Talk:Generation Rescue

Andrew Wakefield's autism study declared "an elaborate fraud"

Breaking News: Landmark autism study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was "an elaborate fraud", CNN.

Kathleen and Eliot will talk with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, and JB Handley, the father of an autistic child and founder of Generation Rescue, about the following breaking story:

(CNN) – A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday. An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study - and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible. "It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

It will be interesting to hear what JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue, has to say about this. This wasn't simple carelessness, but "elaborate fraud". Not only has Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine, he should be imprisoned. This probably won't make any difference to those who are involved in the vaccine controversy movement. Facts never do. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BMJ: "a deliberate fraud"

Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school. In an accompanying editorial, Fiona Godlee and colleagues say that Andrew Wakefield's (pictured) article linking MMR vaccine and autism was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud. In a linked blog, Brian Deer analyses the similarities between the MMR scare and the case of the "Piltdown Man."

Editorial: "falsification of data"

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare

Brian Deer series "exposes the bogus data behind the claims"

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, Part 1

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school.

Changes to entry for Generation Rescue

As defined by Generation Rescue, its mission is to promote autism recovery. This includes promoting autism recovery through therapy and providing resources to autistic individuals and their families. As the organization defines its own parameters, it is improper for this entry to define the organization solely and immediately by vaccine-related issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopperBeeches (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edit sounds promotional, and like what the organization might want to put out there. The supposed guidance that they offer is that the medical establishment is incorrect about vaccination and that they have better ideas. Generally we prefer that third party sources define something, not the subject itself. See WP:SPS SÆdon^talk 22:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The start of a change of position on vaccination?

I've just visited the Generation Rescue website, and they seem to have substantially backed down from the anti-vaccine claims on that site. See

"Resources » Vaccination". Generation Rescue. 2012-05-20.

which appears to me to be either pro-vaccination, or at least neutral on the issue, and says, among other things,

“ Educate Before You Vaccinate

Generation Rescue is a community of parents and families who have vaccinated their children and now believe in informed consent.

When determining how or when to vaccinate a child, we encourage you to take into account your family’s medical history, the environments with which you and your children live, your children’s risks, and what you need to protect against.

”

This is a significant difference in tone from previous versions of the site.

However, the putchildrenfirst.org site (quote: "The longer the CDC denies the true cause of the autism epidemic, the less resources we can dedicate to treating our children today."), and to a lesser extent the 14studies.org site (quote: "Where is the truth? Like everything else in life, the devil is in the details."), seem still to be maintaining an anti-vaccine point of view.

I'm not quite sure whether there's any particular significance to this difference in tone between the sites, but it's interesting to see the two sets of sites apparently taking up different positions on this. Of course, this is WP:OR, but it would be interesting to see if any WP:RS have investigated what's going on here, and to see whether any more changes to these sites will be forthcoming.

-- The Anome (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: On the other hand, this blog entry seems to suggest that anti-vaccination campaigners are still associated with a conference supported by the organization. -- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is true, and bloggers have been saying it for years: Generation Rescue originally stated that autism was a misdiagnosis for mercury poisnoning, [1] but after that was disproven, they changed their position to blaming a more vague combination of "an overload of heavy metals, live viruses, and bacteria." That way they won't be able to be disproven as easily. [2] Jinkinson talk to me 02:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent large deletions based on concerns at OTRS

This is a continuation of a discussion at User talk:Mdann52#Generation Rescue, since this is the proper place for the discussion." -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, User:Mdann52, please explain this to me. Are there BLP/outing/suppression concerns? We're dealing with a very fringe organization where lots of quacks making HUGE amounts of money would love to pressure us to whitewash the article, and I'd hate to see Wikipedia editors involved in meatpuppetry for them. Maybe there are some other concerns? The article talk page is the place where those concerns should be dealt with, not OTRS. Openness is needed here. There hasn't been any recent discussion on the talk page, so anything else is shortcircuiting our normal editing processes. There needs to be a very good reason for doing that. I am not aware of any higher legitimate reasons for IAR than BLP/outing/suppression concerns, so it should be possible to discuss this on the article's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: the main concern is that the article reads entirely negatively towards the article, when compared to similar articles (eg. Autism Speaks). Looking at the article's history (and particually the original version before this was raised, it does read almost entirely critical, with little focus on the organisation, and more around the controversy surrounding it. I feel this is not an attempt to whitewash, and more an attempt to make it comply with WP:NPOV. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Those sound like legitimate concerns which can be dealt with in the normal manner, without resorting to OTRS. This should be done through collaboration, bit by bit. You may well have a point about some sources, or some content, but deletion without collaboration or discussion is not the way we do things here. Please self-revert, rather than go through a painful and disruptive DR process. We can deal with this in the proper way.

Since this is a fringe subject and very fringe organization surrounded by extreme controversy, it is only natural that RS will paint it in a controversial light, and we, as editors, must remain neutral in our reproduction of the spirit we find in those sources. That is the meaning of NPOV. It applies to editors, not content. We don't allow a false balance here. Content need not be neutral if the RS are not neutral. We are not allowed to censor them or neutralize their intent. This is an unscientific organization pushing some dangerous ideas which "kill children" (Bill Gates).

This is Jenny McCarthy's organization (that fact alone is a huge red flag), and an organization which defends Andrew Wakefield (an even bigger red flag, leading CNN to name him one of the "great science frauds"[3]).

Bill Gates put it quite well:

• "Well, Dr. Wakefield has been shown to have used absolutely fraudulent data. He had a financial interest in some lawsuits, he created a fake paper, the journal allowed it to run. All the other studies were done, showed no connection whatsoever again and again and again. So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts -- you know, they, they kill children. It's a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important." - Bill Gates, CNN interview. (bold emphasis added)

So please restore the default version, per standard practice, and lets work this out. Describe what problems you see, and I'm sure editors will work with you. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdann52, I'm still waiting for a response. I'd rather not pursue a DR process that could threaten your OTRS rights, when some explaining could suffice. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to pursue DR if you think it is relevant. You need to understand I am in dialogue with someone here via email, so responses on my end will have a delay. They are currently preparing a draft which will be submitted here hopefully in the next few days. I will then leave discussion up to you lot as soon as I can. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as long as there is no bypassing of consensus driven editing. Concerned parties/COI editors are allowed to use the talk page to make suggestions, air any concerns, provide sources, etc.. We don't write articles to suit their whims, or turn their articles into nice sales brochures. Meatpuppetry for COI editors is not allowed. We need more openness. OTRS is not a substitute for anything that can be done using our normal processes, although such communications can spur initiation of those processes. Letting it shortcircuit those processes would be a misuse of the OTRS system.

Information from such editors may be interesting, but we can't allow OR. We base our content on publicly available RS and develop it through collaborative editing by those editors who actually appear at the article. OTRS volunteers can proxy, but have no more rights than any other editor and should not make any edits which are not transparent and developed through collaboration with other editors. Only BLP concerns can allow IAR. Any OTRS volunteer who misuses the process can lose their privileges. That's why communication with other editors is so important, because they may have information which the COI editor may be withholding. The fact that they are using a secret, behind the scenes, process should raise suspicions. It's a huge red flag.

Attempts by concerned parties/COI editors to use OTRS to get the version of their choice is a complete violation of many policies and principles here, and such attempts should be resisted. Relaying their concerns to the talk page, so editors can deal with them, is another matter entirely and can certainly be proper. Editors will usually take heed of legitimate concerns and edit the article accordingly, but undue pressure from COI editors, especially working behind the scenes, should lead to caution. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur. This is an advocacy group that supports fringe views towards vaccination. The OTRS changes made drastically weakens the article "It's point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community" is a NPOV violation, but it can't be changed now. Generation Rescue has successfully pushed a fringe view into Wikipedia and had it officially blessed. And now they want to get the rest of the article pushed their way. Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: if you think it is inappropriate, change it! The article is not locked down, you have just been asked not to restore the information I have removed. @BullRangifer: If you wish to pursue WP:DR, that's your choice; I've got to wait on both sides here to see what's going to happen. However, you should be aware that the WMF is also looking into this at the same time as I am, and have also contacted me about this. I've tried to be as transparent as possible; However, I am governed by the Non-public data policy, so I need to be careful about what I can and can't say. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has indeed been fixed already. The changes from a fringe group that you've blessed with the OTRS action are what need to be fixed, but from your responses, that can't happen. And most alarming was that this same fringe group is working on a preferred version of the article that will very probably be pushed through. No. YOU fix this. When you are an accomplice in POV pushing of this scale and refuse to discuss anything, it's now your damn problem. Some of what you removed was justified. The overall affect though is disturbing. You've now shown every fringe group how to slant articles in Wikipedia in their favor. Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Tagged the article as POV, as clearly from this discussion the NPOV of this article is disputed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

EC Ravensfire, I agree.

This is much more than a content issue, so the content issue should be dealt with separately. The issue here is a gross misuse of the OTRS system to bypass normal editing procedures. It's an establishment of a shadow system controlled by outside forces who are misusing it by getting OTRS volunteers to act as meatpuppets for them. It's a serious breach of policies and the spirit of Wikipedia and a serious threat. OTRS needs to be reigned in and it's function needs to be defined better. You may not be aware of this, but OTRS volunteers are not under the control of the Arbitration Committee! They are a law unto themselves.

At Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team#Disagreeing_with_a_team-related_edit, an RfC is recommended, but that relates to the quality of the edit. While I have some concerns about the quality of parts of the edits, the OTRS volunteer has forbidden editing of the matter, so the more serious matter must be dealt with, and that is the user conduct of the OTRS volunteer.

This is clearly a user conduct issue. I recognize that Mdann52 is, compared to either of us, a newbie, and I AGF that there is no malicious intent, but it's still a serious violation, especially of WP:COI and WP:MEAT, as well as the purpose of OTRS. The actions need to be investigated, commented upon, and a procedure/guideline created to prevent it happening again. WP:RFC/A/WP:RFC/U is one possibility.

At WP:Volunteer Response Team, we find this statement:

• "Most requests relating to usual editorial matters are referred to normal on-wiki processes. Volunteers may provide more active assistance for defamation and privacy issues and for requests from the subjects of articles."

This is not about BLP, "defamation", or "privacy issues". It is about "usual editorial matters", so "normal on-wiki processes" should have been used. Instead, an OTRS volunteer violated that and acted as a meatpuppet, making massive deletions and removal of sources, using only OTRS concerns as their justification. There were no previous concerns or discussion on the talk page, and no attempt to do so. There was no form of collaborative editing. Instead, when the volunteer's Bold deletions were Reverted (by several editors), they started an edit war by repeating the Bold deletions (when BRD turns into BRB..., that second B is the start of an edit war).

Their edit summaries were so ominous and intimidating that I didn't continue that edit warring cycle (instead I left a comment on their talk page), so the article is now parked in the "wrong version". Normally, when BRD is violated, it is acceptable and normal practice to use a limited edit war to force a return to the default version, but without going beyond 3RR. The idea of BRD is to force discussion and prevent edit warring, and discussion needs to occur before changing the default version to anything new.

Also on that page is found this statement:

• "Team members must abide by the policies and guidelines of the individual wikis when carrying out tasks on those wikis related to requests received via the OTRS system. Most team actions on the English Wikipedia will be enacted under the Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies, and will have protection from immediate reversion because of this."

There are no copyright or BLP matters here, so the "Team members must abide by the policies and guidelines of the individual wikis..." That did not happen here. The team member ignored those policies and guidelines and made direct edits without any form of normal collaboration. They treated the matter as if it had the importance of a BLP matter, including making intimidating comments to me and attempting to keep me from normal editing. I have been civil throughout this and still AGF, but I also feel afraid to make any edits here, and that's not right. Even if we tried to work out the details of the edits made, the fundamental user conduct issue needs to be dealt with. This should never have happened. No editor, even Jimbo or admins, has any more rights than any other editor, and they don't have a right to edit war, with the only exception being BLP. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Specific objections

In the interest of maybe getting something done to reverse this travesty, I thought I'd focus on one specific objection I've got. Generation Rescue believes and supports in a fringe idea - that autism can be caused by vaccinations. This point is still made on their website. The best "support" they had for this view was from Andrew Wakefield's study that has been utterly debunked, completely retracted and considered fraud. But this fine article now only says about GR that "its point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community". By "some of the medical community". Not most. Not damn near all. Not utterly rejected. By some. It used to say "point of view is not shared by the mainstream medical community" which is fairly gentle phrasing for fringe articles. But now we've got OTRS blessing GR's white-washing of the article so we're stuck with "some". Because "some" does describe the medical consensus on this, it just doesn't accurately describe it. Unless, of course, you're a fringe group that wants to push their viewpoint. Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed "some" to "most"; This was my fault, I'd admit that I was a bit over-hasty with this. I'm also going to restore the bit about Andrew Wakeield, all being well, in the next few days. Pointing out specifics like this is far more use than generalising IMO. I'd admit my knowledge of fringe subjects is less than others, so please have patience (I commend you for it so far!). --Mdann52talk to me! 16:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Most really researching the topic before editing is strongly suggested. The vast overwhelming majority, the journal the study was published in and all coauthors have retracted. Numerous consensus statements from a wide variety of major international organizations both scientific and official. Literally hundreds of studies and reviews and meta analyses.

OTRS edits that do not concern BLP or defamation are required to stand on their merits and policy. The merits of removing sourced content without an understanding of the sources and subject are none. Policy and guidelines require policy based rationale and sources to support challenged edits. These have not been provided despite requests.

NPOV means WP reports what is published in reliable sources as due. If (as is the case) reliable sources are highly critical, then the content should reflect that. Note also the policies and guidelines related to COI, MEAT and EW. Acting as a proxy COI (meatpuppet) based on OTRS communication is not in keeping with policy, proposing changes on talk with rationale based on policy and supported by sources is.

I don't think you are acting on behalf of WMF. They are fully able to take action on their own and speak on their own behalf. This, "However, you should be aware that the WMF is also looking into this at the same time as I am, and have also contacted me about this." smacks of attempted intimidation as does your assertion of immunity from reversion or discussion of your edits. Use of OTRS does not grant any authority (except in BLP and copyright instances, which is not the case) to a volunteer that exceed or over rule other editors or policy and guidelines. Editing without following core policies is highly problematic. Intimidation is unacceptable behavior. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Raised at ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_whitewashed.3B_when_reverted.2C_the_whitewashing_happens_again_as_a_supposedly_official_.22OTRS_action.22_that_must_not_be_reverted_.22without_permission.22 - This is clearly an abuse of power situation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's an attempt to remove disproportionate coverage. This article is about the association. It's enough to indicate that they support a non-stanfard view of the subject. Discussion of why their view is not standard is extensively covered elsewhere in WP. Repeating it here is unnecessary, inappropriate, and confusing. I have not see the oTRS correspondence, but it doesn't matter. The material does not belong here. I agree it is inappropriate just to give OTRS as a reason, but one of the proper uses of OTRS is people complaining about this sort of prejudicial content. I am personally no supporter of non-standard science, and certainly I regard their view of this controversy as both very unlikely, and dangerous; but that does not change the need for a proper article.. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"DO NOT revert OTRS actions without permission." Sure sounds like an abuse of power to me. Who holds and grants this "permission"? Who has granted an OTRS agent to order "DO NOT revert"? Where is the following of PAG (explanation and policy based support for challenged edits on talk, consensus, EW, COI etc.) that is required of all editors OTRS or otherwise? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible additional references

This article in Time has some direct commentary on the subject of the article.

• Rochman, Bonnie (2012-05-23). "Why Jenny McCarthy doesn't matter". Family Matters. Time.

While on the topic of references, what about date standardization? All dates is full numeric? Month DD, Year for date of publication, full numeric for access date? All dates as Month DD, Year? Whatever is chosen it should be consistent. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In The New York Times is, "'To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one,' says J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a group that disputes vaccine safety. 'He’s a symbol of how all of us feel.'"

• Dominus, Susan (2011-04-20). "Crash and burn of an autism guru". The New York Times.

This was considered a relevant and current enough quote to be featured in a March 2014 article on Medical News Today

• McNamee, David (2014-03-26). "Evidence supports it, so why are parents still reluctant to vaccinate their children?". Medical News Today. MediLexicon accessdate=. {{cite web}}: Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help)

- - MrBill3 (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The rebranding to "Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey's Autism Organization", then "Jenny McCarthy's Generation Rescue" or "Jenny McCarthy's Autism Organization" and some discussion of the organization is in:

• Mnookin, Seth (2012). The Panic Virus: The True Story Behind the Vaccine-Autism Controversy. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9781439158654.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes also discusses McCarthy and Generation Rescue noting, "She remains on the board of directors of Generation Rescue, an organization devoted to the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism and that autistic people can be “recovered” from their autism by way of various unproven and sometimes dangerous interventions, including chelation."

• Willingham, Emily (2012-10-22). "Jenny McCarthy is a newspaper columnist". Forbes.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it of due weight that the founder has bought multiple domain names and redirected them to the organizations website?

• Orac (David Gorski) (2006-11-25). "Has it really been a whole year?". ScienceBlogs.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Orac piece is completely unacceptable and the detail seems overly trivial. All the others seem appropriate to the extent they discuss Generation Rescue directly or implicitly. Just talking about McCarthy isn't sufficient, for the record.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added content from these and other sources, refs provided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Orac" is self-evidently an opinionated blog. For the Wikipedia-usable version, go to Science BAsed Medicine. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft article

Hi all,

I've been asked to pass the attatched along. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me!

Self-serving draft rejected per WP:NPOV Guy (Help!) 20:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft start Generation Rescue is an autism support and advocacy organization in the United States that is focused on the recovery of children with autism spectrum disorders by providing guidance and support to directly improve the children’s quality of life.[1] Generation Rescue was founded in 2005 by parents Lisa and J.B. Handley. In 2009, Jenny McCarthy became President of the non-profit organization.1 Programs & Services Generation Rescue provides programs and services to support children with autism, as well as their families. The Parent Mentor program, called Rescue Angels,[2] consists of 1,387 parent volunteers in 48 countries who offer advice and feedback to other parents of autism spectrum children. The organization also provides grants for medical treatment to children who are from below-average income families, also referred to as Rescue Family Grants.[3] Generation Rescue operates a hotline to answer questions and give information about resources.[4] Generation Rescue hosts the annual Autism Education Summit Conference[5], bringing together researchers, physicians, therapists and parents from around the country. Controversies View Autism as a Disease Generation Rescue is an organization that promotes the awareness, treatment, and prevention of underlying and co-morbid medical conditions in autism in order to improve the quality of life of those affected [6]. Some perceive this as offensive, particularly members of advocacy groups that refer to themselves as the neuro-diverse. Position on Vaccines Generation Rescue families tend to consider vaccination a causal factor in the onset of autism in their children. As such, the organization has been falsely labeled anti-vaccine. Jenny McCarthy, the current president of Generation Rescue, has repeatedly publicly stated she is not anti-vaccine [7]. [1]http://www.generationrescue.org/about/background/ [2]http://www.generationrescue.org/resources/find-a-rescue-angel-3/ [3]http://www.generationrescue.org/resources/rescue-family-grant/ [4]http://www.generationrescue.org/ [5]http://www.autismeducationsummitcom [6] http://www.generationrescue.org/ [7] http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/26784527-452/jenny-mccarthy-the-gray-area-on-vaccines.html#.VFKQV0thNuY

Draft article responses

Seriously? This primary sourced whitewash is not going to fly. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear why it was posted here, Mdann52 states he was asked to post it, but not why, or who by. Whole section should be hatted and ignored imho. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup. If it isn't written by Mdann52, we need to know who actually wrote it, if only for copyright attribution reasons. Though frankly, given the fact that it is sourced almost solely to generationrescue.org, and thereby not only fails to demonstrate the notability of the organisation through third-party sources but fails to adequately reflect the controversy regarding the organisation's position regarding vaccines, it is clearly not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. The person responsible for this draft needs to come here and explain what it is that they think is wrong with the existing article (after familiarising him/herself with Wikipedia policies if necessary) and discuss the matter. We don't simply replace existing articles with new proposed drafts on a whim, without explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the previous bruhah on this article, I strongly suspect this is written by GR itself. It's pretty much how an article written by a fringe advocacy group about itself to read as well. It does show that this article could be even more whitewashed than it has in the past though. Ravensfire (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If it is Jenny herself feeding this stuff, can I be very clear that I want to have her puppies? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Marked as rejected. I am confident this comes from the organisation, presumably through OTRS. The draft is plainly unsuitable per WP:NPOV. Anyone who wants to read through it and see if there is any information that can be used is most welcome, but Wikipedia is not the place to fix the fact that the reality-based community finds this organisation abhorrent. Aside: McCarthy apparently feels the need to state that she is not anti-vaccine, for much the same reason that Nigel Farage has to keep saying that UKIP is not racist. A relentless tide of anti-vaccine statements and support for pretty much every anti-vaccine trope on the planet, will tend to make people think you're anti-vaccine. A bit like people who aren't racist but just happen to tell jokes based on prejudiced racial stereotypes and dress up in a sheet and pointy hood at weekends. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this was passed on by GR via. OTRS. I've encouraged them to make any suggestions here, using the {{Edit request}} template, so it is clearer who is making the comments. As far as I see it, this is probably the end of OTRS's involvement in this matter, short of any serious issues being added to the page. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A reminder

A short note from a former OTRSer: Mdann52 is not your enemy. OTRS is not your enemy either. OTRS exists to ensure that the project is not sued. Even the worst cranks are entitled to contact us and express concerns (and believe me I have encountered some real cranks through email handling at OTRS). Please don't shoot the messenger, engaging constructively with the subject helps keep Wikipedia honest - even when the subject is Generation Rescue.

Generation Rescue aren't your enemy either. Well, at least not Wikipedia's enemy. They might hate us, but we should treat them with complete impartiality. As we do, right now, by my reading.

Our job is to ensure that the article is robustly sourced and fair. GR do not have to like it, and in fact if they did we would probably be violating policy, but the aim is to ensure that an impartial observer will see that we have been scrupulously fair. I think we should all agree on this. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generation Rescue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716055010/http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Vaccine%20disputes%2C%20BMJ.pdf to http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Vaccine%20disputes%2C%20BMJ.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Scientifically disproven

I don't dispute that the view has been scientifically disproven, as mentioned in passing in the opening sentence of this article. But does it belong in the lead, phrased like that, as if the organization acknowledges the fact? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The entire point is that despite it being disproven, they still promote it. That's one of the more important things about them. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No argument on that point, but as written, it reads to me like they know they're promoting nonsense, which seems more absurd than the fact they're doing it at all. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I made a small change to the sentence, hope it's acceptable. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the long-standing version, yours de-emphasises the fact that they promote this belief despite being fully aware that it is bullshit. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If they are fully aware it’s bullshit, if it’s a joke to them and they’re not actually in denial of the evidence, we should say so somewhere in the article. I assumed this wasn’t the case because we don’t. My understanding is that they promote this belief because they don’t believe that it’s bullshit, which is an altogether different motive—either they’re actively scamming people into unjustified fear for their own reasons, or they’re just stupid and spreading the stupid. I’m not sure which possibility is worse for my faith in humanity. But either way, we should be clear; as written, it reads as the former. —96.8.24.95 (talk) (same user as above) 02:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not really relevant. They promote it, and it's scientifically disproven. That's all that matters. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Aboslutely true, but by my read, that’s not all we’re saying here. But if I’m the only one seeing it, all right. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Proponents of woo generally have been informed of the nature of their woo, but oftimes such sage advice is ignored. The motivation for continuing their woo of choice is not our concern, no matter if it is willful ignorance, or a profit motive, or wishful thinking -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the IP is the only one who interprets it this way, I don't see how this is implying that they know it is disproven, it just points out that they are incorrect, based on my personal experience with people like this, I would say they are stupid and spreading the stupid, and I don't think the current wording is inconsistent with that. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think they are stupid - or not all of them anyway. It is much more sinister. It is like a cult, where charismatic individuals persuade followers that they, and only they, hold The Truth™, and that any source contradicting them is therefore definitionally incorrect. Once you fall into this pit it is virtually impossible to get out. The more compelling a disconfirming fact is, the harder you work to excuse it away, invoking conspiracy theories and other rhetorical devices. Read some of the critical books on Scientology and you will see exactly how the antivaccine cult works. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: What does scientology have to do with antivaxers? (this is not a rhetorical question). Tornado chaser (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the most widely studied cult, and scientology also has a cottage industry of pseudoscience, anti-medicine (and particularly anti-psychiatry) and conspiracist ideation. Scientologists and antivax cultists behave in strikingly similar ways. Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief is a good one to read, probably the best written IMO. Some of the others are worth reading too - Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion, Ruthless: Scientology, My Son David Miscavige, and Me, Bare-faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard and so on. Guy (Help!) 01:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Self-sourcing

A number of controversial claims by GR were self-sourced. That's a problem because their statements are unreliable (as the article makes clear) so any discussion needs to be from reliable independent sources that give context. GR cannot be a source for the bullshit that GR promote. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

New sources for all:

"Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?" Human & Experimental Toxicology 2011; 30(9): 1420-28

"A population-based cohort study of undervaccination in 8 managed care organizations across United States." JAMA Pediatrics 2013 Mar 1; 167(3): 274-81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C2:781:3520:58B7:1261:E327:2C9E (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

About the following Section

"It recommends lollipops enriched with vitamins sold by a company co-founded by Stan Kurtz and owned by Candace McDonald, who have been respectively a President of Generation Rescue and its executive director for ten years. For a time, the lollipops were sold directly through the group's website. A $2,000 foot bath that was promoted by Generation Rescue is sold by a sponsor of the group who contributes a minimum of $25,000 to its operating budget.[6]"

this is an absolutely wrong statement - Footbaths are not linked not any board member. This information is not accurate and is harmful to the reputation of the board members. I have confirmed this information with one of the board members. Regarding the Lolipops, "RevitaPOP were not sold by Generation Rescue at any time. This is false information and should be removed." AnahitHovh (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what connection you have with Generation Rescue? Given that you are in communication with their board, it seems reasonable to assume that you have some such connection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a friend in the autism community and we followed Generation Rescue's work. I am an editor in Wiki and noticed this after reading an article in Reddit related to Battlebots that mentioned "cures for autism" including footpaths I know that they never did that. I reached out online to to let GR know it was there as well. AnahitHovh (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Things Wikipedia bases article content on: published reliable sources. Things Wikipedia doesn't base content on: Reddit. Unverifiable claims regarding personal communications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)