Talk:Generation Rescue/Archive 1

Archive 1

See Also: Tailings

This topic is not mentioned at all in the article and appears entirely unrelated, I'm therefore removing it. If you want to revert this, please justify the inclusion by adding something to the article to make the link relevant. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Get a lock or something?

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

Geni

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

nah reverting you on this oacasion would make no sense since the previous version was also POV. Now I fail to see what your "challange" has to do with anything at what it will atchive. Still if Leifern will start by finding a source for thimerosal we can disscuss it further.Geni 04:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have decided on your own that the public should be kept in the dark about the controversy surrounding thimerosal; if you feel it is so safe that patients don't need to provide informed consent, you should put your own health at stake. Just write to the quackwatch guy, and I'm sure one of his MD friends who still have a medical license (he doesn't) can prescribe it for you. --Leifern 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The quackwatch guy is a retired MD. He never lost his license. 98.246.183.207 (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic Cream

Could someone please provide a reference for the "magic cream" statement? Seems derogatory POV. Becca77^Talk/_Email 05:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You go a source.Geni 05:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Darryn Sikora's opinion on websites

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

I kinda though that too, but since I am new at this I didn't want to cause any problems. The quote doesn't seem to fit. Becca77^Talk/_Email 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

they are in a position where some level of knowlage of autism is required. Thus the quote is relivant.Geni 23:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There must be hundreds of psychologists and other self-proclaimed "experts" out there in this field (I have met a fair share, and most are useless). Sikora's quote is ambiguous (is "slick" good or bad?) and addresses none of the substantive issues related to what the website is trying to relate. The quote goes out and stays out. --Leifern 14:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to substantiate vs. substantiate

Geni and anyone else who cares to read this:

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

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

I still disspute that they even do that. As such attempt to is correct. Otherwise you are stateing an opinion as fact.Geni 22:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you, Geni, (although I guess it's time someone did) but your "dispute" carries absolutely no weight here. It is only your opinion. I think this is the first time I've seen someone so blatantly admit to a POV bias. --Leifern 23:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Geni - Leifern is correct. Substantiate means "try to verify information" or "try to establish with evidence". Adding the words "in an attempt" is just plain redundant. Wikipedia calls that weasel words. See: Weasel_word and Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms. Becca77^Talk/_Email 23:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You rule out the posibilty that they are trying to appeal to people's emotions. There is no legit way to do this. Leifern. You owe me for an irony meter.Geni 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I went to gen rescue site. Counted 26 scientific papers posted on their site. Since Wikipedia doesn't like "weasel" terms (the word "some"), should the article state that they have collected 26 scientific articles? If so, the entire sentance needs re-arranged because as it stands it will read "26 scientific papers, opinions and journalism" which is misleading. It would have to say "collected opinion pieces, journalistic reports and over 2 dozen scientific papers" if the article is to be accurate. Becca77^Talk/_Email 06:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

How about inserting "and various" after the scietific papers bit?Geni 06:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Usage of See Also links

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

See also is supposed to be to the point. A brief look at any article created or patrolled by Ombudsman reveals that he tries to maximise linking to his own "article series" of vaccine skepticism. The links are always the same (2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference is always there). Generation Rescue is not directly involved in the Thimerosal debate, otherwise the article would mention this.

InvictaHOG (talk · contribs) recently narrowed down this use of "see also" on numerous articles, and Ombudsman advanced no specific arguments for reinclusion other than rv: gratuitous deletions (which is untrue because this has been discussed).

I will await your response, but I feel strongly that the removal was justified. JFW | T@lk 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that Generation Rescue is involved in the thimerosal debate - in fact, their founding is based entirely on the premise that thimerosal is causing or contributing to pediatric neurological disorders. If that isn't clear in the article, then that's a shortcoming in the article, not in the links. It may well be that Ombudsman is inserting those links that he feels furthers his pov; but the remedy for that isn't necessarily fewer links. Also, each of the articles he references should pass their own NPOV requirements - in principle, links should be deleted for lack of relevance, not for bias. --Leifern 13:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

With the usual paucity of comments, Ombudsman kindly integrated thimerosal and vaccine controversy into the article body. Naturally, this proves my point that the remainder cannot be integrated into the article, and I have therefore removed the remainder of them. If "see also" is used to chase a user around all anti-vaccine articles then the obvious remedy is indeed fewer links. The relevance is minimal for most, and that is the bias. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Chelation therapy for autism

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

Just to be clear here: chelation is not in itself an alternative form of medicine (whatever that means, anyway). It is indeed indicated for heavy metal poisoning. The premise for its use for autism is that many cases of the condition are caused by heavy metal poisoning; if one is convinced that premise is true, chelation would be indicated as part of mainstream medicine. The controversy rests on the premise of whether autism is caused or aggrevated by heavy metal poisoning, not on chelation per se. This is why this sentence must be precise. --Leifern 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bollocks. Just because someone is delusional enough to believe that a standard care for one condition will be useful for another condition does not make it standard for that second condition.--Ensrifraff 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the clarification, but to again be precise, the use of chelation therapy in the setting of autism is alternative in as much as the view that autism is caused by heavy metal poisoning. Andrew73 16:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Canadian thimerosal study

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

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

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

lol...reports of the imminent demise of the thimerosal controversy are premature, not to mention just plain dead wrong. Eric Fombonne's erroneous conclusions are nothing more than the product of a preordained outcome, not unexpectly in keeping with the serious conflict of interest problems characterizing the credibility of virtually all of the drug industy's thinly veiled attempts at fabricating exculpatory evidence. Ombudsman 00:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course since the guy works for a hospital that line of attack is unlikely to work.Geni 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, young Canadian autistic kids don't really exist. Fombonne just made them up. Neurodivergent 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since 1931

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

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

Whether or not that is exactly what he said is somewhat of a red herring. His point is what matters, and his point is quite simple. There is virtually no historical evidence that the symptoms most commonly associated with severe autistic spectrum disorders existed to any significant extent, much less in anything approaching the current autism epidemic levels. A collateral allergy epidemic has also emerged in recent years. The epidemics happen to coincide with the vast increase in the use of thimerosal and the extreme crowding of vaccination schedules. The overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that vaccines and other environmental insults, including dangerous vaccine additives (such as ethylmercury and ever more powerful adjuvants), have at the very least significantly fueled the raging epidemics of allergies and neurological disorders. Ombudsman 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a long answer for a simple fact-check. But if you want to argue that... There were no epidemiological studies of autism before the 1960s, so you can't say either way that there was no autism or how little autism there was. And besides, there is evidence that autism existed long before it was recognized. Before the 1940s, autism was called feeblemindedness, and what we call HFA today was probably not given a medical label. Even after the 1940s, autism was often missed; nowadays people have to look for specialists to make a proper diagnosis. The "epidemic" of autism has basically only occurred since the early 1990s. You say it coincides with an increase of the thimerosal dose per child. The coincidence is not clear, but let's grant that. The problem is that the subsequent decrease of the thimerosal dose per child to levels below those of the 1980s has not reversed the "epidemic" you refer to, and it clearly won't. You have to find a new theory then. Valid "overwhelming evidence" of the kind you speak of does not exist at all. Neurodivergent 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Various 'Official' sounding users

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

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

Protected

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

Response to whomever whined about changes

This article was materially improved upon:

- Much more information

- Far more objective

- Criticisms were categorized and responses given

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

Respectfully,

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

It's interesting that your IP address resolves to Beaverton, Oregon. You wouldn't happen to be [**refactored**] himself, would you? -- DaveSeidel 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please respect privacy of users. If that IP belongs to that person it is against policy to disclose. I have refactored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. However, it seems relevant if the disputed edits originate from the person who runs the organization that is the subject of the article. This person can hardly be expected to contribute NPOV material. Interested readers can always look at the history of this page. -- DaveSeidel 12:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi:

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

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

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

SWW

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

Jossi:

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

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

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

SWW

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

Stub

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

Rewording and re-organizing

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

Louder Than Words

Link to McCarthy's book goes to Loose Change documentary article. Clever, but vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.1.121 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved from top)

Why does SOAP refuse to allow the group's own definition of their belief system to be presented in the opening paragraph? It is like someone else describing what the "post office" is, but not allowing the post office's own description of itself. You may say it's a bunch of government employees who claim to deliver the mail, they may describe themselves differently. You claim that Generation Rescue's main concern is the thermerosol, but that is not what they claim to be about at all. That is only one small part of the environmental issues they focus on. I'm not even particularly crazy about this organization, but the way you have worded their page sounds very biased and it's obvious what your stance on this issue is. Good "journalism" should never give a hint of your opinion about the content unless it is an editorial. This page is so biased and negative against this organization, I would be surprised if something doesn't occur to prevent what is happening here. SignedNotgrouchy (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Notgrouchy

I reverted you because you removed referenced material critical of Generation Rescue and inserted many new positive claims without anything to back them up. I had no choice but to revert it. Now if you were willing to explain each bit of what you want to change and point us to information so that we can verify that what you're adding is true and what you're removing is not, we would be very happy to keep your edits because they would be a great improvement to the article. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your posts are not in chronological order! They bounce around Nov. 2006 at top, then Nov. 2005, then Dec. 2005, then July 2006, then Aug. 2006, then Feb. 2007. You have Nov. 2006 out of order, put it between Aug. 2006 and Feb. 2007. In response to your statement for verification, I did not insert "positive claims" from the Generation Rescue group. I simply stated what they believe. My gosh, if those people cannot even place their statement of beliefs on their own Wikipedia site, how unbiased is that? Go to their website and see what they claim their emphasis is upon and at least put their wording in the description of the group, then you can disprove it any way you want. You've got to at least put their mantra out there, then you can "discredit it" line by line if you like, but the page looks lame without allowing them to at least state by their own definition what they are about.

Why does SOAP refuse to allow the group's own definition of their belief system to be presented in the opening paragraph? It is like someone else describing what the "post office" is, but not allowing the post office's own description of itself. You may say it's a bunch of government employees who claim to deliver the mail, they may describe themselves differently. You claim that Generation Rescue's main concern is the thermerosol, but that is not what they claim to be about at all. That is only one small part of the environmental issues they focus on. I'm not even particularly crazy about this organization, but the way you have worded their page sounds very biased and it's obvious what your stance on this issue is. Good "journalism" should never give a hint of your opinion about the content unless it is an editorial. This page is so biased and negative against this organization, I would be surprised if something doesn't occur to prevent what is happening here. SignedNotgrouchy (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Notgrouchy

I don't really any see any new argument here. If you're intending to repeat the edit you made earlier, that is, removing the information critical or GR and adding promotional information, please explain for the rest of us why the critical information is wrong and why the information you want to add is correct. We cannot just take your word for it. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliably-sourced mainstream material removed

A recent series of edits removed the reliable sources supporting the mainstream position that there's no evidence that vaccines cause autism or that biomedical treatments help cure it. Wikipedia policy is that articles must adhere to a neutral point of view, and this means that they cannot adopt the partisan viewpoint of an organization and avoid coverage of mainstream scientific and medical opinion on the subject. I restored the material and added some more sources about GR's viewpoint, along with some tags asking for more sources. Eubulides (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research rebutting GR claims

A recent series of edits inserted more paragraphs into the Claims of inaccurate statistics section. Looking at the section now, I'm afraid that overall it looks like original research. Each individual claim in it is well-sourced, but overall the section is building the case for the claim that GR is in the habit of making inaccurate statements about autism. Such a claim needs to be supported by a source that directly supports the claim. I've therefore tagged the section. Eubulides (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the author of these edits. The only material I consider particularly "original" is on the "36 vaccine" claim. I consider my treatment moderate, in that I have outlined how GR arrived at the figure rather than dismissing it as false. I am not interested in presenting any conclusion or opinion about GR here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.54.73 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Have you read the section Wikipedia:No original research #Synthesis of published material that advances a position? That is the policy that the current text seems to run afoul of. That policy's example 'The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.' looks a lot like the article's current 'On October 21, 2009, JB Handley ... claimed, "X." The site to which he referred lists Y.' (where X disagrees with Y). Similarly for the rest of Claims of inaccurate statistics. Mind you, I'm not disputing the claim that GR propagates misinformation! Far from it. But the article can't say that GR propagates misinformation without a reliable source that directly supports the claim. Eubulides (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I revised the "36 vaccine" paragaraph. I have also added a new item, comparing a GR interpretation of a court ruling with a comment from a mainstream news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.88.189 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid that this doesn't address the objection: the section is still largely original research. Eubulides (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the fundamental problem is that original research is not being done by press and publications. I could also suggest why, but that would be presenting opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.88.189 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That may well be, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We have to rely on the research done by reliable sources; we cannot do our own research and publish it here. I looked for sources that directly support the claims made in that section, found one, and rewrote the section to match the sources. The source doesn't cover nearly as much ground, but at least it's something. Please feel free to add more, but the point is that we can't do our own research: we have to rely on reliable sources' research. Eubulides (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research about Handley etc.

Since the previous thread, another series of edits has introduced the following material:

JB Handley stated early in 2009 that pediatricians 'derive the majority of their annual revenues from the administration of vaccines to children.<ref>http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/cdc-aap-paul-offit-feeding-a-hungry-lie.html#more</ref> However, some pediatricians complain that the cost of vaccinating is greater than what they are paid.<ref>'PEDIATRICIANS SAY RISING VACCINE COSTS ARE PUTTING CHILDREN AT RISK.' American Association of Pediatrics. April 10, 2007 </ref><ref>Stobbe, Mike 'Some Doctors May Give up Vaccines Because of Cost'. Associated Press, 2009.</ref>

A website created by Generation Rescue states that psychologist Michael Rutter "was also a board member of the Wellcome Foundation, a front foundation for Glaxo Smithkline".<ref>http://www.14studies.org/studies.html</ref> The Wellcome Foundation was dissolved in 2000. Rutter was not a board member of the Foundation, but of the Wellcome Trust, an extant charity founded in 1936.

Handley has repeatedly stated that "only 2 of the 36 shots children receive have ever been studied for their relationship to autism" (meaning 2 injections of the MMR vaccine).<ref>http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/dr-steven-novella-why-is-this-so-hard-to-understand.html#more</ref> However, many studies have also been conducted of vaccines containing thimerosal.

Generation Rescue claims that vaccines may contain "Bovine Albumin or Serum, Chick Embryo Fibroblasts, Human Serum Albumin (and) Monkey Kidney Cells".<ref>"A Collection of Vaccine Ingredients and Possible Adverse Occurrences", http://www.generationrescue.org/vaccine_information/vaccine-ingredients-possible-adverse.htm</ref> Vaccine researchers and manufacturers acknowledge that these substances are or have been used in manufacturing processes for vaccines, but deny that they are or ever were significant ingredients of the vaccines themselves. One statement characterizes the belief that they are vaccine ingredients as ´akin to saying there are trees in apple juice because apples originate from trees.<ref>Backgrounder Phrma: Facts about childhood vaccine ingredients http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3AD2yqP2d40u4J%3Awww.immunize.org%2Fconcerns%2Fvaccine_components.pdf+vaccines+%22antifreeze%22&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQHLELHzTsRoElzqOThIvY2HukDFA&pli=1</ref> Generation Rescue also claims that vaccines contain antifreeze.<ref>http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/080212.pdf </ref> This claim is generally regarded as based on a confusion of ethylene glycol, a toxin that is the main ingredient in antifreeze, with a harmless chemical, such as polyethylene glycol. <ref>'Questions and answers about vaccine ingredients', American academy of Pediatrics, October 2008. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:gI3Sn5bfuw8J:www.cispimmunize.org/pro/pdf/Vaccineingredients.pdf+vaccines+%22antifreeze%22&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbRx_i1k88Lsp3TE9C7TyeyhJYDWgA</ref>

In addition to viewing thimerosal as a possible cause of autism, Generation Rescue frequently cites formaldehyde and aluminum salts in vaccines as possibly harmful. Medical professionals generally believe these substances to be harmless in the quantities found in vaccines. According to the American Association of Pediatrics, "´Our bodies normally have formaldehyde in the blood stream at levels higher than in vaccines.¡ <ref>´Questions and answers about vaccine ingredients¡, American academy of Pediatrics, October 2008. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:gI3Sn5bfuw8J:www.cispimmunize.org/pro/pdf/Vaccineingredients.pdf+vaccines+%22antifreeze%22&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbRx_i1k88Lsp3TE9C7TyeyhJYDWgA</ref> Aluminum sulfate has been implicated as a cause of macrophagic myofasciitis, a type of lesion, but the frequency of this condition and its signifance for health is unknown. <ref>"Neurological Adverse Events of Immunization: Aluminum-Adjuvanted Vaccines", Hanne Nokelby http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565691_3</ref>

Lawsuits

J.B. Handley is accused of responding to criticism with abusive comments and threats of litigation. In the most notable and well-documented case, a comment in Handley’s name in 2005 directed to 'neurodiversity folks' read in part, ΄We will sue you for libel and we will go after your homes and assets. My lawyers live to investigate and sue people like you.‘ JB Handley filed a lawsuit against Paul Offit for reprinting this statement in Autism’s False Prophets. Handley did not dispute that he had made the statement, but alleged that Offit had knowingly represented it in a 'false light'.<ref>http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/columbia-university-press-and-dr-paul-offit-sued-for-autisms-false-prophets.html</ref> The suit was resolved when Offit and Columbia University Press agreed to amend the text in future editions of the book, and pay $5,000.00 each to an autism charity. <ref>http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/10/dr-paul-offit-the-autism-expert-doesnt-see-patients-with-autism.html</ref>

This material is clearly original research and can't be used here. Most of the sources don't mention Generation Rescue at all, or are about J.B. Handley and not about Generation Rescue. Blogs and suchlike are unreliable. Some of the sources are reliable (e.g., the American Academy of Pediatrics) but these sources do not mention Generation Rescue and are being used only to support an argument being advanced in Wikipedia alone.

The topic of Generation Rescue's false statements needs to be covered by citing reliable sources that directly talk about the topic, not by reciting GR's statements and then refuting them ourselves. For now I have moved this material here from the article. Eubulides (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The claims reported and addressed in the fourth and fifth paragraphs are ones directly addressed in the cited sources, even if the sources to not name GR or a publication thereof. I suggest these be returned to the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.88.189 (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The claims are not sourced. The cited source does not support the 4th paragraph's claim 'Generation Rescue claims that vaccines may contain "Bovine Albumin or Serum, Chick Embryo Fibroblasts, Human Serum Albumin (and) Monkey Kidney Cells"', and no source is given for the 5th paragraph's claim 'Generation Rescue frequently cites formaldehyde and aluminum salts in vaccines as possibly harmful'. And even if the claims were sourced, the material is still clearly original research and a WP:WEIGHT violation. It's not our job to go through GR's website (which is not a reliable source), find errors in it, and publish the errors that we find. Eubulides (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)