PAGE CREATION and EDIT WARS

Here you can see my pages created, or worked on, and the medical/allopath/vaccinator attempts to keep vaccine or other criticism of allopathy suppressed.

PAGE CREATIONS

Beddow Bayly; Antoine Bechamp; Alan Cantwell; Harris Coulter; Charles Creighton; Glen Dettman; Barbara Loe Fisher; Archie Kalokerinos; Don Croft; Walter Hadwen; William Kelley; Lily Loat; Robert S. Mendelsohn; Charles Pearce; Viera Scheibner; William Tebb; Richard Schulze; Martin Walker; Assemblage Point; Keki Sidhwa; Paavo Airola; Kitty Campion; Neil Miller; William Job Collins; Edgar Crookshank;

Page contributions

National Anti-Vaccination League

Articles created

The Case Against Vaccination by Beddow Bayly

Articles taken from whale.to (without credit)

PAGE DELETIONS and DELETION ATTEMPTS

Deleted

Lily Loat, the main anti-vaccinator of the early and mid 20 century, secretary of the National Anti-Vaccination League
Medical controversies
Whale.to
Vaccination critics [1]

Failed attempt

On going attempts

Present attempts are deletion by merger which Midgley is trying with Viera Scheibner and Beddow Bayly into a page he created for that purpose called Anti-vaccinationists with the biased text supplied by him

Editors deleting or attempting to delete pages

Deletion by merger

This is Midgley ploy. He tried to delete the main medical anti-vaccinator of the last century Robert Mendelsohn [10], Now he is attempting to delete by merger Beddow Bayly, Viera Scheibner, National Anti-Vaccination League, into a page he created with his POV Anti-vaccinationists. Bear in mind they DELETED a very similar page called Vaccine critics [11]which, get this, is now directed to his Anti-vaccine page! Check it out Vaccination critics!!

PS Midgley said "Anti-vaccinationists are a small headcount. Is there an indication of how many people are involved?" Inferring small because their views are wacko. The real reason why they are small in number is because vaccinators like him have kept their views from the public by actions such as his. Way back they cut Creightons article on vaccination out of the Encylopedia Brittanica.

Allopath Editors deleting my links and edits

InvictaHOG Special interest--Pediatrics!

[12][13] [14] [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Deleting whale nutritional links [26][27]

JFW [28][29]

Nutritional medicine [30] [31]

Andrew73 [32][33][34]

My personal shadow (anonymous, but walks, talks, and behaves like a vaccinator/allopath. Chops all my vaccine pages.)

CDN99: [35] [36] [37][38][39]

Spurious reason for deleting Nexus article: [40]

Bias

Baloney. It's not the criticsm we're suppressing, it's whale.to. JFW all the articles on whale are not acceptable. Tabeh.JFW

Jfdwolff: The link was inserted again. The (un)acceptability of whale.to as an external link has been discussed on Talk:MMR vaccine, and I think nothing more needs to be said over here. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia. I think an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 a year is not very high and no sign that your page is notable. Today, 106,763 sites were getting more traffic than you. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)"

This single user is the most tenacious anti-vaccine editor on Wikipedia, and has filled many articles with his choice anti-science on the subject of vaccination. Everything sounds nice and NPOV, but when the matter is investigated one encounters dangerous lunacy, notoriety and dishonesty. Viera Scheibner, for example, was touted (by another editor) as a scientist with scientific arguments against vaccination until it turned out she had not published more than one paper on a medical topic, was the recipient of the Australian Skeptics' "Bent Spoon Award" and was the subject of an article in Vaccine detailing her views and modus operandi. This has to stop. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [41]

Viera Scheibner Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I now remove links as "non-authoratitive" if they are full of Google ads or promote non-standard treatments. JFW | T@lk 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem is their best argument

You are right about whale.to - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling." InvictaHOG 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 86.128.165.240 that information about vaccines and their side effects should not be suppressed. However, the whale.to link is not an appropriate source for this information because of the competing extremist information and conspiracy theories as outlined on the RFC on Talk:MMR vaccine. As already reviewed by InvictaHOG, the commentary on Illuminati mind control, Jewish conspiracy, genocide via vaccination, Roman Catholics, psychic assassins, Mormons, Walter Cronkite, demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone, or links to alien implant removers distracts from the criticisms of vaccines and decreases the value of whale.to link. Andrew73 13:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

CDN 99 Bias

"Viera Scheibner a notable vaccination critic and quack". --CDN99 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
My intentions were the same as yours (i.e. I agree alt. med. is pseudoscience); it's just that you had Category:Pseudoscience under Category:Alternative medicine, and vice versa. I changed things so that Cat:Alt. med. was under Pseudoscience, but not the other way around. You also had Cat: Professional CAM treatments under Cat:Alt med, and vice versa. But right now, Alt. med. is under Pseudoscience (alt. med. is a subsection of pseudoscience) and Fraud, and Pseudoscience is under Fraud. Things were just a bit mixed up. (my talk) --CDN99 23:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really know where to put this notice.... John (Whaleto) is now adding a "different" link to all of his articles (ex. [42]). The link is http://www.vaccination.org.uk, which is quite obviously a copy of the whale.to site, or a transfer of the contents to a different location. I seem to be on his radar now, so I'll go remove all the links I can find. --CDN99 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[43]

Arcadian external link recommendation (orthodox bias)

You can see Arcadian's bias, this would effectively put all links into allopathic sites or peer review which is how the allopaths control medicine, and throws light on his reverting of many of my article links.

Inspired by JFW's proposal above, I'd like to propose that we define standards for what constitutes Original research when adding external links to medical articles. Here's a draft -- For a link to be added to a medical article, it must meet at least one of the following three criteria:

The article has a PubMed ID.
The domain of the URL is from a hospital or accredited university.
The domain has a Alexa Internet ranking of ten thousand or less. (This wouldn't apply for blogs or other personal accounts that would piggyback on the Alexa ranking of the parent.) --Arcadian 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

John - this is your third warning that you are violating Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, for this edit. It is so poorly identified that it's not even possible to tell if that's a book, a journal article, or a magazine. Please refrain from such edits in the future, and also please read Wikipedia:Verifiability if you haven't already. --Arcadian 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quackwatch link inserters

Quackwatch is a pharma shill see

Whereas the altmed circuit, with its clinics, books, lectures, diets, herbal products, gadgets for shining coloured lights on people, etc etc, isn't equally a profit machine? Tearlach 18:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tearlach [44]

And why not? If you adhere to Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view, you should be doing this yourself instead of just copying promotional biographies. Tearlach 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

CDN99: [45]

Biased editing

Beddow Bayly text to make him look bad

Invicta Hoog

[46]

CDN99

[47]

User:Whaleto/Archives1