Talk:National Vaccine Information Center

rampant bias
This whole description is an attack on the organization and has opinions instead of fact. This is from the about page of the organization.

The non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is an independent clearinghouse for information on diseases and vaccine science, policy, law and the ethical principle of informed consent. NVIC publishes information about vaccination and health to encourage educated decision-making. NVIC does not make vaccine use recommendations. NVIC supports the availability of all preventive health care options and the legal right for individuals to make informed, voluntary health choices for themselves and their children.

Far cry from how they are being portrayed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecestmoi (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Article as it stands follows WP:P&G quite well. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 06:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please focus on precise points. For example, from the first sentence above, what text in the article is an opinion instead of fact? How is it known that the text is merely an opinion? From the heading, what text is biased? How is it known that it is biased? Just about every organization has an inflated about page and such pages are only used for non-contentious claims, for example, the date an organization was founded. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works from reliable independent sources. Whatever NVIC says about itself, reliable sources identify it as a source of dangerous disinformation. Guy (help!) 19:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This wikipedia entry is highly biased. Vaccine information organizations encourage parents to read information both pro- and con-, the vaccine inserts themselves, and then to make up their own mind, not just follow their doctors advice without question. Kimber50d (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" is itself a loaded concept when it comes to scientific inquiry and independent thinking in a free society. Every person has the choice to believe or disbelieve sources based on their own reading and judgment. You don't get to be gatekeeper of information for non-mandatory medical treatment which is incorrectly viewed as mandatory by the ill-informed. Kimber50d (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely agree that whether one gets to believe or disbelieve pro- or anti-vaccine sentiments will not be decided by the content of this wiki page. There is a wide consensus from third parties that NVIC is a source of dangerous disinformation. If you believe that is wrong, you are more than welcome to contribute a competing point of view backed by credible sources who do not think so. Nobody here would, I believe, object if you inserted a competing point of view as long as it is backed by sufficient reliable sources. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is correctly viewed as mandatory in many places (e.g. California). And yes, you are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts. All the reliable sources say that NVIC is an anti-vaccination propaganda machine. Your problem is not with Wikipedia, it's with the real world. Reality is terribly biased against antivaxers and other such charlatans. Guy (help!) 18:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has just lost my monthly donation permanently. I am only asking for consistency. Freedom of choice means freedom of choice. My offspring was vaccinated so you can't say I'm an anitvaxxer so standing up for freedom of choice doesn't just apply to killing babies, it also applies to what medicine, food, and every other thing. 206.255.50.232 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)AEF and respect for my fellow person is my source.
 * How selfish of you. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)