User talk:47.213.153.228

If you say that a claim is false, you imply that you have proof of your assertion. If you say simply that so and so claimed..., but that others disagree, you are not implying that you can prove more than you can.

The phrase "the scientific community" implies the existence of some sort of monolith. It also implies that what scientists believe about the autism issue(s) can be quickly summarized in a sentence. Wikipedia should beware of using tricks of propagandists.

Also, I recall reading that once vaccine makers ceased using mercury in their industrial process, concern about a correlation with autism subsided. Clarification of that point might be of value. ++++++++++++ Your page on Judith Curry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry contains all sorts of links, but nothing to her current blog: https://judithcurry.com/ The Wikipedia article takes great pains to delegitimize her, but I'll lay odds that the Wikipedia writer is no climate expert, but is rather a lay person with strong opinions.

'Conspiracist' is a smear term
The page on William Engdahl, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._William_Engdahl, calls the Global Research site "conspiracist." There is no need for use of a gratuitous slur. Better to describe the site as presenting alternative theories of political interactions. After all, one can as easily describe USA Today, for example, as a site that presents "conspiracist" tales from high-level politicians against Donald Trump. 47.213.153.228 (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC) +++++++++++++++ The lead sentence of the page on Dr Christiane Northrup is accusative and shows bias. A more objective description is advised, even tho the anonymous writer may passionately believe in a particular point of view.