As a Wikipedia, I am aware of the three main guidelines for editing articles about living people and feel I have not strayed from them in my editing of the article about Paul Offit. 

On Neutral Point of View:

 I was merely stating the conflict of interest of the "studies" done by the committee affiliated with the AAP claiming that the Rotateq vaccine was safe when the very academy this committee is a part of takes bribes from the very corporation that manufactures the vaccine, Merck. Clearly, these people who receive hundred-thousand dollar contributions from vaccine makers are completely unreliable on topics such as vaccine safety. Studies allegedly confirming the safety of a product should never be considered reliant if done by those who would profit off them.Besides, 89 patients have been given the vaccine and died. This along with the conflict of interest done by those who claimed the vaccine was "safe" shows that there is no reliable evidence that rotateq is safe. 

Verifiability: 

I provided valid links, 1 to Medalerts describing the adverse effects where Rotateq was administered and the patient died. 88 of such cases can be found on the website. The second to CBS news in which Sharyl Atkisson reveals hundred thousand-dollar contributions taken by the AAP from pharmaceutical corporations such as Merck and Wyeth.For deaths associated with Rotateq: 

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?LOWAGE=&HIGHAGE;=&VAX;=ROTHB5&SEX;=&VAXCNT;=&STATE;=&VAXMAN;=&VAX;_DATE_LOW=&VAX;_DATE_HIGH=&VAXLOT;=&ONSET;_DATE_LOW=&ONSET;_DATE_HIGH=&VAXDOSE;=&SUB;_DATE_LOW=&SUB;_DATE_HIGH=&VAXROUTE;=&REPORT;_DATE_LOW=&REPORT;_DATE_HIGH=&VAXSITE;=&L;_THREAT=&PRIOR;_VAX=&ER;_VISIT=&CUR;_ILL=&HOSPITAL;=&HISTORY;=&X;_STAY=&SYMPTOMS;=&RECOVD;=&LAB;_DATA=&DISABLE;=&OTHER;_MEDS=&DIED;=Yes&V;_ADMINBY=&DEATH;_DATE_LOW=&DEATH;_DATE_HIGH=&V;_FUNDBY=&PAGENO;=1&action;=Find&PERPAGE;=10&SORTING;=NONE For conflict of interest within AAP: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4296175.shtml 

Original Research:

 This is not original research as nothing added made any definitive claims beyond what was stated in the sources. The fact that infant patients who were administered the vaccine, including a set of twins died after receiving it and that the evidence provided attempting to show the vaccine is safe was essentially done by an organization tied in with the vaccine manufacturer shows that there is no reliable proof that the vaccine is safe. 

Despite my keeping within the Wikipedia guidelines, I was repeatedly blocked by User:MastCell, my citations deleted. Some were on the excuse of "libelous," but they were all factually verifiable, and had cited sources. So then I wrote in these same facts again and along with how User:MastCell is acting as a minion of Paul Offit by censoring all negative information about him however true and violating Wikipedia's guidelines as a responsible administrator. Angered, he has blocked me indefinitely for "personal attacks," when I merely wrote them in response to his own abuse of power by censoring anything negative albeit factual about Paul Offit as "libelous." Ironically, MastCell violates all of the above. His verifiability for stating Rotateq is safe comes from a Merck-funded Association, his neutrality is limited to the point of censoring any negative information about Paul Offit that is verifiable, correct and unobjective, his original research comes from drawing the erroneous conclusion that Rotateq is safe on the basis of "studies" essentially funded and determined by the drug's own manufacturers. Therefore, I appeal to nullify my week-long blocking. I would also suggest blocking User:MastCell as he has actually violated Wikipedia Terms of Use himself, especially since he holds the responsibility as an administrator, the basis on which he has used to block me.