![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Should this article mention "measles parties"? They were mentioned recently in a UK soap, so they're presumably still an occurence.
I plan to add a section on historic measles plagues, including the Antonine Plague (including Plague of Cyprion) and the impact of measles on the Amerind population at European contact. Ideas for inclusion?? WBardwin 18:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Related to the above issue of measles history, the treatment section is about as historically POV biased as one can get. Measles certainly was treated before 1963. Part of the POV bias here is to assume that minority opinions cannot even be mentioned unless they follow the mainstream methodology of testing. (Testing that FDA whistleblowers have claimed are skewed by industry bias.) Is anything really NPOV that refuses to even mention a widely held minority position?
This POV method is far beyond any neutrality, because all that is necessary for true neutrality is to mention that a majority opinion thinks the minority approach not only bad but dangerous. As is, the article tries to defend the mainstream POV by silencing the entire history of treatment prior to 1963. Those who are financially biased because of vaccines shouldn't have any fear of someone considering treatments that worked prior to or since 1963, should they? Carltonh 22:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This article in the Guardian [1] sums it all up. It also has Simon Murch on the record stating that there is likely to be a resurgence of measles due to poor vaccine uptake. 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
MMWR and JAMA have this report [2] about the 37 cases of measles in the US. Most cases were imported, e.g. from Chinese orphanages. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The reporting about measles parties is from 2001. I could not find a resource for official NHS discouragement of this practice with Google. Anyone noticed it? JFW | T@lk 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
And measles parties redirects to chicken pox, where there is absolutely nothing about measles parties. Ireneshusband 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have found a citation to back up the statement about the NHS being opposed to 'deliberate exposure' of the child by parents, i.e. homeopathy. I'll put it up. DarkIye 12:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Allopath suppressing just a link, so text would be a waste of time. User:Davidruben "rv - remove unscientific, trolling blog site (article has link already to vaccine controversy))" [3]. 'Unscientific' is an allopath pseudonym for non-allopathic thinking. john 08:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Aside from not calling myself an "Allopath" (indeed in context term is used, is this meant as a demeaning belittling term ? If so not in spirit of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:Civility ?), I removed the link as it did not add to the discussion on measles itself (which this article is supposd to be about). I do agree though that it is not readily apparent where to read more about the associated vaccine (on MMR vaccine page) nor where to look for issues on the controversy on the vaccine (does/does not work or does/does not have association with autism/bowel disorders). The current in-text link to vaccine controversy is a general article, rather than being specifically related to the measles vaccine.
There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views, and I suggest therefore it is more a issue of directing the reader to the relevant pages rather than duplicate information or assertions. Hence I have added to the "See also" a link to MMR vaccine which sets out in some length the 'controversy' and again to vaccine controversy. David Ruben Talk 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Midgley aside, I don't accept User:Davidruben justification for removing link There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views. He could prove his premise by showing me where these views are. There isn't a word on MMR [5] about alternative views on measles, and why a vaccine page for views on measles, when we have a measles page? john 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS is admirably laid out. Its comments on interest and independence and evaluationg secondary sources are relevant, and worth reading if only in order to demonstrate that whale.to does not fall foul of any of them. Alternatively, if WP:RS is a clearly wrong, incorrect, unfair policy, then it is the same as any page in WP and available to any editor to simply edit until it says what they know it should say. Midgley 23:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)#
MMR the facts: MMR basics - What about homeopathic alternatives? [9] This gives the misleading impression homeopathy supports vaccination, but the Faculty of Homeopath is a minority, and all allopaths, so they would say that. "The Faculty of Homoeopathy speaks for a medically qualified minority. The more numerous medically unqualified homoeopaths belong to the Society of Homoeopaths, the Institute of Complementary Medicine, or the Homoeopathic Medical Association, totalling some 2000 practitioners. None of these bodies supports vaccination."--Peter Morrell john 09:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The Nutritional treatment of measles has been left out. I would put it in but I am sure allopath Davidruben would remove it. john 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Somebody please write more about the german kind of measels. It is left very unproffesional - anon contribution, 30 March 2007
There is currently (May 2007) a measles outbreak at several colleges in Tokyo. Several have closed for a week but I dont have more information.
There is a link now on the main article (under "Public Health") to a web page which discusses the Japanese outbreak at length; nobody please move it back to "MMR Eradication". That paragraph talks about outbreaks in the Americas (where the disease has already been eradicated) that are being caused by viruses imported from other world regions. In the Western Pacific Region (which includes Japan) measles is still endemic, and the current outbreak is not import-related, but rather a continuation of local transmission in that country.
--I apologize if this appears somewhat pedantic on my part, but the Japanese outbreak information keeps being moved back to "MMR Eradication", and there is no way that I could fit this entire explanation on an update summary. :P -- Pine 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This article ought to be updated to include the recent outbreak of measles in the San Diego, CA area. San Diego, CA outbreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.90.99 ( talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Both sections site the outbreak of measles in Indiana in 2005. I believe it just needs to be in one of these sections. I can't decide which though. Someone help. Saritamackita ( talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
While it looks like there is some good information here on recent outbreaks, there is also some information that is distinctly not about Measles or even specifically the MMR vaccine. This information should probably be moved to another article, possibly on the MMR Vaccine itself. It would be preferable to mention MMR vaccine only as it specifically relates to Measles in this artical on Measles. Cuvtixo ( talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) "Worldwide MMR Eradication (Not to be confused with the World Health Organization's Measles Initiative)... There are also plans underway to eliminate rubella from the region by 2010.[12] As of 2006, endemic cases were still being reported in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela, they are currently vaccinating Dominican Republic.[citation needed] While some have proposed eradication,[15] none is likely to take place until, at least, after the worldwide eradication of Poliomyelitis."
The article says Measles is endemic in the UK. I dont think it is (I live in the uk and I dont think I know anyone wih it). Maybe I have misunderstood what endemic means? Otherwise I think we need a reference for this. (UK vaccination rate is about 85% just in case anyone wondered [ [10]])
Thanks
John CaptinJohn ( talk) 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The article states "Complications with measles are relatively common [...]", but shortly after "while the rate of complications is not high". Perhaps because I'm not a native speaker of English, it seems bit dubious. While "not so high" is, well, "not so high", and yet high, somewhat, to me it sounds like less than "relatively common", which would be more like "high", to me. Certainly it would be all much clear with real numbers, I'll see if I can find them. -- Extremophile ( talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently the article reads:
Humans are the only known natural hosts of measles, although the virus can infect some non-human primate species.
Doesn't the second half of the sentence contradict the first?
Ordinary Person ( talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This article requires some expansion and further references to fulfill GA. Both the treatment and diagnosis section are limited in scope.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The following good faith entry by an anon editor was oddly placed in the article. Moved here for discussion. WBardwin ( talk) 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
there is no evidence of echinacea's effectiveness in any illness,nor is there conclusive evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for measles or any other illness. the anecdotal reports of improvement from homeopathy can be ascribed to the placebo effect.to whoever the anon editor is:please do not put this information again on Wikipedia.It is unverifed and inaccurate,and should you put it back on to wikipedia,unless their is a credible source for the information,it will be removed.you are welcome to put scientific, verifiable information on Wikipedia.best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The two charts imply that the downturn in measles diagnoses was caused by the introduction of a national measles vaccination campaign. This is not proven by the data, since there was already a clear trend downward in cases BEFORE the vaccine campaign, which had to have ramped up slowly at first. This is a Freakonomical way of using a graph to show something that is not correlated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.78.248 ( talk) 20:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
please provide historical charts that provide data from 1900 to present for intellectual honesty.
there are plenty charts out there that show the historical data. I have found NONE that are under express copyright.
I can neither see that the historic fact displayed as a diagram CAN be copyrighted since it is part of publicly available data, created through the means of public funding.
http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/0707275measleslog.jpg
http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uk-deaths-1901-1965.gif
Please provide any of the widely and abundantly available charts that show the historic levels of measles since the beginning of 1900's. Do NOT pretend they are all under copyright. This is public information. In under less than a year the entire pharmaceutical industry will be toppled. We have doctors all over the place coming forth in every country and the lack of safety studies has reached avalanche proportions. Millions of people will begin to sue all over the world. I'd suggest that admins that still suppress information here on wikipedia start hiding their IP addresses because there is going to be quite a few VERY angry people around when it gets out how much children have been hurt by mmr vaccines. This is a fair warning.
ANYone with half a brain can watch and make the rational conclusion from the available historic data of dozens of studies that the main cause of the drop in disease world wide since 1900 is access to enough and varied healthy food, clean water and better hygiene.
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx unreliable fringe source?
http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-uk-diphtheria-1901-1965.gif
http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uk-deaths-1901-1965.gif
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
http://www.docmeade.com/historic-data-shows-vaccines-not-key-in-declines-in-death-from-disease/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxP5LEYg4LQ
Again, if you have any doubts you should take a look around in the "blogsphere". If you do not think people are protective of their children.. you've got another thing coming. The snowball stage is long since left. Were the people who argued for car safety anti-car ? Do you want to go back to a car without safety belt and a non-collapse-able steering wheel? Do we believe the pretence that current medical practice is the be all - end all of medical practice and knowledge? Will they not laugh at us a hundred years from now? Then it's time to start looking for rational and logical better practice. And listening to it.
One in four in the UK alone have already acquired the information, background and studies and have found the lack of safety studies, have found and seen the studies that showed that too much vaccines on children and mmr vaccines in particular had detectable negative effects on children. This is without ANY of the doctors who studied and found this to be the case even _publishing_ their findings in the media. In other words, not a single dollar has been spent to get this information out to large numbers of people. Another point: studies show that the people who currently oppose the mmr vaccines and the overuse of vaccines on too young children, overwhelmingly are people of education, people who talk to others, people who write and read, in other words the social leaders, the educated, the successful strata of society. Do not try to insult this group further. You will loose. And your credibility will go down the drain _rapidly_ with it, and it will stay in the drain. This is not an issue people will easily forget any time soon or take lightly.
Additional note: Medical doctors and their families have and take the least amounts of vaccines. Doctors I have spoken to sent their own children (in their twenties) on study trips to both India and Africa for several months without having them taking any vaccines. They advised their children to follow normal safety precautions, hygiene and be careful with what and how to eat. They all came back without any infectious disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 ( talk) 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
On simple numbers, WHO is mentioned more often and is more relevant to the article. This is an article about the disease with a small section on the controversy, surely autism should be a related link for MMR controversy, given that there is no mention of a link between measles itself and autism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wootcannon ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Under section "prevention", reference is made to "Wakefield had manipulated patient data" without prior reference to the Wakefield study, or a link to it. Since this is controversial (see previous talks re: allopathic subjectivity), the facts need to be laid out completely. Neoplop ( talk) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
In the first line beside coryza there is runny nose in parenthesis. The contents of the parenthesis should be corrected or removed as the term for runny nose is rhinorrhea. I know this is a light technical error but nevertheless it should be corrected.
AriaNo11 ( talk) 19:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The section on signs and symptoms does not include a standard case definition. While rash is included, it appears at the end. WHO's recommendation clinical case definition:
Any person in whom a clinician suspects measles infection, or Any person with fever and maculopapular rash (i.e. non-vesicular) and cough, coryza (i.e. runny nose) or conjunctivitis (i.e. red eyes)
James ( talk) 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The section on signs and symptoms does not include a standard case definition. While rash is included, it appears at the end. WHO's recommendation clinical case definition:
Any person in whom a clinician suspects measles infection, or Any person with fever and maculopapular rash (i.e. non-vesicular) and cough, coryza (i.e. runny nose) or conjunctivitis (i.e. red eyes)
James ( talk) 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I am very confused. I found on Wikipedia and other enciclopedic-sites, articles in different languages (EN, FR, RO), about measles and rubella, and the name "Rubeola" is associate with Measles (on English sites) or with Rubella (on other sites, like French wiki article). Who is right? Rubeola is Measles (rujeola [RO], rougeole [FR]) or Rubella (rubeola[RO], rubeole [FR], German-measles [EN])? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liviuandro ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The interpretation of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838858/?tool=pmcentrez is quite liberal, as this is a hypotesis, without definitive evidence. Please read that article again. Citing from the abstract:" MeV may have originated from virus of non-human species and caused emerging infectious diseases around the 11th to 12th centuries."
It is also rather unlikely as there have been very good written reports about measles from the 10th century, especially the writings of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi, as referred to in http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf. Mamarok ( talk) 12:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little uncomfortable with this. It's taken mostly unaltered from the source, and the use of "decimated" conforms neither to the popular definition nor the technical.
source: http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1996-7/Smith.html
dictionary: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decimate
technical: /info/en/?search=Decimation_%28Roman_army%29
Heavenlyblue ( talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I was a little surprised that there's no mention that Measles was one of the three main eruptive fevers of the Columbian Exchange (along with smallpox and typhus), being majorly responsible for the decimation of the Native American population (from c. 100–120 million before Columbus to c. 20 million by 1600).
I don't know a lot about the subject (I know some, but don't have references to hand and need to study on my Coursera course at the moment), but I can try to flesh this out once I have time to spare. If anyone knows more (or fancies researching and compiling information; I can recommend starting with a copy of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel), then that would probably be better (and quicker) than anything I could add in. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Should this article mention "measles parties"? They were mentioned recently in a UK soap, so they're presumably still an occurence.
I plan to add a section on historic measles plagues, including the Antonine Plague (including Plague of Cyprion) and the impact of measles on the Amerind population at European contact. Ideas for inclusion?? WBardwin 18:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Related to the above issue of measles history, the treatment section is about as historically POV biased as one can get. Measles certainly was treated before 1963. Part of the POV bias here is to assume that minority opinions cannot even be mentioned unless they follow the mainstream methodology of testing. (Testing that FDA whistleblowers have claimed are skewed by industry bias.) Is anything really NPOV that refuses to even mention a widely held minority position?
This POV method is far beyond any neutrality, because all that is necessary for true neutrality is to mention that a majority opinion thinks the minority approach not only bad but dangerous. As is, the article tries to defend the mainstream POV by silencing the entire history of treatment prior to 1963. Those who are financially biased because of vaccines shouldn't have any fear of someone considering treatments that worked prior to or since 1963, should they? Carltonh 22:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This article in the Guardian [1] sums it all up. It also has Simon Murch on the record stating that there is likely to be a resurgence of measles due to poor vaccine uptake. 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
MMWR and JAMA have this report [2] about the 37 cases of measles in the US. Most cases were imported, e.g. from Chinese orphanages. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The reporting about measles parties is from 2001. I could not find a resource for official NHS discouragement of this practice with Google. Anyone noticed it? JFW | T@lk 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
And measles parties redirects to chicken pox, where there is absolutely nothing about measles parties. Ireneshusband 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have found a citation to back up the statement about the NHS being opposed to 'deliberate exposure' of the child by parents, i.e. homeopathy. I'll put it up. DarkIye 12:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Allopath suppressing just a link, so text would be a waste of time. User:Davidruben "rv - remove unscientific, trolling blog site (article has link already to vaccine controversy))" [3]. 'Unscientific' is an allopath pseudonym for non-allopathic thinking. john 08:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Aside from not calling myself an "Allopath" (indeed in context term is used, is this meant as a demeaning belittling term ? If so not in spirit of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:Civility ?), I removed the link as it did not add to the discussion on measles itself (which this article is supposd to be about). I do agree though that it is not readily apparent where to read more about the associated vaccine (on MMR vaccine page) nor where to look for issues on the controversy on the vaccine (does/does not work or does/does not have association with autism/bowel disorders). The current in-text link to vaccine controversy is a general article, rather than being specifically related to the measles vaccine.
There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views, and I suggest therefore it is more a issue of directing the reader to the relevant pages rather than duplicate information or assertions. Hence I have added to the "See also" a link to MMR vaccine which sets out in some length the 'controversy' and again to vaccine controversy. David Ruben Talk 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Midgley aside, I don't accept User:Davidruben justification for removing link There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views. He could prove his premise by showing me where these views are. There isn't a word on MMR [5] about alternative views on measles, and why a vaccine page for views on measles, when we have a measles page? john 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS is admirably laid out. Its comments on interest and independence and evaluationg secondary sources are relevant, and worth reading if only in order to demonstrate that whale.to does not fall foul of any of them. Alternatively, if WP:RS is a clearly wrong, incorrect, unfair policy, then it is the same as any page in WP and available to any editor to simply edit until it says what they know it should say. Midgley 23:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)#
MMR the facts: MMR basics - What about homeopathic alternatives? [9] This gives the misleading impression homeopathy supports vaccination, but the Faculty of Homeopath is a minority, and all allopaths, so they would say that. "The Faculty of Homoeopathy speaks for a medically qualified minority. The more numerous medically unqualified homoeopaths belong to the Society of Homoeopaths, the Institute of Complementary Medicine, or the Homoeopathic Medical Association, totalling some 2000 practitioners. None of these bodies supports vaccination."--Peter Morrell john 09:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The Nutritional treatment of measles has been left out. I would put it in but I am sure allopath Davidruben would remove it. john 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Somebody please write more about the german kind of measels. It is left very unproffesional - anon contribution, 30 March 2007
There is currently (May 2007) a measles outbreak at several colleges in Tokyo. Several have closed for a week but I dont have more information.
There is a link now on the main article (under "Public Health") to a web page which discusses the Japanese outbreak at length; nobody please move it back to "MMR Eradication". That paragraph talks about outbreaks in the Americas (where the disease has already been eradicated) that are being caused by viruses imported from other world regions. In the Western Pacific Region (which includes Japan) measles is still endemic, and the current outbreak is not import-related, but rather a continuation of local transmission in that country.
--I apologize if this appears somewhat pedantic on my part, but the Japanese outbreak information keeps being moved back to "MMR Eradication", and there is no way that I could fit this entire explanation on an update summary. :P -- Pine 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This article ought to be updated to include the recent outbreak of measles in the San Diego, CA area. San Diego, CA outbreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.90.99 ( talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Both sections site the outbreak of measles in Indiana in 2005. I believe it just needs to be in one of these sections. I can't decide which though. Someone help. Saritamackita ( talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
While it looks like there is some good information here on recent outbreaks, there is also some information that is distinctly not about Measles or even specifically the MMR vaccine. This information should probably be moved to another article, possibly on the MMR Vaccine itself. It would be preferable to mention MMR vaccine only as it specifically relates to Measles in this artical on Measles. Cuvtixo ( talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) "Worldwide MMR Eradication (Not to be confused with the World Health Organization's Measles Initiative)... There are also plans underway to eliminate rubella from the region by 2010.[12] As of 2006, endemic cases were still being reported in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela, they are currently vaccinating Dominican Republic.[citation needed] While some have proposed eradication,[15] none is likely to take place until, at least, after the worldwide eradication of Poliomyelitis."
The article says Measles is endemic in the UK. I dont think it is (I live in the uk and I dont think I know anyone wih it). Maybe I have misunderstood what endemic means? Otherwise I think we need a reference for this. (UK vaccination rate is about 85% just in case anyone wondered [ [10]])
Thanks
John CaptinJohn ( talk) 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The article states "Complications with measles are relatively common [...]", but shortly after "while the rate of complications is not high". Perhaps because I'm not a native speaker of English, it seems bit dubious. While "not so high" is, well, "not so high", and yet high, somewhat, to me it sounds like less than "relatively common", which would be more like "high", to me. Certainly it would be all much clear with real numbers, I'll see if I can find them. -- Extremophile ( talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently the article reads:
Humans are the only known natural hosts of measles, although the virus can infect some non-human primate species.
Doesn't the second half of the sentence contradict the first?
Ordinary Person ( talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This article requires some expansion and further references to fulfill GA. Both the treatment and diagnosis section are limited in scope.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The following good faith entry by an anon editor was oddly placed in the article. Moved here for discussion. WBardwin ( talk) 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
there is no evidence of echinacea's effectiveness in any illness,nor is there conclusive evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for measles or any other illness. the anecdotal reports of improvement from homeopathy can be ascribed to the placebo effect.to whoever the anon editor is:please do not put this information again on Wikipedia.It is unverifed and inaccurate,and should you put it back on to wikipedia,unless their is a credible source for the information,it will be removed.you are welcome to put scientific, verifiable information on Wikipedia.best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The two charts imply that the downturn in measles diagnoses was caused by the introduction of a national measles vaccination campaign. This is not proven by the data, since there was already a clear trend downward in cases BEFORE the vaccine campaign, which had to have ramped up slowly at first. This is a Freakonomical way of using a graph to show something that is not correlated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.78.248 ( talk) 20:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
please provide historical charts that provide data from 1900 to present for intellectual honesty.
there are plenty charts out there that show the historical data. I have found NONE that are under express copyright.
I can neither see that the historic fact displayed as a diagram CAN be copyrighted since it is part of publicly available data, created through the means of public funding.
http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/0707275measleslog.jpg
http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uk-deaths-1901-1965.gif
Please provide any of the widely and abundantly available charts that show the historic levels of measles since the beginning of 1900's. Do NOT pretend they are all under copyright. This is public information. In under less than a year the entire pharmaceutical industry will be toppled. We have doctors all over the place coming forth in every country and the lack of safety studies has reached avalanche proportions. Millions of people will begin to sue all over the world. I'd suggest that admins that still suppress information here on wikipedia start hiding their IP addresses because there is going to be quite a few VERY angry people around when it gets out how much children have been hurt by mmr vaccines. This is a fair warning.
ANYone with half a brain can watch and make the rational conclusion from the available historic data of dozens of studies that the main cause of the drop in disease world wide since 1900 is access to enough and varied healthy food, clean water and better hygiene.
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx unreliable fringe source?
http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-uk-diphtheria-1901-1965.gif
http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uk-deaths-1901-1965.gif
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
http://www.docmeade.com/historic-data-shows-vaccines-not-key-in-declines-in-death-from-disease/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxP5LEYg4LQ
Again, if you have any doubts you should take a look around in the "blogsphere". If you do not think people are protective of their children.. you've got another thing coming. The snowball stage is long since left. Were the people who argued for car safety anti-car ? Do you want to go back to a car without safety belt and a non-collapse-able steering wheel? Do we believe the pretence that current medical practice is the be all - end all of medical practice and knowledge? Will they not laugh at us a hundred years from now? Then it's time to start looking for rational and logical better practice. And listening to it.
One in four in the UK alone have already acquired the information, background and studies and have found the lack of safety studies, have found and seen the studies that showed that too much vaccines on children and mmr vaccines in particular had detectable negative effects on children. This is without ANY of the doctors who studied and found this to be the case even _publishing_ their findings in the media. In other words, not a single dollar has been spent to get this information out to large numbers of people. Another point: studies show that the people who currently oppose the mmr vaccines and the overuse of vaccines on too young children, overwhelmingly are people of education, people who talk to others, people who write and read, in other words the social leaders, the educated, the successful strata of society. Do not try to insult this group further. You will loose. And your credibility will go down the drain _rapidly_ with it, and it will stay in the drain. This is not an issue people will easily forget any time soon or take lightly.
Additional note: Medical doctors and their families have and take the least amounts of vaccines. Doctors I have spoken to sent their own children (in their twenties) on study trips to both India and Africa for several months without having them taking any vaccines. They advised their children to follow normal safety precautions, hygiene and be careful with what and how to eat. They all came back without any infectious disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 ( talk) 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
On simple numbers, WHO is mentioned more often and is more relevant to the article. This is an article about the disease with a small section on the controversy, surely autism should be a related link for MMR controversy, given that there is no mention of a link between measles itself and autism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wootcannon ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Under section "prevention", reference is made to "Wakefield had manipulated patient data" without prior reference to the Wakefield study, or a link to it. Since this is controversial (see previous talks re: allopathic subjectivity), the facts need to be laid out completely. Neoplop ( talk) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
In the first line beside coryza there is runny nose in parenthesis. The contents of the parenthesis should be corrected or removed as the term for runny nose is rhinorrhea. I know this is a light technical error but nevertheless it should be corrected.
AriaNo11 ( talk) 19:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The section on signs and symptoms does not include a standard case definition. While rash is included, it appears at the end. WHO's recommendation clinical case definition:
Any person in whom a clinician suspects measles infection, or Any person with fever and maculopapular rash (i.e. non-vesicular) and cough, coryza (i.e. runny nose) or conjunctivitis (i.e. red eyes)
James ( talk) 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The section on signs and symptoms does not include a standard case definition. While rash is included, it appears at the end. WHO's recommendation clinical case definition:
Any person in whom a clinician suspects measles infection, or Any person with fever and maculopapular rash (i.e. non-vesicular) and cough, coryza (i.e. runny nose) or conjunctivitis (i.e. red eyes)
James ( talk) 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I am very confused. I found on Wikipedia and other enciclopedic-sites, articles in different languages (EN, FR, RO), about measles and rubella, and the name "Rubeola" is associate with Measles (on English sites) or with Rubella (on other sites, like French wiki article). Who is right? Rubeola is Measles (rujeola [RO], rougeole [FR]) or Rubella (rubeola[RO], rubeole [FR], German-measles [EN])? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liviuandro ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The interpretation of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838858/?tool=pmcentrez is quite liberal, as this is a hypotesis, without definitive evidence. Please read that article again. Citing from the abstract:" MeV may have originated from virus of non-human species and caused emerging infectious diseases around the 11th to 12th centuries."
It is also rather unlikely as there have been very good written reports about measles from the 10th century, especially the writings of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi, as referred to in http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf. Mamarok ( talk) 12:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little uncomfortable with this. It's taken mostly unaltered from the source, and the use of "decimated" conforms neither to the popular definition nor the technical.
source: http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1996-7/Smith.html
dictionary: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decimate
technical: /info/en/?search=Decimation_%28Roman_army%29
Heavenlyblue ( talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I was a little surprised that there's no mention that Measles was one of the three main eruptive fevers of the Columbian Exchange (along with smallpox and typhus), being majorly responsible for the decimation of the Native American population (from c. 100–120 million before Columbus to c. 20 million by 1600).
I don't know a lot about the subject (I know some, but don't have references to hand and need to study on my Coursera course at the moment), but I can try to flesh this out once I have time to spare. If anyone knows more (or fancies researching and compiling information; I can recommend starting with a copy of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel), then that would probably be better (and quicker) than anything I could add in. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)