Talk:Australian Vaccination-risks Network

It seems that some users are "blanking" this page. Please understand that it is considered bad editing etiquette to remove related referenced material from wikipedia. As such please discontinue doing so.

Well, one user really. And yes, it is poor form. But such efforts will just bring him/her to the attention of the AN/I which may result (or rather will result) in a blocking. Can I recommend you get an account? Shot info (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

I am concerned this article lacks notability. Specifically, I found no media coverage for this organization doing a googlenews search. Their website has a news section, but I didn't find any articles covering the organizarion, only health issues. I am tempted to nominate for deletion, but thought I might drop a note here first to see if the article could be quickly improved. Basket of Puppies 04:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree (for AfD that is) but rather than nominating it I noticed that a bunch of editors where starting to populate it with references - so I was willing to see where it ended up. However given the recent editwarring - there is more important behaviours that need to be taken into account before the article can go anywhere... Shot info (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, if the org isn't notable then there is no need for an edit-war on the content as the article won't be around. Do you think it's salvageable? Basket of Puppies 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't know - I was doing tidying and started dropping in some facttags before I got editbombed out of existence. There was a bunch of other new editors doing the editing and the article seemed to in a state of flux. I guess this is why there was zero discussion here - but it seems that editwarring broke out before discussion could begin. Personally I think some of the "sourced" version is heavy handed but as I said - didn't have a chance to really see where the article was going before kaboommmm.... sighhh... Shot info (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely contentious organisation here in Australia with quite a lot of airtime given to subjects that have quoted the AVN. This is equivalent to the Generation Rescue wiki page which is in the US.

I'm not sure why Google news is not showing it, but look at the following google site search

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Aabc.net.au+%22australian+vaccination+network%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1GGGL_en-GB___AU337&client=firefox-a

An interview on a major Australian TV Network: http://www.ama.com.au/node/583

The old name of the website which has the same president, Meryl Dorey http://health.ninemsn.com.au/pregnancy/parenthood/694262/is-it-really-safe-to-vaccinate-your-kids

http://www2b.abc.net.au/4corners/forum/archives/archive104/newposts/60/topic60331.shtm

There are literally hundreds of hits relating to the AVN and its president Meryl Dorey. This wiki site could be an extremely valuable to new parents who want to be well informed about vaccination.

Dick Smith, a prominent Australian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Smith_%28entrepreneur%29, recently paid a $60,000 full page advert in defence of vaccination which was aimed at informing parents in regards to the poor informatino on the AVN website.

If you look at the references supplied at the bottom of avn wiki site you will see that they are mostly well referenced. Exazonk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Very interesting! I wonder why google news didn't pick it up. How odd! Basket of Puppies 04:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I didn't jump in with an AfD - the references seemed to be quite valid from my perspective - although some of the wording in the article could've been improved in - most definately - unlike (say) the unsourced POV that the article was converted to. But o well - rewarding editwarriors seems to be some admins forte :-) Shot info (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's some references in reliable sources (eg. this, this and this), but recent versions of the article contain far too few of these and far too much opinion masquerading as fact. Statements sourced to blogs, to scpetics websites, to anywhere with no consistent record of fact-checking, aren't suitable for inclusion in the page.

There are also undue weight issues about (for example) long spammy quotes of slogans, some BLP issues about criticising living people without proper sources, and too little attention to neutral presentation of the facts.

How about we use this page protection period to write a new, consensus version of the article here on the talk page, for transfer across when the protection expires.

Also, as you know the protected version is always the wrong one from someone's point of view. Otherwise there would never have eben an edit war in the first place.Euryalus (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The AVN is also under investigation by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission for breaches of the Public Health Act of 1993.

http://scepticsbook.com/2009/08/03/health-care-complaints-commission-to-investigate-the-avn/

This is a very big issue as children can die if not vaccinated. A big case went to air recently (60 minutes) when a small baby died of pertussis :( Children can be vaccinated against pertussis so this need never have happened :( Meryl Dorey does not believe in vaccination for pertussis. She states she is pro-choice, however, I believe that given enough time, that we can provide evidence by debunking the information on her site. That is by cross checking all the information on AVN against wikipedia. Especially in the case that there is no link between autism and vaccination as was previously stated on the avn wiki page before it was deleted and locked down.

For example, take one of the last entries that happened this morning which currently debunks one of the myths:

The AVN has an extensive internet site selling merchandise and directly advocating distrust of medicine and science, disparaging both as overly influenced by pharmaceutical companies (see conspiracy theory).

Text on the AVN website include unfounded claims regarding two forms of polio vaccine:

Both vaccines are cultured on animal tissue and are known to be contaminated with many monkey and other viruses. Only 3 of these - SV-40, SIV and Simian Foamy Virus, have been studied. SV-40 and Simian Foamy Virus are both associated with the development of cancer in humans and laboratory animals. SIV (Simian Immuodeficiency Virus) is thought to be the cause of HIV infections in humans, leading to AIDS infections.

Links between SV-40 and cancer and between SIV and HIV were both debunked by large scale, peer reviewed scientific studies. Vaccination reduced polio incidence from 350,000 cases in 1988 to fewer than 2,000 in 2007.