Childhealthsafety.wordpress.com

I got WOT because I thought it would help steer me away from websites with malicious code. Now, thanks to people who want me to listen to them, not the people on the website I'm trying to get information from, WOT is basically useless to me.
I'm reading anti-vaccine info because it is contrary to what I've been told by the mainstream, including big gov and big pharma. Its called doing research, and I've found lots of things I wasn't told before.
The number one problem with the vaccine story that has come to stick in my craw is that, apparently, all those big bad diseases they scare you with were long gone _before_ the vaccines were introduced. Unless you postulate that the vaccines are so powerful they can reach backward in time, this tells the whole story. Vaccines aren't necessary for good health – good nutrition, sanitation, exercise, in short, good clean living are sufficient for good health. Do you own research, and here's where I started: "Dissolving Illusions" by Dr. Suzzane Humphries.

The evidence this website has given has been debunked time and time again, as fraud, poor science/experimental design, or messy statistics. Go to Science Based Medicine or Quack Cast to hear the evidence and arguments that science offers. They represent the rigorous study that goes on with vaccines and the method of study that has shown they are safe and beneficial, using evidence.

Thanks for exposing the pharmaceutical con merchants who are literally poisoning our children for profit.

Not the worst site out there, but do your own research to validate any claims made about it.

Never had a problem,I like to be informed and to make my own decisions. They just give you information , you take on board what you want like most sites.

The site doesn't sell anything, so I really don't know how it gets a "vendor reliability" rating that is so poor. Trustworthiness is debatable, but also the ONLY rating category that it would be reasonable to give this site a poor rating for. It is entirely safe, as a website, for children (though the content would no doubt bore them). As to Privacy, there are no issues that I could detect.

Once again, it seems that some rabid authoritarian types would like to censor any web site they don't agree with. This has and will, sadly, cause many people to not use WOT or take its ratings seriously. I can't say I blame them, at this point.

Very useful and informative site.
Those who rated this site poorly; by all means, take the vaccinations and report back your results.
Reporting your results will be useful and informative to all who already know what the agenda is; and, it will aid us in the calculation of statistics.

The negative comments here make no reference to web-safety (e.g., malware, virus-hosting, or excessive/illegitimate tracking). They amount to disagreements with the editorial policy of the site, which ought to be taken up elsewhere.

In my opinion, such comments amount to abuse of the WOT process, and will, in sufficient numbers, erode the credibility of WOT.com.

@Psychomusicana and others. WOT is doing nothing wrong. The tool has been hijacked by a group of people who call themselves "skeptics". They go around giving bad points to all the sites that inform about alternatives in medicine, in science, and a number of other fields. The skeptics set themselves up as gatekeepers as to who can see what information, and they have – so far successfully – gamed WOT for their purpose – voting up their own sites and voting down any alternatives that are outside the medical and scientific mainstream.

The way to overcome this is to spread the use of the tool to a broader circle of people who are aware of what's happening. The skeptics are very busy, but their numbers aren't that great. A hundred or two hundred users who know what happened can reverse the damage and give the deep six to the skeptics. Their excellent ratings in google results will plummet and we'll be that much better off for it, as information once more circulates freely.

Again the rating is unwarranted but given based on simple disagreement. Would I be right to go about all the pro-vax sites and Merck sites and give them unsave rating for privacy and child-safety etc.???? No. Even though I know for a fact vaccinations are unsafe for children THE SITE ITSELF POSES NO SUCH THREAT as far as the type WOT was created to report. WOT must find some way of weeding out simple difference of opinion rating vs. legitimate ratings. Maybe the "hateful" and "ethical" rating categories should have a separate indicator that doesn't effect the main rating and site color icon so peoples OPINIONS do not deter others who don't agree with them from visiting a site they would find useful and informative!!

Ever since I have had to investigate possible health threats that seem to be hidden from the public, I have found reliable sites that have poor reputations, which as far as I can see are completely unwarranted. Who is it going around "protecting" people from information? I can see that there are controversial issues discussed on some of these sites, but I see no reason not to investigate the controversy. I simply don't understand how it comes about.

On one site I found a ''quack-detecting" vigilante, posting on WOT and getting congratulated for doing such a good job at the tender age of 16. I'm not sure that many children of this age are capable of knowing what is quackery and what is not, as it takes me a very long time and considerable research to form my own judgments in many cases. Why is there no regulation on this? Maybe WOT cannot possibly come up with a way to weed out the troublemakers without violating the fundamental right of free speech. Still what I am seeing amounts to censorship in the end.

I am doing my best to counter the efforts of people, who do not seem to have much information, at slandering the authors of good sites with false accusations.

There is info available here that I can't find elsewhere.

Almost daily now I am coming across Good Sites with a poor reputation, this is another example where WOT have got it wrong again.