Scaremongering, misinformation designed to discourage parents from vaccinating children against dangerous infectious diseases. A threat to the health of children.
Hate site opposed to science and medicine.
This is an anti-vaccination site, that post supposed data showing that neither vaccination nor "scientifically modern medicine" has had an impact on reduction of many disease. They use either outdated information, or 'info' from other anti-vaxxers (creating an echo chamber of disinformation), or from discredited studies (like the notorious Wakefield study). The agenda here to deny any science is blatant, and nothing stated should be taken at face value.
@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.
it's not WOT getting it wrong, it's whoever is going round giving the sites bad ratings without explaining why. i'm not sure WOT does't need to make giving a really bad rating something you have to explain why.