Talk:Vaxxed

This article strikes me as actual propaganda

When the opening sentence of an article about this documentary includes the description "pseudoscience propaganda film," the authors have shown their hand.
I'm a physician, and watched this film after an "interesting" discussion with my child's pediatrician regarding vaccines. To say the least, it brings up some questions that need to be answered. To call it pseudoscience or propaganda reveals that the authors haven't actually seen the film. In fact, that's probably most evident by the fact that the whole documentary revolves around one scientific publication, and that publication is not cited a single time. What gives?
And on the talk page, the tone taken by some of the editors towards those seeking some balance is inappropriate, and reminds me of the "cool" kids at high school taking pains to exercise that coolness on the others. I understand the ability to obtain approbation from making edits and changes to an article is alluring, but perhaps on articles where there is a strong emotional bent to one side versus the others--such as "I've got to save the kids from the rabid anti-vaxxers!!", it just doesn't work.
The article as written is not useful for basic information about the documentary, much less for an unbiased examination of the work, because it immediately strikes the reader as being very much like the propaganda it alleges of the documentary. The agenda and tone of edits made to articles like these needs to be changed if Wikipedia is going to provide any useful information about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fythrion (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You are starting in the wrong place. The Wikipedia article quotes reliable sources saying all that. If you disagree, take it up with them, not with us. Show that Wakefield is not a fraud, that he did not fake his results, did not get paid for getting these results by a lawyer who made a fortune from the lawsuit fueled by it, show that there is a connection between vaccines and autism, then publish all that in a scientific journal. Then you have done the first step in achieving as much standing as the reliable sources we quote. You still have a long way to go until the article says what you want to say because the evidence is so clear. But until you publish that, what you say is just random whining by a random person on the internet. Nobody cares. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"Nobody cares" about my "random whining" on the Internet. Good to know, thank you. But while I've edited Wikipedia for 15 years without issue, within 8 minutes of posting the comment above I was notified that discretionary sanctions have been placed on my account. I guess "whining" will have its consequences.

That being said, I will reiterate: My principal issue is with the quality of this article. It's apparent to anyone who has seen the documentary that the article isn't a direct response to it, but only to related issues. Calling it "propaganda" and "pseudoscience" is inaccurate. Regarding Wakefield's history, the film minimally touched on his 1998 case series that has now been retracted.

As an aside, I read Beer's work on that paper, and all I can say is that the issues were brought to a hearing, one that lasted 217 days--the longest on record, and resulted in his permanent license revocation. It's a relevant and interesting aspect to the genesis of this film for sure, but it's not what the film is primarily about.

Instead, the film focuses on issues concerning the integrity of data analysis on a paper published in 2004. I personally believe that there were likely improprieties in the treatment of the data presented in that study, after seeing what was in this documentary. The other references in the article regarding vaccine safety are obviously relevant to that discussion. However, when it comes to "reliable sources" and this documentary, the thrust of argument presented by this film is from the third author of the paper (Thompson). So at the very least, a discussion of what to do when there is a dissenting voice within the reliable source that disagrees with it.

For the record, I'm a pro-vaccine physician. I just want to know the whole truth, unattractive data and all. That's the only way that we can continuously improve as a society, as I highly doubt that every vaccine we currently manufacture is already too perfect to improve.

Cheers. -Fythrion — Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So, in your 15 years of editing, you never happened to read WP:RS and WP:OR? They are the rules that essentailly say that nobody cares about what Wikipedia editors think and that the reliable sources are what matters. Waving credentials or stances around does not change that.

his 1998 case series that has now been retracted It has been retracted for a long time, by the journal and by all the authors except two, but Wakefield is one of the two and has never denounced it. He still propagates his fraudulent data. Or are you saying that he has "retracted"

Guess what WP:OR says about your personal beliefs regarding the paper published in 2004. Reliable sources say that the propaganda film misrepresents the case. Maybe you should peruse those reliable sources in addition to the propaganda film? That the film convinced you of something only shows that the propaganda works.

As I said, go and try to publish your "personal beliefs". Until then, as I said, nobody cares. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If the third author of the paper, a seasoned public health research PhD working for the CDC who had access to the original data and was in meetings and a participant in contentious email chains regarding the paper (for multiple years prior to its publication) isn't a reliable source, then nobody is. It is a fact in public health that a large number of people feel there is some connection between autism and the immunizations. The paper showcased by the film is a key piece of literature in the argument against that connection. What the film principally does, is to call into question the quality of the data analysis behind that paper, using as its primary source the author mentioned above. This Wikipedia article doesn't even begin to describe the film accurately, and instead attacks it as "propaganda" and "pseudoscience". It's quite possible that the editors and authors in charge of this page aren't capable of describing it accurately, because to do so wouldn't conform with their preconceived notions or in their wider groupthink about vaccination policies. I think we are living in a time where the prevailing thought amongst policy makers is that any possible decrease in vaccination rates--even if only theoretical, and likely transient--is a more important concern than any possible improvement or change to the current vaccination schedule. It would make sense to me that this official prioritization has put a chill on competing or alternative ideas regarding these policies amongst the lay public and researchers alike (see what has happened to the dissenting author in the documentary for reference). Unfortunately, I believe this prevailing ideology is so manifest that it's apparent by the fact that I get sanctioned within minutes for even suggesting possible merit to a particular counter argument. In my ideal world, Wikipedia would be beyond the reach of policy makers influence when it comes to accurately describing a work that has an argument against the authoritative mainstream, but I guess this is just not the case. In the meantime, I'm betting that this Wikipedia page is of such abysmal quality that it does more harm than good to the vaccination policies that the authors and editors in a position of power think it supports. It has certainly had that effect on me. -Fythrion — Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fythrion:. Talk pages are not WP:FORUMs for general discussions. If you have specific changes in mind, please propose them in the format "Please change X to Y" or "Please add X between Y and Z" followed by the sources backing up the changes. If not, we can close this section as unproductive. Also, please learn to sign your posts, I'm sure you noticed by now that your posts are not signed properly. --McSly (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If [blah blah blah] isn't a reliable source, then nobody is Please, actually read the links people give you. I will repeat one of them: WP:RS. That is a policy. The policy decides what is a reliable source, not you.

William Thompson has been misrepresented by Wakefield and Co. He is not a "CDC whistleblower" and does not endorse what Vaxxed claims. Using Vaxxed as a source is not using him as a source, it is using the fraud Wakefield, who edited the film, as a source. Read WP:RS. Even better: Read WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fythrion: Your claim of being "sanctioned" is false. You have been reminded, appropriately, about discretionary sanctions in this topic area. I ask you to please please please read WP:RS before responding, if you truly must respond, because therein you will learn that Wikipedia policy requires editors to only add content that is supported by reliable, secondary, independent sources. As editors, our credentials and our beliefs and our opinions are irrelevant. If after 15 years you are unable or unwilling to accept that basic Wikipedia policy, I suggest you move on to some other activity. Lastly, I assure you that you have clearly articulated your opinions and points. Repeating those same arguments/beliefs/claims/opinions here would be unhelpful, if not actually worse. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

DovicKnoble I'd just like to weigh in, this article does come across as a piece of propaganda intended to discredit the film, especially since the use of the word 'propaganda' is neither explained nor given a definition. Propaganda is a very difficult word to define, almost anything can be discredited as propaganda and so it's use is more often than not itself an act of propaganda, as I believe it is used in this article. I had written on a previous talk point above what I think to be the bests definition of propaganda by Jacque Elul but it's been scrubbed by the WikiCensors. The idea is all information that is designed to provoke action is propaganda. Under this definition, this film would indeed be propaganda but so would all calls to action by health agencies persuading people to get the vaccine. Indeed, the Spanish word for marketing is 'propaganda'. Propaganda is the norm in societies that deal with mass information. The use of the word 'propaganda' in this article is suspicious, smacks of propagandastic tactics itself and I would highly encourage everyone to watch Vaxxed, for the sake of open minded, independent, free thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovicKnoble (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Your sophisms are irrelevant. WP:RS are relevant. RS call it propaganda, end of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You should read WP:OR. It is not up to you (or any of us Wikipedia editors) to decide whether or not to label something as propaganda, we say what RS's say, and the sources call it that. If they called it racist then we'd call it that in Wikivoice also. If only one source labels it as propaganda, than that source can be attributed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this article is biased

Not sure, but I think this article shows subtle signs of bias! 92.21.196.166 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Bias? Yes! Subtle? No. See WP:GOODBIAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That's an opinion article. Sorry but I'm gonna have to say it's not a very good source. Doubleplusungood I would say. 92.21.196.166 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)