User talk:CMTBard

Edits to Jenny McCarthy Not Accepted: Suggestions
Hi CMTBard,

Welcome to Wikipedia!

I've reviewed your proposed edit to the article Jenny McCarthy, but I feel at this time, the comment you added in parentheses is not directly related to Ms. McCarthy, and thus, not the appropriate page for that edit. As we all know, the topic of vaccines and autism has strong feelings on both sides. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must remain neutral. Additionally, if you take a look at this page, I think that may be a more appropriate page to discuss the reference you provided, rather than in an article on a person, since that statement you added is not something Ms. McCarthy has said, but something written on a blog, and therefore doesn't belong in an article about Ms. McCarthy. I'd ask you to please head to the talk page for causes of autism to discuss this with established editors, if you'd like to see if that source is acceptable, and if that differentiation in terminology would be appropriate in that article. Thanks so much, Ariel  ♥  Gold  14:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, CMTBard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Jenny McCarthy. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Govindaharihari (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

greetings
Hi. I seen your efforts to improve a couple of articles, please take it easy and look for other users support on the talkpage chats you have started, such changes usually do take time here, best wishes. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I would if wikipedia even had a semblance of effort to be balanced. also if your English was correct.
 * Opps, yes, I apologize for my typing mistake. Govindaharihari (talk)
 * CMT, that is not a constructive way to speak to a fellow editor who is trying to help you. Civility is important when speaking to another editor, especially when they are earnestly trying to assist you. Please be mindful of that going forward and see WP:5P. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not
Stop trying to repress and dominate. CMTBard (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It does apply
You are using a label that has been discussed on the Talk pages and still is not being addressed. You state that McCarthy is “anti vaxx” but doesn’t like to be called that, it’s perfectly logical to want to explain why many parents in her shoes agree with her. CMTBard (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Understanding References
Hi CMTBard,

I realize you have strong opinions on this, but you wish to attribute the words "contribute to autism in some children" to Ms. McCarthy - but the journal article that is a reference for that statement has nothing to do with her, and the Time article requires a paid subscription to read, and in the blurb that non-subscribers can view, does not have any such quotation. Please review the policy about articles on living persons, so you can understand why these changes are being reverted. Her article is not the appropriate venue for a discussion of semantics. *IF* you can find an appropriate source that doesn't require a paid subscription to confirm, which directly attributes those words to Ms. McCarthy - please take it to her talk page as an edit, and if approved, an editor will add it to the article. Thank you, Ariel  ♥  Gold  14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The talk pages do not allow any outside links, so the only way I can add in a proposed link is to put it in as an edit to the article. And then it’s immediately taken down and I’m told “handle this in talk.” What a joke of a process!!

I did
1. the time article cited in the same paragraph requires a paid subscription 2. i’m extending common courtesy and not using a derogatory label 3. if you were truly not being biased you would quote her actual words, which never once say “i am against all vaccines”— they say “space them out, delay them, wait until 2, maybe skip some you don’t want” and “I’d like a test to see which kids are most likely to have a reaction” (ie are vulnerable). 4. yes I am passionate about sticking up for my work. I took the time to make a small edit that only adds compassion and clarity and it keeps being removed within minutes. CMTBard (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand this. But I would really encourage you to read the policy on articles related to living people, which have very clear instructions on what is, and what is not, appropriate. The first edits you made did not have a valid source and that is why I did not approve them. Now that you added the PBS article as a source, and it clearly does use those terms, I have added that into her article in the appropriate section. Also, please realize that the article is citing sources written about her - regardless of if those are her beliefs or not. So when the article says she has been called an 'Anti-vaxer' - there are multiple, valid sources, that back that statement up. Whether she wishes to be called that or not, is not relevant. It has nothing to do with bias on my part - it has to do with what has been published about her from reliable sources. (Please do review what constitutes a valid source in the link above). Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and must simply state things that can be backed up with verifiable, reliable sources.  Ariel  ♥  Gold  15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So if an article called a person with Downs a “retard” we should quote that verbatim in an article on Downs Syndrome? So long as we have a valid source that someone somewhere called someone a name they don’t like because it’s perjorative and inaccurate, it’s ok to use it? #sensible #not

Your summary of McCarthy's position is not verifiable. I have provided **verifiable** reliable sources showing that my summary is more accurate. Please revert to my summary. Also, primary sources are preferable- ESPECIALLY when it comes to a living person's position- to secondary sources. Readers want to hear from the person in question's own mouth what s/he believes, as much as is possible. Readers don't want to only hear what other people say about what the subject believes. The PBS source is a simple interview and as such allows McCarthy to clearly state her own positions, without commentary or interpretation from others. All the current sources cited are secondary sources, and all are negative. That is hardly unbiased.

I was told by wikipedia that if I noticed an inaccuracy I could edit the article myself, so I did. I noticed a few days later my edit had been removed... so I made a Wikipedia username and edited again. Suddenly I find myself up against someone I don't know who keeps undoing what I do, and won't actually listen to what I'm saying but just dismisses me and basically tells me to give it up, that they get to decide what is said in the article, the end. This is very revealing about how Wikipedia works and I'm so disappointed. CMTBard (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added your source, and added her 'preferred' term, please read
Hi CMTBard,

After further review, and now using the PBS article (rather than the earlier blog URL you had added) - which does attribute the statement that she prefers the term "pro-safe-vaccine schedule" -  I have edited her page to add her "preferred term" in a neutral and sourced sentence. Please note that this article is under review protection, so your edits are not actually visible until a revieer approves them, so continuing to edit this is not to your benefit. I hope that this is a comfortable compromise for you. I have, however, not changed 'can cause autism' to 'can contribute to autism in vulnerable children', because again - her *biography page* is not the appropriate venue for such a discussion of semantics. Again I urge you, if you have strong feelings that Wikipedia is not properly wording the issue of autism and vaccine controversy, to take it to the page on Autism, and not to the page of a living person. Thank you, Ariel  ♥  Gold  15:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC) ________ While I do appreciate you adding her own preferred term, the current summary of her beliefs “vaccines cause autism in children” is NOT an accurate summary of her actual beliefs. **This is not about vaccine controversy— this about being accurate in summarizing Jenny McCarthy’s position on the topic.** There are no sources stating that she believes this— all sources and quotes have her saying either that vaccines triggered autism **in her own child** (not all children), and/or that she believes vaccines or a vaccine CAN CONTRIBUTE to or cause autism in SOME children. You are still unfairly representing this living person’s perspective and aims in advocacy. This is not about our opinion of her opinion. It as about accurately presenting her opinion so that others can form their own opinion. CMTBard (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Response
While I do appreciate you adding her own preferred term, the current summary of her beliefs “vaccines cause autism in children” is NOT an accurate summary of her actual beliefs. There are no sources stating that she believes this— all sources and quotes have her saying either that vaccines triggered autism **in her own child** (not all children), and/or that she believes vaccines or a vaccine CAN CONTRIBUTE to or cause autism in SOME children. You are still unfairly representing this living person’s perspective and aims in advocacy. This is not about our opinion of her opinion. It as about accurately presenting her opinion so that others can form their own opinion.

It is a far more correct summary to state “belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in some children” or “in vulnerable children” than what is currently there.

Look in that same PBS article, this is a direct quote from McCarthy herself:

“When I began my crusade for autism, one of the first speeches I gave was: “Is it mercury? Is it the schedule? Is there just too many?” My answer to people and what I’ve been telling them is, “It’s all of the above.” We don’t know for sure, which is why we keep saying, “Study it.” But they won’t.

Some parents saw their child only get a flu shot, which has mercury in it, and boom, fall off the wagon — meaning loss of the ability of eye contact, no more babbling. And this is after one shot.

We’ve seen children like Evan, who have this, what I believe, the whole schedule we’re looking at that caused his regression. We get phone calls from farmers who have children who — they just sprayed their fields, and their child regressed into autism.

So is it one thing? No. But what is a common factor? It’s a toxic overload.”v

She says specifically that it is not ONE factor (vaccines) causing all autism, but rather that in some kids/vulnerable kids (she later mentions kids with family histories of autoimmunity) vaccines it can be A factor leading to autism.

I never quoted that Time article, that was there before I got here. CMTBard (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most antivaxers claim not to be antivaxers. McCarthy is no exception. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That’s not our place to force a label on them. An encyclopedia exists to present information, not opinions. Our job is to accurately present what McCarthy thinks & says— which is not that “vaccines cause autism.” As I have quoted above, it is that vaccines, among many things, can contribute to autism in some kids, and that it should be up to parents what they do when it comes to vaccines. That is not “anti vaccine” (lit. “against vaccines”).
 * The consensus view of reliable independent sources is that she is an antivaxer. The fact that this conflicts with her self-image is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You do realize you haven't responded to any of my actual points right? CMTBard (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The "toxic overload" trope is nonsense and unscientific. Also, writing things in caps to talk louder will not help you get your way. Please refrain from doing it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Still haven't responded to my point- it doesn't matter if her view is unscientific, that isn't the question. The question is how to summarize her belief.

You are missing the point
This is a discussion about 1. accurately summarizing someone’s advocacy position/goals — as activist this is crucial to the article on her. I have insisted that her position needs to be stated as

“belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in some children” or, better yet, “belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in vulnerable children”

NOT “belief that vaccines cause autism”— which is NOT her stated position or belief, as I have provided an extensive quote to support.

2. making sure we provide her own response to the derogatory & innaccurate term “anti-vaxxer” — this has been done and is no longer an issue. (but side note— if someone was of Indian descent and yet the media insisted on calling them “Black Ghetto”, and they responded repeatedly that they were in fact not African-American nor from a ghetto culture, and that they wanted to be called “of Indian” or “of Asian descent,” we wouldn’t say “well a reputable news source called you Black Ghetto, so not our problem.”. We would strive to use an accurate (and neutral) label, or at the very least give his response.)

Again, this has already been done and is not the topic of contention now.CMTBard (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. It's about McCarthy trying to retcon a public-facing position adopted in order to get a specific job, while continuing to promote the same breoad-based conspiracist bullshit in the background. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Who cares why she said whatever she said she believes? It’s not an encyclopedia’s job to determine motive. An encyclopedia is supposed to present unbiased accurate summaries of whatever the topic is— in this case, of Jenny McCarthy herself, which includes her activism and public statements. The current summary is not accurate. My proposed changes makes it accurate. If someone said they believed the moon was made of Swiss cheese, the job of Wikipedia would be to accurately quote that, not to summarize that articulated position as “they think the heavenly bodies are all made of cheese”— that wouldn’t be accurate.

Pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions alert
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you’re referring to.

All citations I have used have been pertinent, either from the National Academy of Medicine’s 2012 (most recent) study, or they have been recent interviews or letters. My effort to accurately represent someone’s position is not fringe science... it’s just an effort to be accurate. Whatever that person believes is not my concern— I’m just trying to make sure we accurately summarize it.

When it comes to vaccines and autism, again, my effort has been to accurately quote current research, not just quote it piecemeal to support a specific agenda.
 * No, your efforts have been focused on promoting an anti-vaccine friendly agenda. And that's why nobody other than you supports them. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You have no basis for those claims. I’m not trying to edit any part of the article besides the summary paragraph. Haven’t even tried to address the handling of her actual beliefs- just advocating for an accurate summary of her beliefs, and and accurate label for the controversy surrounding vaccines— I’ve provided data and citations, logic and reason. You do nothing but remove, insult and demean.
 * Got to reply to that, as a project, I and others have tried to steer you in this projects policy compliant positions and assisted you to move to discussion and no one imo has insulted or demeaned you. I can only tell you that if you continue along this confrontational editing path you won't get any satisfaction. Please note the above template is a standard notice to any user editing in the content area you are contributing in and not a personal reflection on your contributions.Govindaharihari (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No one has demeaned me?? Are you kidding? Wow. The burden of proof is on you: so far you have no links backing up your summary of her beliefs as stated. It's inaccurate. Nowhere, in no interview, has she stated that she believes "vaccines cause autism." Her position is far more nuanced-- it's that vaccines CAN contribute to autism in SOME KIDS (such as with her own). She has also mentioned other causes of autism in children, and it's clear that vaccines do not cause autism in every child. Your summary is overly simplistic, inaccurate, and is not substantiated by ANY citation. In addition, you have removed primary sources and replaced them with biased, negative secondary sources. Please return at least ONE non-biased citation (to a primary source, such as an interview or article that quotes her words without commentary), and please accurately state Jenny McCarthy's belief. At this point no one has actually responded to my actual concerns, that is what is demanding and downright bullying. I have asked for very simple changes and explained very clearly why they are needed. I have only been given glib answers that do not address my points or the problem at hand; I've been told I'm part of an antivax agenda -- when I am not trying to argue about vaccines at all; I'm arguing about this article's representation of the subject's publicly stated belief. Remember, wikipedia says we need neutral points of view as well as verifiability. My edits would improve both of those things. Please return them. 03:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC) CMTBard (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We work on what reliable independent secondary sources say. In this case they say she is an antivaxer who says vaccines cause autism. She's also prominently associated with Generation rescue, who not only say those things but also promote fraudulent "cures" based on them. What you are seeing in the interviews from 2014 to her leaving The View is a rather obvious retcon - her first appearance on The View led to a furious exchange with Barbara Walters over her claim that vaccines cause autism, and it was clearly necessary to walk that back in order to land the job she wanted. Reliable sources still identify her as a leading proponent of the refuted claim that vaccines cause autism, and the only sources you offer to counter this are primary - uncritical reporting of her own words in interviews. When someone is known for promoting a false claim in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is false, as is the case here, we are very careful not to give undue weight to self-serving excuses. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please show a source that summarizes her views as you stated them. It is not your job to assess her views, it is our job to fairly represent them. Please show a single source that presents the simplistic view that vaccines cause autism across the board. (Even the Wikipedia Generation Rescue is more broad in its summary of their position, summarizing their position as “many environmental factors contributing to autism.”) McCarthy does not say that all autism is caused by a particular shot or all shots— nor that all children are at equal risk of developing autism. Her statements were similar in 2009 

Also please check your own bias. You keep bringing back the matter of accurately summarizing someone’s position to your own beliefs about the validity of that position. Stop conflating the two.

Wikipedia’s own sourcing page says a source is needed for anything, especially things that could be challenged - you have none for this summary— and the idea of using secondary sources is referring to scholarly research, NOT to the beliefs of a living person. For living persons, it is best practice to use their own words about their beliefs and advocacy positions, not someone else’s highly biased opinion on their work and positions. **Uncritical portrayal of the subject’s own words are WHAT WE WANT here!! ** Remember Wikipedia’s neutrality goals. CMTBard (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Creationists sincerely believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, life arose in more or less its current form, and that this is supported by science. They are wrong. We do not portray them as anything else. We do not close off the sentence by saying "J. Random Creationists disputes this conclusion". We assert fact as fact. The fact here is that Jenny McCarthy is one of the most influential antivaccinationists in America, and has directly led to large numbers of people not vaccinating their kids. This resurgence of antivaccinationism has had no effect on rates of autism, but has caused children to die of preventable disease. The gun is smoking, and it's in her hand. We don't defer to her assertion that she was shooting at something else, when the police reports have thousands of eyewitnesses saying the contrary. Understand? Guy (Help!) 11:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You continue to conflate your opinion about someone's position with accurately stating the position itself. I am not even addressing the entire article where you critique her position-- I'm simply referring to the second paragraph where you inaccurately summarize her position. Nowhere have I mentioned rates of autism, nor the effect of her position. I am pointing out that you have incorrectly summed her position up, and I have challenged you to show that your summary of her position is correct... you have not done so. All that I ask is that you correctly summarize her position and use an unbiased source to back up that summary (ie her own words if at all possible). If you cannot separate your own opinion on the topic from the topic itself, it really should not be you editing this page. 23.125.167.203 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, just to make it clear: these summaries would be accurate-- take your pick: "...position/belief/hypothosis... - ...that vaccines contribute to autism in some kids" - "... that vaccines can trigger autism in some kids" - "... that vaccines can cause autism in some kids" - "... that vaccines can contribute to autism in vulnerable kids" - "... that vaccines can trigger autism in genetically vulnerable kids" - "... that vaccines, among other things, can trigger autism in certain children"

etc.

Simply saying that she posits "vaccines cause autism" is just not accurate.

Imagine this is a biography of a living politician or lobbyist whose political position you don't agree with-- you still have to sum up what THEY say they are lobbying for, with whatever nuances they have stated. 23.125.167.203 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem very determined to ignore the point here. It doesn't matter what statements she makes in furtherance of her attempts to rebrand as not-antivaccination-but. What matters is that reliable independent sources note that she is anti-vaccination, and no reliable independent sources present her supposed changed views in any context other than interviews or verbatim statements per standard journalistic practice. Nobody appears to cover Jenny mcCarthy as a former antivaxer who is now promoting a different agenda. "I am not against vaccines, I am for perfectly safe vaccines that I fail to point out cannot even theoretically exist, as measured by tests that no IRB would permit" is not functionally different from being anti-vaccine, and that's why there's no actual evidence that she is anything other than antivaccine. There's also zero evidence that she is even mildly skeptical of any claim of autism as being caused by vaccines. She's associated with both Generation rescue and Vaxxed, which are hard-line antivaccination and also hard line vaccines-cause-autism. There is simply no evidence that her requivocation has any purpose other than to get her on TV.
 * The analogy with politicians is false. Whether or not unregulated free markets are a good thing, is a philosophical point on which reasonable people may differ. Whether vaccines cause autism is not. There is simply no association, causal or otherwise, between vaccines and autism. Adding weasel; qualifiers like "some" and "vulnerable children" merely insulates an incorrect belief against falsification. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not the one missing the point at all! You are! “The point” is whether your summary of her position is accurate. It’s not about whether she is wrong, it’s not even about the term antivaxxer (we have addressed that). McCarthy’s position is that some children do descend into autism after vaccinations, but not all do (just those who are genetically or otherwise vulnerable to it)— but also that vaccines are not the only factor. Her position has not changed on that, but even if it did, an article on her should accurately reflect her current position. (Past views could also be represented, especially in another section like “history of her movement” or something.). You need an accurate summary of her view now, one you can verify and cite with an unbiased primary source. CMTBard (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the point is whether we promote a self-serving narrative that has no supporting source outside her own words and is clearly motivated by the knowledge that her real views, as exemplified in her deeds, not her words, make her unemployable. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

...when it comes to someone's opinion, and to their own goals as a lobbiest... their own words are indeed what matter, yes. That's my point: when it comes to a living person, who is still active politically, we do need to go by their own words in portraying what they believe and stand for. Doesn't matter if we agree with it, if we think it's dangerous, if we fear it's effects... not the issue. For those things we write op-ed pieces or engage them in public debate. In an encyclopedia concerned with accurately representing a subject such as, in this case, a live person, the goal is to simply provide an accurate summary, not a commentary. Please remember-- this entire time, my suggestions have focused on words in the first 2 paragraphs. You have entire sections later in your article on seeking to disprove McCarthy's views, I'm not even addressing those. All I am asking is that you accurately summarize her views-- no matter her motives or your opinions of her views. To do otherwise is first of all inaccurate, secondly unverifiable and thirdly is biased (ie not neutral). CMTBard (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you meant lobbyist, not "lobbiest". TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CMTBard. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia-Outreach
CMT, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Your statements on the page discussing whether you should be topic banned on the subject of discretionary sanctions shows you seem to have a grave misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It is not true that every single edit increases accuracy. There are edits that introduce incorrect information, misinformation, and incomplete information. They exist. Wikipedia has checks and balances and it's important for new editors not to be "bitten" by veteran editors, but also for new editors to come in with a sense of humility and inquisitiveness to learn more about the policies and how things work. I haven't really seen you ask how things work but just digging your heels in and saying "no!" a lot when people disagree with you. That won't get you anywhere.

Did you read the articles above that Govindaharihari suggested in the Welcome! section on your talk page here? If not, I strongly suggest that you do. Those are key articles to review to understand how to edit Wikipedia appropriately. I urge you not to view the other editors on Wikipedia in an adversarial manner. Our interest is to ensure that the encyclopedia displays correct, reality-based information. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. I also encourage you to keep your comments shorter than before and spread them out. When they're huge blocks of text, they're difficult to read and strain the eyes in a most unpleasant way. I gather that you perceive the veteran editors' responses as "maintaining the status quo" and as being "close-minded" but there are good reasons for that. The "evidence" you are presenting is of very poor quality and your conclusions based on those sources are incorrect. That's why we're unconvinced. Thank you and feel free to reach out if you have questions. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't even TRY to examine the evidence I portrayed. You didn't even take an hour to think about it. My evidence was absolutely not of poor quality, it's all from peer-reviewed journals, and I quoted relevant parts to make it easier on anyone reading to see what the article was about.

I can't win. If I say something brief I'm told it's not backed by research. When I try and speak more clearly and provide ample documentation I'm told it's too long.

If I had only presented one article that indicated a potential link between vaccines and autism- or even to say that there IS an ONGOING question- I would have been told that that was just one article, there is more evidence that there is no link. So, I endeavored to cite multiple, just to show the true depth and breadth of the question. And that's dismissed out of hand too. CMTBard (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. I reviewed the articles you cited. They're nonsense and largely from questionable sources and/or authors. There are numerous high-quality reviews on the topic reviewing many of these studies and reviewing their deeply flawed methodologies and why many of the ideas they propose are implausible or wrong. Are you considering those papers? Or are you cherrypicking articles that conform to what you believe? You accuse many of us of being closed-minded and not looking at the evidence, but have you? How open-minded are you to the scientific consensus? Are you willing to accept the idea that the scientific consensus unequivocally states there is no relationship between vaccines and autism? Some studies have even shown lower rates of autism in vaccinated children and no difference in children at high-risk (i.e., with siblings with autism) who were vaccinated. Are you aware of that? The issue is that what you're citing is of questionable quality. This isn't about winning. It seems like you misunderstand that. This really is not going to be the same as the historic examples of the scientific mainstream not accepting Galileo's ideas centuries ago. Nor is there some "grand conspiracy" as espoused by some of the sources you cited. The very idea is ludicrous when you think about it logically.


 * An hour to think about it isn't necessary. I can assess the quality of those sources rather quickly. Your assessment that the evidence you presented is "not of poor quality" is simply incorrect. Just because something is from a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it accurate and there are peer-reviewed sources that aren't the greatest. The rigor of peer review varies. My recommendation to you (and it's just that, a recommendation) is to keep your answers shorter. That long answer on the talk page looks like a massive diatribe. I appreciate that you put in a lot of time and effort into it, but you must consider that people have to read it to have an impact. As it stands, it's just a huge block of text that espouses several disproven anti-vaccine tropes about fetal DNA and metal toxicity and their purported relationships to autism. One high-quality article is better than 20 poor-quality ones. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am very aware of both sides of the discussion. And I view it as that: an ongoing discussion, not a settled issue. I am very aware of the lack of quality of many studies- many lack controls for example- but my entire point was in saying that there are multiple facets to the autism question... and that the issue is not a settled one. CMTBard (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are this: Wrong. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, CMT, but you are incorrect. It's not an ongoing discussion. There is no credible debate. There is a vocal minority trying to overturn things, that much is true, but it's based on deeply flawed studies, implausible mechanisms, disproven ideas, massive conflicts of interest, and straight up pseudoscience that has been thoroughly debunked. It's true there is much that remains to be learned about autism, but its relationship to vaccines really isn't one of those facets. Whether you can accept it or not doesn't change the truth-it really is a settled matter. I realize that may be hard for you to accept, but it is the truth. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * CMTBard, your antivax claims, like the claims of creationists, holocaust deniers, and sellers of magic cancer curing beans, are not welcome on Wikipedia. We are never going to say anything other than that vaccines don't cause autism and that Jenny McCarthy is antivax. The reason why is because that is what the sources say. I do have a bit of good news for you though. There exists another wiki that will welcome you edits with open arms; Conservapedia. See [ https://www.conservapedia.com/Vaccines_and_autism ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we are never going to say these things unless reliable sources establish that they are true. At the moment, the trend is for increasing numbers of reliable sources to say the exact opposite. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)