Talk:Generation Rescue

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Andrew Wakefield]]'s autism study declared "an elaborate fraud" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 SÆdontalk 22:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to entry for Generation Rescue 

message: 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 
which appears to me to be either pro-vaccination, or at least neutral on the issue, and says, among other things,
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The start of a change of position on vaccination? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Raised at ANI

message: This article in Time has some direct commentary on the subject of the article.
*
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have added content from these and other sources, refs provided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  "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)
thread_title:  Possible additional references 

message: Hi all,
I've been asked to pass the attatched along. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me!
===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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes, this was passed on by GR via. OTRS. I've encouraged them to make any suggestions here, using the  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)
thread_title:  Draft article 

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

text: Yes, this was passed on by GR via. OTRS. I've encouraged them to make any suggestions here, using the  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)
thread_title: Draft article responses

message: 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)
thread_title:  A reminder 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't dispute that the view has been , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I made a small change to the sentence, hope it's acceptable. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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.  But either way, we should be clear; as written, it reads as the former. —96.8.24.95 (talk)  02:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   What does scientology have to do with antivaxers? (this is not a rhetorical question). Tornado chaser (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Scientifically disproven 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Self-sourcing 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About the following Section