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] International Nonproprietary Name
In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) and Wikiproject Drugs, I propose to move this page to the International Nonproprietary Name "thiomersal". If you have any concerns regarding this move, please discuss it on this page. -Techelf 11:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- In case it isn't obvious to anyone, I implemented that, since it was clearly the right and proper thing to do. The list of double redirects it threw up was more than any one man should have to contemplate, and the variability in quality of the articles they were contained in was such that I feel I've done my share now. Work remains to do on that... Midgley 16:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change title spelling to Thimerosal
help change the title spelling to Thimerosal. thanks.--Ross Miller
- Why? --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, the current title is nothing more than a red herring. Why? While thimerosal gets 1.1 million goofle hits, the current alternative gets less than 15% of that. Moreover, this article isn't the only place where, by simply renaming them, corporate medicine devotees have tried to hide significant Wiki medical articles from search engines. Ombudsman 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- As much as I agree with you about the preference for the "thimerosal" spelling, I don't think there's a conspiracy here. Apparently, this is the preferred "international" spelling. Andrew73 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, the current title is nothing more than a red herring. Why? While thimerosal gets 1.1 million goofle hits, the current alternative gets less than 15% of that. Moreover, this article isn't the only place where, by simply renaming them, corporate medicine devotees have tried to hide significant Wiki medical articles from search engines. Ombudsman 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Pff .. again Google. I hoped that someone would tell me that thimerosal and thiomersal are the same compound, and since both are trivial, it would not make a difference. But there is something else at stake here? Maybe someone can explain that to me? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes both are exactly the same compound. We may as well push to change the title of the paracetamol article to "acetaminophen." Many more Google hits for the latter. Andrew73 23:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, the thimerosal article was eviscerated months ago, to the point that it has almost nothing in common with the reality that makes the topic (and search engine access) anything but trivial. Big pharma made a huge and horrific mistake in failing to quickly remove thimerosal from the market many years ago, and is now actually going to great lengths to prevent its removal from flu vaccines (and other vaccines given to infants and pregnant women), through lobbying and political influence peddling. The 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference article is a good place to start, if you want an example of the extraordinary attempts that have been made to trivialize questions about the neurological damages frequently caused by this extremely neurotoxic poison.
- Currently, rather than mentioning the Simpsonwood debacle, and even before the thimerosal article's introduction, there is instead a link to a long-festering pov article, an article that evidences a very sad attempt to further trivialize vital questions using anachronistic terminology. The preposterously pov article, originally contrived to replace a legitimate article about vaccine critics, is also linked inappropriately elsewhere, e.g., twice in the introduction to another new (and very pov) vaccine critic article.
- In its current form, the thimerosal article or its spelling might well seem trivial, but that is simply the result of having serious questions eviscerated from the article. In reality, the article is little more than a pitiful example of how to pass off lies of omission as npov. The limits of assumption of good faith continue to be pushed beyond reasonable limits of recognition by inappropriate actions like changing the spelling of an article title. It is high time to correct the spelling to the common form Ombudsman 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dear Ross, this looks more like an answer, indeed. Still no solid reason to change the title, but now I understand that there is a big lag of medical information in the contents of the page. But feel free to add the data, I am here from a purely chemical point-of-view, so for me a short, unreasoned 'help' resulted in a 'why?'. There are Wikipedia-systems to request namechanges, and everybody can change the contents, if you edit and supply (preferentially peer-reviewed) references, I am sure the contents will come to where it should be. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] the growing fiasco of retitled medical articles
Please feel free to add to the following list of articles retitled to obscure corporate medical disasters:
- This looks like a POV list. Could each item be accompanied by a 'why', and maybe this list should be at a different place .. Medical Portal or something? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- What is your point, that you don't think that the Wiki can bring articles on these serious subjects up to a reasonable standard of npov? Perhaps the matter ought to be discussed elsewhere as well, but it is equally essential that the context of the discussion is also addressed right here, on the discussion page where it belongs. Ombudsman 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I totally don't get your point. What do you want with this list? And please, don't try to guess my thoughts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- What is your point, that you don't think that the Wiki can bring articles on these serious subjects up to a reasonable standard of npov? Perhaps the matter ought to be discussed elsewhere as well, but it is equally essential that the context of the discussion is also addressed right here, on the discussion page where it belongs. Ombudsman 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ombudsman's comments are misleading.Midgley 09:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article
I think the article is pretty much a mess. Large parts of safety information should hardly be on this page, this is an encyclopedia, not an MSDS. I have done a first round of cleanup, but it needs more. Apparently there is pharmaceutical controversy about this compound, can somebody write a section on that (I'm not a pharmacist)? Furthermore, there is apparently a policy that names medicine (INN?), and apparently that name is then Thiomersal, in the edit that I have done now, I changed a couple of thimerosals into thiomersals. I would suggest, that further changes in name are discussed on the talk-page, and that we keep it at that first, until there is consensus here. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Given there is an article called Thiomersal controversy whch is on the thiomersal controversy, I suggest not writing it again in this article. If anyone really wants to could they revisit the extensive history, an perhaps look at some of the past, very poor quality versions opf an article under one title. Better not to. Midgley 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redacted
"The actual amount of thimerosal present in vaccines currently listed on the childhood vaccination schedule, whether trace or otherwise, varies from nil to 0.01%[1]."
Apart from being rather wordy, a percentage is not an amount, actual or otherwise. Midgley 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
→The point that "no thimerosal as a preservative" is not the same as "no thimerosal" should not be lost - perhaps you can find a good way to restore that fact or suggest where it could go Tony Stein 07:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
→I agree though with ypur remark about the nature of the percentage - your recommendation as to how best to display the actual values would be appreciated Tony Stein 07:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just leave it that a trace may be found. The other tends toward editorialising. Midgley 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Tendency to growth
I see it now has two copies of the list of places it is used. I don't think this is an improvement. Midgley 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quality of sources
Geni, at the risk of stating the obvious, quality of a source is not correlated with your level of agreement with it. Please reinstate the Salon link. --Leifern 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is some virtue in tending to use original - primary and secondary - sources in preference to magazines, in constructing an encyclopaedia. Midgley 09:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Magazines and other periodicals are primary and secondary sources. --Leifern 13:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I guess that depends if you agree with the periodical's point of view or not! While I disagree with the Salon.com article, I did reinstate the link since the material in there is a source of information (albeit potentially biased/confounded) for many anti-thimerosal groups. Andrew73 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is a somewhat moot point in this specific case. The original text was published simultaneously in Rolling Stone magazine, and online in salon.com. Both of these vehicles may be a little unusual for the type of material -- but there is no doubting the fact that they both represent the original text. Refer also Kennedy's site: http://robertfkennedyjr.com/articles.html# Tony Stein 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess that depends if you agree with the periodical's point of view or not! While I disagree with the Salon.com article, I did reinstate the link since the material in there is a source of information (albeit potentially biased/confounded) for many anti-thimerosal groups. Andrew73 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] WHO accounts
Presumably it is a matter of record that the WHO receives contributions from the USA. It is not demonstrated though that some of those contributions are hypothecated to the provision of particular vaccines to particular places. Perhaps it should be if it is true, but possibly the exact channelling of funding from one nation state to one international organisation should be presented in an article about one of those entities, or if it is controversially related to thiomersal be presented in the perfectly suitable article on that - thiomersal controversy. Remarking that among the uses of thiomersal, some vaccines still contain it is probably useful, but it is odd that there is not one of them actually listed, given the degree of energy expended on the subject and the knowledge asserted by the contributor. "Which vaccines?" is surely a question that a reader would have in their mind, and deserves an answer. Only the cynical would think that there is no mention of actual specific preparations because if there were the alleged fact could be checked. But there is no shortage of cynics in WP. Midgley 09:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Refs should go on the other article ?
I was going to add wikilinks for authors Mark_Geier and Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr. but then thought: shouldn't these ref's be on the T. controversy page?
- Arguably. Certainly they should not be on this page. Midgley 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thiomersal and Autism
The entire section on thiomersal and autism should probably be removed. First, the proper place for that information would be under "Thiomersal controversy". Second, none of the relevant information is cited. The only citation included is with regard to arguably irrelevant political posturing. Third, the section was only recently added, and after much of that discussion has already been moved to "Thiomersal controversy" in the past. Fourth, the section has a distinct POV bias and is generally poorly written and organized for an encyclopedia. It contains many unattributed "facts", weasel words, and POV adjectives. And finally, it is just too big! It currently is using up at least half, if not more, of the entire article's content.
At the very least, the section should be considerably pared down and renamed. Maybe rename it "Thiomersal controversy" with a basic amount of background information regarding the various alleged problems with the use of thiomersal in vaccines, but leaving "Thiomersal controversy" as the main article for that information.
Unless I hear reasons from others why the section should be kept, and unless proper citations are added soon, I will either remove it or rename it and significantly pare it down. Moulding 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- To me it seems that that section indeed fits better into thiomersal controversy, what I do miss in this article is a clear pointer to that article. This article should have a one-paragraph section 'thiomersal controversy', with a {{main}} pointing there. For statements that need references, you can use the {{cn}} (or one of the varieties of that). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The POV seems a tad slanted, and most of it duplicates controversy information. I do agree that a longer leader to the main article would be good.Ronabop 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thiomersal and Allergies
Someone wanted to say something there... but hasn't really succeeded. Thiomersal allergy is rarely if ever encountered in clincial practice - does soemone have a reference for the actual incidence of mercury compound allergy? (It is more likely to act as a hapten than in a covalent compound, I suspect - not that that part of the article is really about chemistry). Midgley 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)