Mechanisms of manipulation of this article NPOV Could an objective editor help me theorize on how this article is so sickeningly subjective I mean is it just the sheer number of people posting biased propaganda or is there some complex politics with people donating money to Wikipedia to somehow achieve ground I d like to help the article be more unbiased but what can I do as an individual against the sheer magnitude of this violation of the spirit of Wikipedia Just Google flu shot dangers and up come a staggering plethora of reputable objective sites with serious well referenced cons not some message board hogwash of a few individuals ranting about poorly backed conspiracy theories Cross referencing all those sites with this article particularly the side effects section yields a baffling discrepancy I can t begin to regurgitate all the details but I think anyone objective having a good sense of identifying objectivity from bull should be able to see the staggering difference in the total weight of the medical statistics and studies quoted in the anti flu shot articles and this article This side effect session uses intrinsically structurally questionable wording akin to Although trivialized concerns the CDC says there s nothing to worry about without mentioning the CDC s advisory committee on the matter has a vested financial interest in promoting flu shots It s a basic fallacy via omission of key information The entire article in general promotes a flu shot so at the absolute least a side effect section should solidly represent negatives Could an objective editor who s taken the time to thumb through all the negative articles on the net help me understand why they re so underrepresented My big question is whether working to make the article more objective NPOV will even yield any results or will my edits just be mysteriously deleted with no justification by the entities who ve obtained control of the article How can Wikipedia allow this