"

""Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]"" This is what you have quoted me? Unfortunately that is not helpful. I appreciate your attempts but my point that is falling on deaf ears here is this is not a matter of personal opinion. My frustration is only with individuals who believe this is a view point. I have clearly laid out why this is not a POV piece, and still not a single user has proven otherwise, assuming it is a view point simply because it is too long? Is that really a legitimate argument or is Rjensen simply offended that I have challenged the careless lack of regard for scientific knowledge.

""Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held view"" -
I am sorry you think I am in the minority. Is the same conclusion reached by the World Health Organization, AAP, CPS, Dermatology Associations worldwide, and anyone who has actually OBJECTIVELY reviewed the literature and the tactics used by the industry. For people to say that I am in the minority, perhaps in the court of public opinion, but isn't that how propaganda works? There is not even a shred of doubt based on scientific facts that what is transpiring is propaganda, this is not even open for debate. But these people are seriously compromising the integrity of this website by acting like gods, claiming they know more about propaganda than I, based on health information and an industry that they don't fully understand. I can, by the way, generalize about the industry as it is represented by the JCTA, which is the organization I cite in the article. On what basis cna they do this, I ask all of them? And they suddenly become sensitive and cite ""WP: ..."" and claim I am the one who is personally attacking them?
~~~~"