User talk:Christim

October 2016
Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Vaxxed. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The joke is that you claim the article is unbiased, when it is heavily biased against anything but the mainstream view. In the discussion of vaccinations, Wikipedia is, unfortunately, clearly in the corner with Big Pharma, and it is sad since there is convincing evidence of a link between vaccinations and harm to children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christim (talk • contribs)
 * yes, wikipedia follows what mainstream science says. It's actually completely open about it. See WP:FRINGE. Links between autism and vaccines have been thoroughly disproved. --McSly (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. We continue to scratch our heads at those who remain in the anti-vax corner based on zero evidence, and despite a mountain of credible evidence to the contrary, and then accuse everyone else of "bias". And the hoary old “pharma conspiracy theory” lacks not only credible evidence but logic and plausibility as well. The implication is that discrediting Wakefield would somehow be in the vaccine manufacturers’ financial interests.  In fact, MMR is a relatively cheap vaccine; to replace it with monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines – at a minimum of triple the cost of MMR – would be a financial windfall for the industry; they would have been delighted. The supposed involvement of other alleged conspirators is even less logical or plausible, and never convincingly explained.  So please, enough with the "convincing evidence" meshugas. If you have such evidence, bring it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is some evidence of the link between vaccination and autism. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011;74(14):903-16. "A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population." G. Delong. Abstract: "The reason for the rapid rise of autism in the United States that began in the 1990s is a mystery. Although individuals probably have a genetic predisposition to develop autism, researchers suspect that one or more environmental triggers are also needed. One of those triggers might be the battery of vaccinations that young children receive. Using regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted."