Talk:Children's Health Defense

Lets talk about the revision I made
Are encyclopedias not supposed to be impartial in their representation of a subject? I believe the Children's Health Defense should be represented fairly by both advocates and critics. PnutButr (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to me to be a fringe organization that supports false claims that have caused much harm. That is a fair and impartial representation of the subject. We base our information on Reliable Sources. As you have stated your have a COI and therefore should not be editing the article directly.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reply was an opinion. That you think your opinion is fact is a bit unsettling. Cheers. Stealthmouse (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , sure, let's talk about it. It was an opinion based on a primary source. The source is childrenshealtdefense.org, which is a fringe advocacy organisation. It's also bullshit. Murine models are not relevant, levels of exposure in a war zone are not relevant, not being "slander" (against whom? and it would be libel anyway) is of precisely zero relevance to the science. Guy (help!) 14:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge that the article uses opinion. Mouse models aren't relevant? Hmm . . . might want to let the FDA know. That's solely what they used to approve children's COVID "vaccines." Cheers. Stealthmouse (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Then Guy, you have a very wrong idea about what fair and impartial is. This article is not that at all, it's instead nothing more than a very blatant hit piece written by someone with an axe to grind. Facts against something can be presented without clear personal positions being taken against the organization you're criticizing. This article is a perfect example of why Wikipedia will never be taken seriously in academia as a reliable source. The entire article could've been written differently and included the organization's public criticism without a bunch of conclusions that lack any semblance of impartiality. And I say all of that while not being an advocate of the organization, so that speaks volumes. This article is embarrassing to read, smh. - Max
 * Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Talk page.
 * When credible sources overwhelmingly characterize a group's activities a certain way, it's normal to see that reflected in the article. If that changes, either because the activities of the group change or experts revise their evaluation, it's going to be our collective responsibility to reflect that in the article. Until that happens, it's considered to be a large contributor to disinformation. In other words, it's not us CHD has to convince, it's the experts and professional journalists who examine its activities.
 * It can be strange to see a wikipedia article providing a description that is different than what the group says about itself, we can all think of other examples where that is legitimate. Robincantin (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Tone should never change based on sources or journalists "overwhelmingly" think. If that's the baseline, there is literally no point to having encyclopedia or any media. The government or enlightened overlords will just tell us whatever they want as well as telling us what we should think about it. Like what you are doimf here. Cheers. Stealthmouse (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

'Fringe Group' = biased view
This entry does not correspond to Wikipedia guidelines. The assertions made express a one-sided viewpoint.

This article appears to have been altered to remove and discredit remarks about risks or harm attendent to drugs or injectionss. The existence of such risks are well known and documented. It would seem contrary to stated principles of Wikipedia to permit articles to be so greatly changed as this one has been by editors who do so under cloak of anonymity.

Chuanist (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A group promoting vaccine hesitancy by promoting pseudoscience and disseminating misinformation? That sure sounds fringe to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If The existence of such risks are well known and documented, then you should be able to find reliable sources for it. And if those reliable sources mention it in connection with the subject of the article, we can even use it in this article. If they do not, mentioning it would be WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

abbreviations
disliked my edit which tightened the page, and made use of the Children's Health Defence = CHD abbreviation. I'm not quite sure why he reverted my use of the abbreviation mechanism instead of just editing the text, and find that the page is less legible as a result. Fitzrex (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, s/he reverted every of the 10 edits I made. That seems like a high-handed and unfriendly action to me. Doesn't it seem that way to others? Especially with the note "Reverted multiple edits which suppressed fully sourced content: "Targets black Americans" was fully supported by the source, as was "Other misinformation promoted by Children's Health Defense is a conspiracy theory in relation to " by the source for that statement.." The edits I made were much more structural and made the page much more legible. How about we wait 24 hours with my changes and see where that leads us? Fitzrex (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The edits were biased, so please refrain from editing here if you don't stick to our rules. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you document a particular one, and describe to me my bias? Fitzrex (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fitzrex (talk), the edits mixed useful tweaks with removal of material from credible sources. On a page like this where there's frequent attempts at whitewashing, I understand the choice of reverting the whole series rather than spending time sorting through them, even if they were made in good faith (I do believe they were made with the best of intentions). Very grateful to those editors acting quickly to revert hostile changes. When I wrote the original version of the article, I did not use the abbreviation because the organization didn't seem to use it. I see it's now popping up in its communications, so I agree we should be using it on the page. Thank you for your contributions, I've seen you bounce around a few pages I'm watching. Robincantin (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Hostile" changes? LOL Stealthmouse (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for not more completely explaining my first revert of your multiple edits, but your first edit and your fourth edit removed sourced content, while your edit summaries made it sound like simple copy/editing, so these appeared deceptive. Also, your intermediate edits did a substantial re-org of the article, which makes it rather difficult to find and revert your individual edits. Please do smaller edits so that others can discuss if they have objections to your edits.

Your most recent one: I searched for "Children's Health Defense" "Over-the-Air Reception Devices" and was unable to find this in any Reliable Sources; if this lawsuit is considered "newsworthy" by RS's WP:RS, then we could include that content, but for now it appears to be Self-published WP:SPS and promotional WP:PROMOTIONAL. Thank for discussing this here rather than edit-warring. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As the OP was a sock - see Sockpuppet investigations/Magnovvig/Archive, I've struck through their posts. Doug Weller  talk 13:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Obvious bias
The opening sentence "... been identified as one of the main sources of misinformation ..." needs clarification. Identified by whom? Citations (plural) needed. The reference at the end of the sentence is a single source, which hardly makes it justifiable. Donn Edwards (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. It's clearly stated further down. As you know, the lead paragraph regularly summarizes information that appears on the body of the text. One reference (1) is given in the lead, but the concept that the group is a major propagator of misinformation is present in sources 17, 22, 23 and 31. Its growing influence is also expressed in sources 4, 20 and 21. I may have missed a few. But you do make a good point about citations. the Manual of Style says we should put citations in the lead only in controversial cases. Either it's not controversial and there should be no citations in the lead (those being detailed lower in the text), or it is controversial and thus properly sourced. Putting just one is obviously a bad compromise. Let me fix that right away. Robincantin (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a PhD candidate in psychiatric epidemiology at University of Maastricht. I fail to see how it is defensible to describe an organization as "anti-vaccination" when the organization 1. is explicitly for safer vaccines, not to eliminate vaccines and 2. is the subject of just this mischaracterization by its political opponents. Wikipedia does a disservice by preventing readers from learning by their own critical reflection on these issues, and betrays bias. "The concept that the group is a major propagator ..." This is not a "concept" it is a claim; tthe sources cited do not demonstrate "misinformation" only, at best, selective use of sources in what is in fact a legitimate controversy, not merely dismissible, or, at worst, evidence of political motivated efforts to discredit the organization. Wiltonhall (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not matter who you are.
 * An organization's self-description is not necessarily accurate, especially, if it is a pseudoscientific organization such as this one.
 * They are clueless about science, especially when it comes to the question of how safe vaccines actually are. As a result, they think about all safe vaccines that they are unsafe, and therefore they are anti-vaccine.
 * Opposition to this pseudoscientific organization is not "political".
 * what is in fact a legitimate controversy This is your opinion. Wikipedia pages are based not on your opinion but on reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The entire article smacks of bias and hostility, and fails to mention Kennedy's November 2021 book, published to raise funds for CHD. Donn Edwards (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not on the fence between science and bullshit, it has a stance in that question which is frequently called "bias". WP:YWAB collects links to the most important subjects where this applies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh right, and Wikipedia is also not a place for product placement. "Further the cause of this group by buying this book!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the neutral tone required of articles? I did not suggest product placement, I suggested reference to a book. The obvious hostility and sarcastic tone of the replies to my questions underscores the point I was trying to make. If you genuinely think they advocate "bullshit" then you should not be editing the topic, because you cannot be neutral. Donn Edwards (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That last one is, well, bullshit. If this rule were implemented, then all things which are obvious bullshit would only be edited by thoroughly clueless people.
 * That book is WP:UNDUE unless it is 1. about this group specifically and 2. reliable. Given the author, a well-known anti-vax, anti-science conspiracy theorist, there is no reason to believe the second one. There is no valid reason to mention it.
 * You really need to brush up on your Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:FRINGE. When reliable sources say something is poppycock, we do not keep that fact out of the article just because of "tone" issues. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Is "propaganda" neutral/best word to use?
In the lead section, the site is listed as publishing propaganda. Usually when I think of a group promoting Propaganda, I think of governments or people/groups/corporations who are in power. While I certainly agree that they're fringe, I'm not sure if propaganda is the best word. Maybe just use the words "fringe theories" instead?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 06:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty accurate description for what this high-profile group does. "Neutral" does not mean "neuter" or remove bias if the bias is accurate. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it may not be the best term, and I don't remember seeing it in the sources. How about "disinformation" as in the Vanity Fair article and others? (pinging User:Valjean) Robincantin (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should use the terms used by RS's to characterize CHD's publications; that makes it theoretically easier, though if some sources use "propaganda", others use "misinformation" and others use "falsehoods" than we may need to choose by what is the more/most frequently used description. I also think it is helpful to pick quotes from sources which support whatever word and add sources with quotes after that word, because people will invariably challenge the term.  I did the quotes thing for the first sentence of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and people still keep trying to remove that. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about "sections". If there's a section named "anti-vaccination campaigns", why is the description "mainly known for anti-vaccine propaganda and has been identified as one of the main sources of misinformation on vaccines" allocated under the section "top"? What does this description have to do with the introductory presentation?
 * I have realized that some editors insert "specific" information in the introductory section not to maintain the the reader informed, but only in order to make it appear firstly on a Google page, after a search!
 * This is definitely propaganda!
 * Editors do need to use the sections! 189.40.66.51 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Disinformation" works fine. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023
Under anti vaccination campaigns the entry suggests that children’s health defense is “in step” with Qanon and supports a deep state theory.

When going to the source contained here the book is openly available and when searching there is a SM post from the CHD calling the term “deep state” toxic and dividing. The source material contradicts the claim.

Second, the same source material says RFK Jr founded the organization which is not true. 2600:1002:B187:8D6B:CD1F:4C04:CB0E:F42A (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not seeing where our sources contradict our article's text.
 * Page 29 of the currently cited CCDH source reads "Borrowing the language of the QAnon movement, another recent Instagram post from Children’s Health Defense identifies “Big Pharma” as part of “the real Deep State”"
 * Not only do our cited sources say RFK founded CHD, CHD itself says so. "Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is founder, chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense."
 * What sources are you looking at? Cannolis (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think the sentence needs to be adjusted. The link between CHD and Qanon is indirect: both promote the Great Reset conspiracy hallucination and others, but "in step with" seems to imply a level of control or influence that isn't there. I think the point the sources are making over and over again is that the anti-vaccination movement in general has joined the delusional far-right, so we shouldn't be surprised to see messages in common between all those groups.
 * I propose: The organization's social media channels amplify conspiracy theories common to other anti-vaccination groups as well as Qanon, such as the "Great Reset" and the "Deep State". (several sources could be added to support this statement including those two we don't have yet.) Robincantin (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me Cannolis (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Robincantin (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Funding section?
Hello all. With the addition of today's Rolling Stone article, we have two rather hefty paragraphs on the group's funding. Should we create a Funding section and if so, before or after Anti-vaccination campaigns? Robincantin (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Funding section: yes, after the Anti-vaccination campaigns. Then we can add a sentence to the lead summarizing where their money comes from. - Thanks for all the work you have done on these articles!! --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers! Robincantin (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

My Topic & Replies Have Been DELETED
Last night, I added CDC & FDA sources that speak to the negative impact of two recommended vaccinations. They've been deleted! I also included these links in replies to some of the talks on this thread that use naming calling (e.g., conspiracy theorist), and THEY ARE ALSO DELETED!! What in the world is going on? I understand CHD isn't a vaccine topic, but when the entire article is based on attempts to frame the org as anti-vaccine, conspiracy, etc., my Topic & soruces were more than relevant. The fact that they were deleted is alarming. 2600:6C58:61F0:4CB0:3D38:EAA:C7B9:D69A (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an article talk page is to make and discuss specific improvements to the associated article. Your comment did not do so. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So the name-calling responses that offer no fact-based information on this Talk page are exempt? Because why? 2600:1005:B187:772B:E4EA:22E3:AB67:276 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Weak Sources
This page is dedicated to painting the org as an “anti-vaccine disinformation, and which has been called one of the main sources of misinformation on vaccines.”

“Arguments against vaccination are contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.”

I will address these two quotes from this wiki page.

The first quote is the opening statement for this wiki page. It summarizes the narrative of the entire page which is dedicated to painting this org as producing misinformation about the vaccines. YET NOT ONCE DOES THIS PAGE REFERENCE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THE SO-CALLED MISINFORMED ANTI-VACCINE CONTENT THAT THE ORG IS ACCUSED OF PROPAGATING. Why? I imagine it’s because the articles are well researched by scientists and journalists who go straight to the horses mouth to get their information (e.g., the CDC & FDA). If this org is such a super spreader of misinformation, you should have gobs of examples to back up your claim. Instead, this bold opening statement is sourced from MEDIA! According to Reporters without Border (a reliable source, according to Wikipedia [4]), as of 2023, the U.S. media is ranked 45 out of 108 on the World Press Freedom index. [3] What sense does it make to open with such a claim that could easily use strong primary sources - if such content exists - yet instead uses two media opinions to support a scientific-focused claim.

The second sentence that I quoted in my post’s intro uses sources that do not support the claim. Two of the four sources referenced are media, which is a non-expert & arguably unreliable source of considering the wiki-vetted Reporters without Borders’ 2023 World Press Freedom index. The U.S. media is ranked 45 out of 108 countries. But even so, let’s focus on the other two authoritative sources: the WHO & U.S. HHS. The WHO source is a Bulletin titled, “Communicating science-based messages on vaccines,” [5] Again, this source doesn’t provide a single reference to any scientific evidence or research, which is a crucial need for a longstanding scientific topic. While the bulletin does include individuals’ statements that imply the unvaccinated are the cause for modern day outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, there are no source links to support these claims. Because of this, let me provide some primary, scientific authorities’ sources that prove that the opposite is in fact true. These prove that the sources used in this wiki page are not reliable. According to the most recent clinical-research data published in the CDC Pinkbook, many modern-day outbreaks were among the vaccinated, such as  Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) [1] & poliovirus [2], just to name a few.

The second authoritive source referenced in the wiki page is the U.S. HHS. While this reference does contain safety & effectiveness wording with links to additional authoritative sources, just like the others, it fails to include SCIENTIFIC DATA, RESEARCH OR STUDIES in the HHS article NOR in the source links used in the HHS article. Again, it presents claims but fails to provide evidence which is a crucial part of scientific claims. It forces the reader to take their word. Again, the CDC Pinkbook studies I linked to show otherwise.

2600:1005:B187:772B:E4EA:22E3:AB67:276 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) “Pinkbook: Haemophilus influenzae (Hib) | CDC.” 2021. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/hib.html
 * 2) Underwood, Michael. 2021. “Pinkbook: Poliomyelitis | CDC.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html.
 * 3) https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states
 * 4) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
 * 5) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689193/


 * The sources are fine. I suggest you review WP:RS. You're arguing that news reports from American professional media are not reliable, referring to Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index; actually reading their analysis of the situation shows the organization says the contrary: the media is generally reliable, but reporters face pressure media concentration and threats from violent actors. Robincantin (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)