Talk:Vaxxed

Time, gentlemen, please

[1] - Time's "science cop" debunks the CDC whistleblower meme. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

[2] - De Niro on Today Show. Dear Conspiracy Theorists, it wasn't the Jews, Big-Pharma, The Media, The Govt or Big Corps that convinced De Niro to drop the film. As he admits it was the other indie film-makers. Another conspiracy theory debunked... (BTW an ed is determined I'm an astroturfer, has anyone seen my cheque from big-pharma? I haven't yet.) Gongwool (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

this is a film article-right?

Numerous references quote the filmakers as saying that this is not an anti-vaccine film. WHY does this FACT, about a FILM, keep getting deleted?TeeVeeed (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a film, but it is a highly political film that has been described by almost every reputable source as a propaganda piece designed to promote pseudo-scientific medical quackery by a known and exposed fraud. In other words we need to be very careful to observe the guidelines in WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI in order to prevent this article from in any way being used as a promotional vehicle for the aforementioned fringe theories. That said, you are correct. The clear and unequivocal denial by the film's creators that the film is a propaganda piece should not be removed or watered down. It should be preserved as a direct quote with appropriate citation. The mountain of well sourced contradicting evidence and quotes are more than adequate to refute the claims of the films producers per WP:PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why I am trying to keep hands-off on this article, because it is being treated as-if it is a hot-potato. Just for the record, every ref, and mention in the article, which is from BEFORE 2016, (dealing-with the film, and there are plenty of good anti-anti-vaxx refs), is WP:OR. If we were to apply original research, and WP:SYNTH to this article, it would look different. Since the idea is to ultimately serve the readers, I do not oppose having a response section to the article, but I think some of it has over-reached, and that the article is NPOV, in-favor of the pro-vaxx side in the vaccine arguments.

I know this is not a forum, but I would like to know where someone could check to see if their vax-reaction was reported or not. VAERS does not really help. (elderly family member vaccinated and became disabled with permanent pneumonia within days) also, family member contracted measles from vaccine (documented and verified), and one contracted shingles after being exposed to child who contacted chicken-pox from vaccination. Apparently, some people have a stronger immune-reaction to vaccines is what my doctor said.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. The anti-vaccination movement is pseudo-scientific quackery and thoroughly fringe. Guidelines (see the links in my above comment) make it clear that when mentioning Fringe Theories or creating articles that deal with them, they are not to be given equal weight as the accepted mainstream science. And that any mention of a fringe belief or theory must be countered with a clear statement to the effect that it is in fact a fringe belief with an accompanying explanation of the mainstream science or view on the subject. This is one of the rare situations where an article is supposed to be weighted in a given direction in order to prevent Wikipedia being used to promote crazy beliefs. I wish I could say that this was not a problem, but as anyone who spends any time of the Fringe Theories Noticeboard could confirm, it is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• @TeeVeeed: The makers have a history of publishing fraudulent work, as established by independent legal tribunals. We do not take their word for anything. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point that they do have a history of being discredited. And refs to that in this article, about the film, should, and can, and IS-mostly--referenced in-context with speaking-about the film. I think that we can be editorially correct and provide the critical responses. But for instance if we say that the filmakers cannot be trusted when they are quoted as saying that this is NOT an anti-vaccine propaganda film, that really stretches it too far imo. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR especially being involved, and this I guess is just another grey-zone where refs and cites that are normally good for a category film article cross-paths with fringe, and medical articles. A for-instance is, in the Real Housewives/reality type articles, we don't make a point to tell the reader that reality shows are scripted and fake, we just stick-to what is broadcast and let the reader decide. In documentaries, especially a contentious one like this, the response to the film should be noted, but there is WP:UNDUE here imo. Do we find anti-reality articles that say that Bravo's Real Housewives are "propaganda" to sell crap and fake-eyelashes to use for refs? I just think that this article says less about what the film is about and more about what critics say, and that there is probably a way better way to do this article. Every statement that is in WP does not have to be whitewashed for user's protection, and this is just too muchTeeVeeed (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)spelling fixTeeVeeed (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

reality TV shows are not trying to convince people a) not to have their kids vaccinated or b) to direct their deep and difficult pain and confusion about why their kid isn't what they had hoped, into a bizarre conspiracy theory that wastes everyones time and helps no one. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And you are actually wrong there. One of the agendas on The Real Housewives of New Jersey is alternative treatments for a child who is diagnosed with autism. The product-placement for the oxygen-tank "therapy", was particularly disturbing to me since there is a real risk of blindness with use, and it was all portrayed as a light and breezy helpful treatment with no worries. They also support Jennie McCarthy's causes and ideas without debating the issues.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

They are also promoting their potion as a remedy for autism and market it as such on-the-air and online, just so you know.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

In the "Narrative" section I would remove the words "So-called" in the very first sentence. The second paragraph with comments from the Houston Press and Dr. Phillip LaRussa are more suited to be called "Reception". Wikipedia articles are not opinion pieces. Nycguy100 (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? The phrase "so-called "CDC whistleblower" narrative" accurately describes the #CDCwhistleblower BS. See also Snopes. We'd need consensus for this change specifically. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it is redundant and unencyclopedic for one reason. ""CDC whistleblower" narrative", serves the article perfectly.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that he's not a CDC whistleblower. He's a researcher who left a programme before its conclusion and who had some misconceptions about an artifact in the data. The source data is available to qualified researchers and has been for a long time, and the "whistleblowing" has been investigated and found to be meritless. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK-so CDC whistleblower is in quotes, and followed by the word "narrative". I still agree that "so-called" is not needed here. WP:ALLEGED mentions "so-called" here, along-with scare-quotes. I think that using both, and narrative which is actually very appropriate, is overkillTeeVeeed (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

In the "Narrative" section I would remove the words "So-called" in the very first sentence and simply leave it as "The film features the "CDC whistleblower" narrative that is based on anti-vaccination activist" The second paragraph with comments from the Houston Press and Dr. Phillip LaRussa are more suited to be called "Reception". Wikipedia articles are not opinion pieces. Nycguy100 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I deleted "so-called". The second part of your request I agree-with, but it would require re-writing which I would probably support, but I do not want to do without consensus.TeeVeeed (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And I restored it, for the reason stated above. Your edits seem to be altogether too sympathetic to the anti-vaccine cause. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

JFTR, my efforts are sympathetic to the WP cause. I'm trying to grasp this fringe-problem where apparently WP articles have been used in the past to legitimize fringe topics and/or falsehoods, but I'm frankly having a hard time with it since this particular article seems UNDUE in wanting-to dispute everything about this film. The bad reviews and controversy should be included, I'd just like to see this article formatted more like a film article.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The fringe idea here is the MMR-autism hoax. That has been characterised as one of the most damaging medical hoaxes in history. One leading perpetrator of the hoax is Andrew Wakefield. Another is Brian Hooker, who wrote the (now retracted) paper making the so-called "CDC whistleblower" claim. It was not retracted because it is anti-vaccine (though it is), but because it was incompetent. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Directed, and featuring Wakefield and Wakefield's discredited ideas, represented by Wakefield at film fests, omitting fair-coverage where ideas in the film are disputed, imo, the film is pure propaganda, an example of propaganda, and I agree as an editor that WP should not be put in a position to support Wakefield's agenda. The fact is that you cannot prove a negative, and that is not our job here either. Reliable science has said that they have looked, and have not found evidence that vaccines cause autism. Saying that vaccines do not cause autism is not semantically or scientifically correct. This kind-of thing is what causes problems for readers. This is why NPOV is the way to go. I think the article deserves a FRINGE banner/template at the top, and whatever measures are needed to protect the article from being used to promote FRINGE topics, but being shady about it just reinforces the idea that something is being hidden or censored by WP. We should be able to present the facts, avoid promoting FRINGE, and cover the topic without looking-like vaccine-bots.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

gorski/Orac

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/david-gorskis-financial-pharma-ties-what-he-didnt-tell-you.html

Alleged financial ties to vaccine. I really don't like his statement that anyone who says they want safe vaccines is anti-vaccine. This is irresponsible and it frankly SCARES me since this guy is allegedly working-on bringing drugs to market and receives funding from vaccine industry. OK-the source for this is biased, but I think that he is too, and maybe he should not be used in the article, especially since he did not see the film?TeeVeeed (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how fatuous that claim is? Age of Autism is a less reliable source than Natural News - and that's going some. The "we are in favour nof safe vaccines" meme is an anti-vaccine trope, and well documented as such. It is analogous to "some of my best friends are black". Nobody has ever used this who was not part of the anti-vaccine movement. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow TeeVeeed, that ageofautism's a high level academic RS - NOT - you've used to support that conspiracy theory. Gongwool (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

UM-yeah, I know they are biased. But there are facts there that say that Gorski/Orac 's lab was funded by vaccine makers. His OWN statements where he says that calling for safe vaccines makes someone "anti-vaccine"--are very disturbing, considering that he is in a position to influence vaccine safety. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming from such an unrel source = "b*llocks" Gongwool (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that Gorski admits his COI. Yeah they laid into him and highly biased for their agenda, but some people can see the forest through the trees without taking either side as correct, instead just looking-for facts.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And, just so you guys know that I am not on-the-side of age of autisms agenda, it happened to be a top search result when I was trying to check Gorskis' credentials-(as a film reviewer haha jk)TeeVeeed (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic edit

(restored after deletion by TeeVeed)

I reverted a series of edits by TeeVeed which left the mention of David Gorski thus:

with blogger David Gorski-writing as, "Orac", who did not see the film, says that people who say they want safe-vaccines are anti-vaccine, labels Vaxxed as [...]

References

Gorski is not a "blogger", he is a professor of surgical oncology and a specialist in debunking anti-vaccination and other fraudulent alternative-to-medicine claims. I do now think we have better sources, and I would not cite his "Orac" blog, I would only ever cite Gorski at Science Based Medicine. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

He has a blog there. He is a blogger, his byline is Orac. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Click on 'Orac' link and see 'David Goski' in black-and-white. No conspiracy there either. Gongwool (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

who said there was a conspiracy?TeeVeeed (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw your changes, and I'm not sure what your point is about Gorski being a blogger, writing under a pseudonym, in a blog where he is the editor? Trying to preserve these facts in NPOV, not just delete them-(why)? The fact and ref that he did not see the film that he is reviewing for an article about the film should be incl. if he is-shouldn't it? TeeVeeed (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Also-ty for making me feel like a troll for NORMAL editing. You guys can have this article, because if it were up to me, it would be a do-over, but you guys are being ridiculous about over-ruling normal MOS polices on every little thing.Like deleting, "so called" when the phrase is already disparaged TWICE-you had to rv it back to three times the refuting, just too too much.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We have tried to tell you a bunch of times that pseudoscience topics are not "normal", and the edits you have been making are exactly the same as pseudoscience advocates make. If you are going to work in this area you really should read WP:PSCI which is policy and WP:FRINGE which is an essay explaining how the community deals with PSCI. You are making this personal but it isn't; you have just stumbled into territory in Wikipedia that you are not familiar wtih. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that and I am trying to apply FRINGE as a top-priority, but I also think that Gorski is not the best ref for this article. There are some much better reviews from people who have seen the film. Also-he is a blogger. Is that embarrassing somehow? Is that why we want apparently to hide that fact?TeeVeeed (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Where in this source does Gorski say he didn't see the movie? It is not "embarassing" to name Gorski as a blogger but it comes across as an effort to discredit him. Like I said, this is the same exact kind of edit that PSCI-advocates make, trying to depict him as just some pimply teenager spouting on a blog. Gorski is probably the leading authority on quackery. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It says it on the blog. Also in the ref and quote that was deleted. ALL of the information from Gorski used in this article is from his blog, in his role as a blogger. YOU are the one giving meaning to the words blog, pseudonym, etc. that simply is not there. By the way Jytdog , is there evidence that Gorski is accepted on WP as a source using MED criteria? Even-if he has been vetted as a reliable source, for this article I don't think he belongs in the lede. And maybe not in the article at all since there is a plethora of rs that are less contentious.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We use Gorski all the time on PSCI topics. See here. I wish you would stop arguing so fiercely about stuff in this part of Wikipedia that you are clearly not familiar with. Also, please provide the quote from this source that says he didn't see it; I've read that a couple of times and didn't see it, but maybe I missed it.

UM. It is also at the top of THIS section, but here, . And I wanted to see where Gorski was challenged/or accepted as a RS for MED topics, if possible, and also, I still do not think that he is appropriate for this article specifically, since he did not see the movie.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for that Jytdog, you just linked me to a TP that says that Gorski's science blog is NOT a rs! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MastCell/Archive_3 WTF.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC) TeeVeeed (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I already told you above that advocates for PSCI - who often end up topic banned under the discretionary sanctions that are are in place on this topic - hate Gorksi, and yes that site gets challenged sometimes. The link I sent provided boatloads of examples where Gorksi is actually used in WP. You cherry-picked a dif where it is challenged. That is really telling. With that decision - which really departs from how we think about anything in Wikipedia (cherrypicking is universally derided) you are moving out of the category of "person who wandered into this topic" and stepping clearly into the category of "PSCI advocate." I reverted the content you added because the source actually in the article didn't support the content. You are now citing a source that wasn't used there. That you are ducking and spinning around the issue that you added content not supported by the source that was in the article, is also a sign that you are not working here in a way that is, as you said, "normal". You are heading directly for AE. You can do as you like, of course, but this place leads to sanctions. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)