Talk:Vaccine court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

[edit] Offit citation

This change by the IP address 69.244.89.196 did two things. First, it watered down the language used by the source: the source says "most extreme" of the cases, but the watered-down language says merely says "extreme". Second, it undercuts the claim by identifying its source as an inventor of a vaccine. This kind of poisoning the well should be resisted in this article: it would be like (to take the other side for a bit) adding remarks in the text next to the claims that autism is caused by vaccines, reminding readers that these claims are supported by lawyers who stand to benefit financially if the claims are upheld.

For this particular bit of information, we have a reliable source saying that this case was the most extreme, and we have no reliable sources disputing this. No reason has been supplied to preface this particular expert opinion by identifying the opinion-holder in the text. That being said, it is reasonable to wikilink to Paul Offit in the citation, so that readers curious about the citation can easily find out more about the author. I made this further change to do that, along with fixing the other problems mentioned above.

The previous change by the same IP address similarly attempted to water down the "most extreme" wording, with the comment "Cite to cases, not secondary sources." But Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a law review; this article is about a topic that is of interest not only to the legal world, but also to the medical and scientific world. It should cite reliable sources from both worlds, not just from the legal world. In the medical/scientific arena, reliable secondary sources are generally preferred to reliable primary sources; see WP:MEDRS.

Eubulides (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worse and worse

This further change by the same IP address IP address 68.163.72.2, which was logged "Offitt is a political figure that is generally opposes the Ct", makes matters even worse. It creates a new section header Substantive Law which is not about all of substantive law (for example, it is not about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act or about the Homeland Security Act); it is merely about previous rulings, which is a subset of substantive law. It creates a new subhead "Criticism" for a paragraph that describes several previous cases in an accurate way, thus attempting to poison the well. It is clear that the holder of the IP address opposes Paul Offit's viewpoints, but it is an enormous stretch to call him a "political figure". He is a well-respected researcher whose expert opinions are often-cited and who represents mainstream scientific and medical opinion. Offit's opinions obviously are on one side of this dispute, and should be balanced by opinions on the other side; but they should not be dispargaged by being put into a Criticism ghetto. On the contrary, as per WP:NPOV, since they represent the mainstream viewpoint they should be given prominence. Eubulides (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Poison the well? That is exactly what vaccines are intended to do, insofar as well children are deliberately subjected to dozens of 'attenuated' pathogens and inert neurotoxins (ethylmercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, etc.) in the name of the greater good. Vaccine overloads simulating current vax schedules have finally been tested on primates, and surprise, surprise, a slew of severe neurological injuries and behavioral problems (notably heightened aggression) clearly and irrefutably ensued. As for Offit, he has evidently been reprimanded by no less a political entity than the US Congress, due to his political machinations on behalf of vax producers.[1] So it is misrepresentative to infer that Offit is something short of being a political figure, since he is widely seen as perhaps the most ardent lobbyist and quote machine for vaccine propagandists. His claim that children with already compromised immune systems are most in need of vaccines is purely ludicrous, and hardly worthy of someone who might be considered 'well respected'. Ombudsman (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Offit was not "reprimanded". He voted on a vaccine made by Wyeth-Lederle under the assumption that this was not a conflict, as he had no financial ties to Wyeth-Lederle. He was correct under the rules in place at the time (as were several other voters, who used the same rules). The House committee staff report cited by the Age of Autism post you cite did suggest changing the conflict rules, so that if someone had financial ties to any vaccine maker, they would have a conflict on voting about any vaccine made by any other maker. That is a suggestion to make the conflict rules stricter; it is not a "reprimand" of Offit or of any of the other voters. The report did not at all suggest that Offit's decisions were made corruptly. Offit is certainly an outspoken figure who takes the mainstream view about vaccination benefits and safety, but that does not mean he is a "political figure" or that his work should be disparaged or diminished in Wikipedia. On the contrary, as per the usual Wikipedia policies, mainstream opinion should be emphasized compared to non-mainstream.
  • You are defending changes made by the IP addresses 69.244.89.196 and 68.163.72.2. Was either IP address really you (e.g., you merely forgot to log in), or related to you?
  • For more about this edit please see #Sugarman citation below.
Eubulides (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
On another note, this talk page is not a platform to expound on one's personal views. It's even less a forum to disparage a living individual. Further problems in this direction may result in a block or in sanctions under the terms of Ombudsman's ArbCom remedy. MastCell Talk 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sugarman citation

This change added text that is not supported by the cited source (Sugarman 2008, PMID 17898095). Sugarman does not mention any "vaccine injuries"; it talks only about a "scare". Sugarman does not say that the claims were "refuted" by "vaccine proponents and producers"; it says that the claims were "generally discredited" (which is not the same thing as being "refuted") and does not say who did the discrediting. Sugarman does not say "a less dangerous version" of the DTP vaccine "was subsequently introduced".

I made this change to fix these problems and to fix the problems noted above in #Offit citation.