Talk:A-CHAMP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This whole article appears to be very one sided and does not, for example, talk about the recent publication of a huge trial which showed no effect of vaccines on autism. Articles in this encyclopedia should be balenced. I don't think this entry is.

this page needs to be edited to be well...sane to say the least it is one big long rant for the anti-vacacine crowd

i'll edit if some one would help...

[edit] Hey I did some edits!

someone just check my edits.I do wish that their fairly sound.

[edit] Needs work on NPOV and numerous grammatical and spelling errors

I just came across this article. Just looking through the history, it appears that earlier edits corrected the original article's POV. However, there have been edits added throughout the article that are controverting opinions. Those edits would be better moved down to the Criticism section, to give a more organized an encyclopedic rebuttal.

Also, guys, it's painful to read this article. Just for example, their, there and they're are not interchangable!

I feel like just changing the grammar and spelling mistakes (I've never made any edits before, so watch out...) Are there any comments on moving some of the "anti" statements to a larger "Criticism" section? I think it makes those statements more coherent.

Here are two examples of what I'm talking about. At the end of the opening paragraph, an edit was added stating:

"Yet they can provide no proof.However they maintain their claims of "toxic children" and an overall offensive view of autistics."

OK, aside from the grammar, this isn't exactly presenting a NPOV, and isn't very encyclopedic. How about moving that to the Criticism section and stating something like "Critics (who? references?) assert that A-CHAMP can not provide proof of their assertion that blah blah...It is also felt by some that their view of autistics is offensive."

Second example - in the Political Agenda section, second paragraph:

"Though many have not ever found any evidence that their is any type of epidemic of autism or any link beteween mercury and autism that can substantiated by peer-reviewed reproduced study"

I guess my criticism of this example is about the same as above -- grammar, and an opposing point of view that would be more coherently presented in a separate section, not in the middle of a paragraph with the intention of controverting what has just been said.

My opinions...