Talk:Children's Medical Safety Research Institute

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Julius Senegal, you keep reverting my edits because you want the article to say ASIA is false. Please consider Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The source supporting your use of "false" quotes Paul Offit calling ASIA "ill-conceived", "ill-defined", and "arguably disproven". It also quotes others who do not dismiss ASIA. Wikipedia should reflect the consensus, which appears to be that ASIA likely does not hold up, however, we cannot simply declare it false. We can point to skepticism and critique.

If you want the article to say "arguably disproven" "poorly supported" "dubious" "controversial" or similar terms I am fine with that. Alternatively, if you want the article to say "false" then find a source that says that. Note how even the source article in Science you cite gives several points of view. Wikipedia should at least do that. I will give you a few weeks to do one of these two options, and then if you don't, I will revert the tendencious language. Or you can discuss your concerns here.˜˜˜˜

No, it is not only controversial: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213219817305172

It is a disproven thesis. So stop whitewasing this quackery. --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've provided a source, so I'll leave it as is. Thanks. I do understand that people like Schoenfeld are exasperating because they have legitimate credentials but are clearly delusional or fraudulent, and should be refuted strongly in the literature and on social media. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia, and frankly your intransigence over this amounts to poor scholarship and is one reason Wikipedia is lower quality than it should be. The single source you found, with debate about its conclusion in the very same journal, is not sufficient support for the unequivocal wording you want in the article. You admonish me for whitewashing, a denigratory attribution which reveals you completely misunderstand my motivations. I am exceptionally biased in favor vaccines, and like you, I have no doubt that ASIA is bunk. However, I also have standards and an encyclopedia should not express beliefs or opinions. The fact that people still get papers in support of ASIA in peer reviewed journals, that other people still feel the need to review evidence against ASIA, and that this review (https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/69/4/726/5316263, among others, is only willing to call it "poorly defined" and lacking in evidence, suggests it is premature to use the definitive language you insist on. We certainly don't yet have, for example, the level of certainty that allows us to call any link between autism and MMR disproven. I don't know anything about your background in science or Wikipedia, but your behavior suggests you care more about representing "Stachel im Fleisch diverser Impfgegner und Scharlatane" than building an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Or that you are just fucking rude. Best of luck with that.˜˜˜˜

No, Shoenfeld (without "c" btw.) has to prove his thesis, which he is not able to do so.

Please read WP:NPA before you make "false" or "ill-conceived" claims. Thank you. --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]