![]() | This page 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. |
What about use of the avian leukemia virus to manufacture vaccinations in chicken eggs and then the subsequent vaccine allergies associated with people who are allergic to eggs?
"Despite the lck of evidence". *Snort* What suddenly makes mercury utterly harmless just because "Thimerosal" has been written on a label? I do wish folx like the FDA would treat their pharmochemicals with as much skepticism as they try to instill in us about medicines they can't make money on.
The MMR vacine has never contained thimerosal. It would not work if it did. While you could claim that thimerosal contains ethly mercury you can see from it's structure [1] that it contains a phenyl ring and a carboxcilic acid salt. It's like claiming polystyrene contians benzene.
All of the largest studies (which contain over 10,000 patients each) shows no statistical evidence supporting any vaccines causing autism. The supporting studies for the vaccines and autism have fewer than 1,000 (and in most cases, only a dozen or so) patients, and even then the link is tenuous at best. The real issue, I feel, and this is in no way related to the article, is the changing relationships between doctor and patient, especially when it deals with consent. In many ways, this controversy is similar to the circumcision debate: Should we, as parents, allow doctors to do these things to our kids just because they say so? The answer, of course, is that measles, mumps, diphtheria and a whole host of other diseases used to be the most common cause of death among those in developed nations. Now it's heart disease and cancer. It's a calculated risk, to be sure, but it's one that should be provided by informed choice, with doctors as counselors and information providers, rather than as authority figures. Of course, with multiple sources of information (the media, anti-vaccination groups, family magazines) other than the medical community, parenting decisions certainly ain't easy anymore.
Nothing about Pasteur?
I have gone through and removed the following from this article because it was either not npov, to specific for a general article on vaccines. *Kat* 08:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I removed this because I thought that it was too technical as well as too convoluted. There was also another paragraph that said almost exactly the same thing (in simpler language). After doing some research (to translate the above paragraph) I more or less combined the two. The second, "simple" paragraph was left almost intact with a few things from the above paragraph included.
Smallpox, for example, appears to have been completely eliminated in the wild.
This had already been stated earlier in the article
I removed this because it veer's off topic. The article is about vaccines in general, not the small pox vaccine in particular.
Again, I think this is too specific for a general article on vaccines. There is an article on the Smallpox vaccine, perhaps it could be incorporated there.
With the exception of the last sentence (which I wrote trying to make the paragraph relevant) this paragraph is about vaccinations
This is about the smallpox vaccine
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032305EA.shtml%7C
The reason why I removed this is because the 2004 report (mentioned in article) rendered this 2001 report moot.
Since this said almost the same thing as the paragraph on the US's vaccine related controversy I more or less combined the two and did my best to make the end result more readable without changing the intent of either paragraph.
reincorporated in a [more] neutral form and as a result, I removed this line: The study also garnered criticism for its small sample size, and for failing to use healthy controls. A couple of the links have been placed in the External links section as well.
Seriously POV, but I'm not enough of an expert to make it NPOV
On Immune Central [11], the entry on inactivated vaccines states that:
So why did Geni see fit to take that caveat out? I'm putting it back in. -- Leifern 18:13, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
What were the bowel disorders that the Lancet article identified? Are we talking IBD, IBS or something else? Just curious. I recognize the issues surrounding that study, so no need to defend/attack the study. -- Westendgirl 07:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
In the book "Vaccines: Are they really safe and effective?: A Parent's Guide to Childhood Shoots" by Neil Z. Miller, on page 17 it says
"The term "vaccine" is derived from "vacca," the Latin word for cow.
In wikipedia we say "The term derives from vaccinia, the infectious viral agent of cowpox". - (unsigned)
Both are correct, though our version, giving the closer derivation, is more informative. Vaccine, from French vaccin, from vaccine (cowpox) from New Latin vaccina (in variolae vaccinae = cowpox) from Latin, feminine of vaccinus, adjective, of or from cows, from vacca cow. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed this section for lack of NPOV, unprofessional manner, non-specific language ("our..." instead of "the United States'...") Col.Kiwi 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
So our article stays without a "How it's made" section? Unfortunately I'm not aware of any trusted source to get this info. The guy in my yoga lessons was telling us (the attendants) that some kind of the vaccines is made by making slits in a living cow and waiting for the pus to be generated.. but i don't buy this story. perhaps this was true in the 1980s, but surely automated chemical processes are in effect these days. Ai.unit ( talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the only safety study yet conducted for thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) took place in the 1930s, little is known about its neurotoxicity.
We might or might not know about its neurotoxicity, but the reason adduced is not logically consistent.
As a precaution, TCVs are gradually being phased out,
I think they are being phased out as the need for them decreases because precision in production processes renders infection less likely.
although most flu shots are still manufactured with the preservative.[10]
In the UK, I have not seen any multiple dose containers of Influemza vaccine. Thiomersal(*) is not mentioned in the components of the one we use this year. (example Summary of Product Characteristics here: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=2080 Patient Info leaflet: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=3534 )
In both UK and US I suspect the situation is as given at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/thimerosal.htm with preservatives used in the production, but not deliberately included in the individual doses of finished product. 3 micrograms of Mercury remaining in a dose seems unlikely to cause trouble - it is more closely similar to the amount in 1 litre of body fluids in the population walking around than to a significant exposure.
SO I'll edit that bit...
Check out
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_7910416
195.38.117.220 (
talk)
07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have an article about this? Not my field of expertize, so if there are volunteers here to write about it - treat it as an request :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
A fairly recent development: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY This REALLY should be mentioned.
The content of these two article crosses over a great deal. Perhaps we should consider either merging them completely, or seperating them into independent articles (as much as is reasonable). I, personally, am in favor of the former, but am not wholly opposed to the alternative given an adequate rationale for that course of action. If there's no response, I'll likely just be bold in the next few days and merge them myself. – Clockwork Soul 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I goto wiki to invesigate Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and somehow end up at the vaccine entry. ALL articles with huge talk pages, btw. Alternative health woo-woo's know no bounds! -- Kvuo 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So, is there an argument that WP:RS is satisfied, and WP:EL should not apply, to that link? If there is, and it is convincing once presented here on this talk page, then let's see it go back in by concensus. Otherwise, not. Midgley 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"Zostavax represents a significant breakthrough, several scientists said. It is the first therapeutic vaccine, meaning it prevents or eases the severity of the problems from an infection that has already occurred." Therapeutic vaccine deserves either its own wiki entry or at least discussion in Vaccine. 208.42.18.222 27 May 2006
Does someone keep deleting a URL for this section due to the controversy over administering vaccines? I wonder if rewording the heading would help prevent deletion ... something like List of Vaccines Approved by the FDA for US Distribution. Keesiewonder 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence of the section states: "Recently, the Bush Administration has taken measures to drastically ease many regulations preventing mercury from being put into vaccines, and also has taken measures to permit industrial producers to use levels of mercury in vaccines much higher than previously permitted."
However, the sentence is sourced by www.dissidentvoice.org. The source states that "Research has now determined that the cause of the escalation is Thimerosal, a mercury-based product that until recently was added to childhood vaccines as a preservative in multi-dose bottles to increase profits for the drug companies that manufacture vaccines."...which has been later debunked by numerous other researches. Also, the last sentence states: "For autistic children, doomed to life-long suffering, the introduction of this new bill adds insult to injury. I can’t believe this corrupt band of Republicans can have the audacity to draft this kind of legislation and still sleep at night." I highly doubt that the source is neutral or qualified for use on Wikipedia.
Also, the source never stated that the Bush Administration has eased regulations and allow for higher levels of Thimerosal in vaccines. The sentence is not sourced by the ref and uses an inappropriate source. I'm removing the sentence. Revert if you like, but please explain. Thanxs. =) Jumping cheese Cont @ct 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does the "potential side effects" section ignore adjuvants ? Looking at the Immunologic Adjuvant article, it seems that this is a major concern regarding vaccines. As I remember, aluminium is a concern since years or more. The article about adjuvant is trying to give a balanced view : "generally reported as safe" - "but a recent paper suggest that "levels comparable to those administered to Gulf War veterans can cause motor neuron death". I had a quick look at the paper (Petrik et al., 2007), which is indeed very recent. It does not only suggest motor neuron death, but also cognitive impairment. In addition, it is not clear that these levels where "specific to the Gulf War", it seems that kids receive comparable if not large doses by comparison to their body weight (I did not check that carefully).
I would not regard a single paper as the final proof that there is a serious risk. However, since the issue was already debated in the past is apparentlly not fully rulled out (as shown by the new publication), it seems to me that it should be mentionned here, as a potentially significant side effect of vaccines.
Note : I have no training in medicine and would not like to suggest the contrary. However, I do not think that this automatically dismiss my remark / question. - unsigned
Nice comparison but I think that it is exagerated and thus innapropriate. Low doses of NaCl are not at all harmfull (both elements are in fact needed buy the body in some form). The paper cited in the immunologic adjuvant article (see above) clearly concludes that these levels of aluminium components found in many vaccine (not just a minority) may be harmfull, i.e. it seems very likely to be harmfull provided that the effect on human is the same as on mice at comparable concentrations. I did not investigate the cited literature but it is not a new story and it appears in the peer reviewed litterature. My impression is that this aluminium issue is one of the most, if not the single, serious topic for a controversy regarding vaccine security. It seems to me that it is possible, really possible, that the aluminium found in usual vaccines may have adverse consequences on the exposed public - i.e. everyone, not just the gulf war soilders motivating the investigations. It is of course not sure but it does not need to be sure to be a major concern regarding vaccines. - unsigned
This article needs to be completed with a vet's contribution. Vaccines are used in animals too, as you can see here 1. Doesn't any of you have a pet? Ask his vet about veterinary vaccines and their history. RO BlueMonday 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why some vaccinations cause scarring around the injection area while others do not? Perhaps an explanation could be added to the article. Thank you. JRWalko 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In vaccine controversy, nothing is mentioned about the OPV_AIDS_hypothesis, which points to AIDS being created trough vaccin manufacturing in Belgian Congo. Please include information about the dangers, ... Also, in the documentairy I watched it was mentioned that now, vaccin manufacturing can be done without eggs and other animal products, which would eliminate the potential hazard of introuducing virusses, bacteria into the vaccin. Please include information about this too. I also found atleast 1 company that makes his vaccins this way. It is called Akzo Nobel and the site where it is doing it is in Boxmeer (the Netherlands). See this website—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.192.177 ( talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a History section, also a discussion of the (perceived) difference between vaccine and bacterin. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This article, as it stands, wanders a bit, and so I'd like to propose some restructuring:
(Ref) (EL)
Concepts not listed: Overdose (usually n/a), Legal status ("usage" will cover things like mandatory vaccination, otherwise too product-specific)
I think I've covered everything that's currently in the article, added a few points like the Salk vaccine and smallpox eradicaton to the history. Feel free to edit the proposed structure if you reply to this post. SDY ( talk) 22:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
Zodon ( talk) 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As a random aside, would it actually make sense to merge Vaccine and Vaccination? If not, what goes in which article? SDY ( talk) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There should be more content here on vaccine safety. I would like to mention Dr. Kenneth Bock, who has has dedicated his pediatric practice to the connection between toxic exposure and illnesses like asthma, allergy, autism, and ADHD. His highly successful work with severely ill children (with natural implications for adults with chemical sensitivity and other debilitating illnesses) may not be performed under "controlled" conditions, but the research and bibliography starting on page 419 of his book The Healing Program should convince the Wiki team that Wiki's Vaccines page is incomplete. Mel0209 ( talk) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Mel0209 ( talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Further regarding the scope of Wiki's Vaccines page: studies show autism rates remain high when mercury is removed from vaccines. However, autism appears by age 3 in 1 per 160 people in the United States but is absent from communities (like traditional Amish) that do not use vaccines--a statistically very significant difference. Maybe the toxins that replace mercury (such as aluminum and formaldehyde) are equally damaging. If Wiki does not delve deeper into the implications of statistics like these then the article seems quite biased. Mel0209 ( talk) 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that the dicdef at Polyvalent vaccine could be merged into this article? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the text. One nit: doesn't "monovalent" go together with "polyvalent", and similarly "univalent" go together with "multivalent"? The current text mixes this up. Eubulides ( talk) 09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the logic behind this edit, which replaced '{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}' with '<div class="references-small"><references /></div>'. This change makes the output look considerably worse on Firefox, because it drops support for multiple columns. From this comment on my talk page it appears that the motivation is support for a smaller font with IE7, but doesn't {{ reflist}} already do that? (It certainly does that with Firefox.) In any event, as long as the output remains useful on IE7 I'm not sure it's a good idea to make the output ugly on more-modern browsers simply to make it look a bit better on IE7. Eubulides ( talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't understand the comment "links that you changed need to be piped to the "new" page names, not the "redirect" pages". For example, the text refers to variolation using "[[variolation]]". Currently, Variolation is a redirect to Inoculation, so I suppose one could change the Vaccine text to "[[Inoculation|variolation]]". But suppose in the future that Variolation becomes an article in its own right, separate from Inoculation. Then "[[Inoculation|variolation]]" will be incorrect. In the meantime, "[[Inoculation|variolation]]" isn't needed and makes the article harder to edit, so why make the change at all? Eubulides ( talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I was redirected from "serum therapy" to this page. Vaccination and serum therapy are not the same. Serum therapy deserves its own page, if only as a part of the history of medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lriley47 ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Besides the Bill & Melinda Foundation, another company too is making a malaria vaccine. This is Sanaria, together with LUMC and St Radboud. Spokesman is Chris Janse, do google search and add to article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.168.20 ( talk) 08:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The article Vaccine interference should be merged into this article; the most plausible section is Developing immunity. Eubulides ( talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit introduced some dubious material into Vaccine #History; in particular it added an unsourced and not-that-relevant claim that Franklin D. Roosevelt had polio. For what it's worth, the most reliable source I know of on that topic is Goldman et al. 2003 ( PMID 14562158), which says FDR possibly had polio but most likely had Guillain-Barré syndrome. (For more on the topic, please see Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness.)
Rather than get bogged down in trivia about FDR, which after all is said and done is not that relevant to Vaccine, I looked for a reliable source on the topic of vaccine history, found Stern & Markel 2005 ( PMID 15886151), and rewrote the section to match this source. Hope this helps. Eubulides ( talk) 07:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
A recent series of edits introduced the following text to the Trends section:
While the mannose receptor is an important area of current research in vaccines, this text does not seem appropriate for the Vaccine article. First, one of the sources (Vlahopoulos et al.) is a primary study, and in a well-researched area like this Wikipedia should be citing reliable reviews. The second source, Gazi & Martinez-Pomares, is a review, but it is not about vaccines per se (the word "vaccine" and "vaccination" appears nowhere in the title or abstract) and we should be citing more on-point sources, so as to avoid original research.
Finally, the text is out of place. It is added, seemingly at haphazard, to a bullet item talking about stimulating innate immune responses (as opposed to adaptive). Mannose receptors are involved in both adaptive and innate immune response, but this bullet item is much broader than that, and includes topics such as CpG oligonucleotides or Toll-like receptors. Surely such a level of detail is inappropriate for Vaccine, and belongs in more-specialized articles. Eubulides ( talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Is vaccine not a Antibody generator ? If so, please include this to the definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.80.56 ( talk) 06:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know much about adding this information or how to correctly format it, so I'm putting it here for your review and posting.
n 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (The Hadwen Documents)
- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don`t Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)
- In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)
- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)
- In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)
- In the 1970`s a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)
- In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk, who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )
- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People`s Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)
- In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)
-The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.
- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)
- In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)
- In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990) - In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated, "Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)
- In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994) - In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.
- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)
Thanks.
65.175.131.38 (
talk)
13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The definition is unfortunately totally incorrect. Actualy what happens is that the DNA inserted into the cells codes for proteins that are of pathogenic origin and the immunity does not come from the cells that are infected but from the cells of the adaptive immune system (T-cells and B-cells) that recognise the proteins. Usually the DNA construct inserted codes for genes that have tags for secretion so they can be recognised by B cells
By accident, a new way of making vaccines with plants has been discovered. [12] Probably it will take awhile before vaccines can be made, since this is a new approach.
I think that since the vaccine debate article has an NPOV tag, that the referring section that is a summary of that article should also have an NPOV and particularly for the Potential for adverse side effects in general section should have a weasel words tag, since there are not attributed sources to either side of the debate.
Strictly speaking, the opening sentence is not correct: "A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease". Not every person will achieve immunity through reception of a vaccine. I propose a more neutral wording in this regard- change "that improves" to "designed to improve". A definition from the first source I looked at was inline with this, Princeton's open WordNet 2.0: "immunogen consisting of a suspension of weakened or dead pathogenic cells injected in order to stimulate the production of antibodies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please semi-protect this article, preferably permanently. It is a magnet for IP vandals. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
But what about all the parents that say they watched their kids slip into diseases like autism soon after they recieved a vaccine? I know there isn't much research on this, but there is probably a reason for that. I feel that reason is if it suddenly became apparent that vaccines potentially caused diseases like autism, then no one would get their kid vaccinated, thus financially effecting the pockets of many MD's, companies, etc. I don't know, but it all seems suspicious and I wish there was actual research into this. If there isn't anything to worry about in a vaccine why isn't there more research. It seems someone is afraid of what they might find. 199.34.4.20 ( talk) 08:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)1/25/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.34.4.20 ( talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The History section of this article starts in the 1770s with the famous story about Edward Jenner. It looks to me, however, that the history of inoculation goes back much farther, with people in Boston getting inoculated from smallpox in 1721, after Cotton Mather learned of the practice from Onesimus, a Sudanese slave. You can read more in the article about Mather. I think that we should include some information about the use of inoculation predating Jenner in Boston, and also in Africa and Turkey, so that we don't give the impression that vaccines were something that Jenner started up out of the blue. Gary ( talk) 16:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hygiene hypothesis says "..., vaccination only uses the Th2 mechanism." but I can't see any mention of this in this vaccine article. Is it [still] correct and are there any sources ? Rod57 ( talk) 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This is my first edit. Please be gentle. :) This article starts with "Invented by the Chinese..." but the Chinese connection isn't mentioned at all in the History section or anywhere else in this article. The inoculation page does mention a Chinese history, but it also discusses the possibility of an Indian origin. Based on my understanding of the distinction being drawn between vaccination and inoculation and given the lack of certainty regarding the origins of inoculation, I suggest striking these words from the vaccine article. Would this be the appropriate action? Paul24682003 ( talk) 22:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The "oppositon to vaccination" section includes a claim referenced to a link from an activist website alleging that spreading opposition to vaccination amounts to involuntary manslaughter. It's not making medical claims, so WP:MEDRS isn't an issue, though I have some doubts as to the usefulness of the source. Given that this section is a summary of the Vaccine controversy article and that topic is not covered there, I've removed it for now. SDY ( talk) 03:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I have several concerns with the last sentence in this section, which I have re-posted below. Following the numbered responses, I include a brief referenced quotation and then my comments on it.
"In response, concern has been raised that spreading unfounded information about the medical risks of vaccines increases rates of life-threatening infections, not only in the children whose parents refused vaccinations, but also in other children, perhaps too young for vaccines, who could contract infections from unvaccinated carriers (see herd immunity).[24]"
1)
"In response, concern"
Phrasing the above as a response indicates it deviates from the subject / subheading. It starts a criticism of opposition to vaccination.
2)"concern has been raised" stated in the passive voice, this phrasing covers that no source is referenced. I find it biased.
3)"spreading unfounded information" This is a straw-man falacy, unfounded information is never a good thing. As the author did not prove that all opposition to vaccination is unfounded, I find it biased, implying that all opposition to vaccination is unfounded, yet not listing specific oppositions and specific criticisms of them.
4)"information about the medical risks of vaccines increases rates of life-threatening infections" The above quote makes a causal statement: information increases infections. 4a- I believe it is incorrect to discourage discussion / discourse 4b- information is not action, though people may chose to act on information.
5) the last section of the sentence with those "perhaps too young for vaccines" a phrase taken from the referenced New England Journal of Med. The referenced article is a decent one, and the comments on 'herd immunity' are perhaps better suited to the Vaccine / Effectiveness section (which appears above the 'opposition to vaccination' section. The Effectiveness section could include text about vaccination rates and herd immunity and use the included reference link. However, its present inclusion in this section gives this subsection the appearance of a persuasive argument as the text about young infants and then the sole citation of a medical text seems to be a rebuttle of any who would oppose vaccination.
---Suggestion---
The sentence be deleted. Herd immunity and associated NEJM reference would be well placed in the section above entitled "Effectiveness" with a sentence on vaccination rates.
Thank-you for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.1.65 ( talk) 23:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur with point 4b about that information does not mean it will change behaviour. The claim implies that information critical of vaccination leads to people not vaccinating in a discrete and linear fashion. This claim should be backed by evidence of a direct causal link. The link between the existence of vaccine-critical information and disease outbreaks is not adequate because there are too many intervening variables. Vaccination behaviour is complex and not easily changed. Where large scale changes have occurred as a result of vaccine-critical information, this has usually been because a medical professional has put forward the theory which has been acted upon by governments in vaccine policy or by sustained media attention.
OM OM ( talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Common Chemicals May Weaken Vaccine Response - A study finds disturbing evidence that chemicals found in furniture, fast-food packaging and microwave popcorn bags may compromise children's immune systems. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/exposure-to-common-chemicals-may-weaken-vaccine-response/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Pentagon video on 'removing' 'god gene'. I dont know what to make of this? is this real or fake?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nADFJlAggnY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 ( talk) 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Came here just to plug the book, but noticed that this page has nothing on adverse effects or safety - which is pretty far from the recommendations over at WP:MEDMOS, and, regardless of where one stands on the vaccine controversies, looks to violate WP:NPOV. The closest section is Vaccine_controversy#Safety. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality has come through in 2012; these studies are regularly done pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Page ix describes the publication as "the largest study undertaken to date, and the first comprehensive review since 1994", although it also says the IOM has done its duty pursuant to the act 11 times, so it's not exactly breaking new ground. Freely accessible online. Page 18 says "the evidence convincingly supports 14 specific vaccine-adverse effect relationships"; the following pages have a table describing those results. II | ( t - c) 06:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added a section and quote. Other quotes could be added. -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The quotation "With the exception of safe water, no other modality, not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction and population growth." appeared twice in this article, sourced to "Plotkin S, Orenstein W, Offit P. Vaccines, 5th ed. Saunders, 2008." but with no indication of which of the three authors actually wrote that line. Checking the source, it just appears in plain text in the book, attributed to nobody. If we can't be sure who actually holds an opinion, it seems a little odd to emphasise it in this way. -- McGeddon ( talk) 19:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The user jps removed the edition of this section with the revert reason = "Massive WP:WEIGHT problem here. This issue should be covered on the page of the specific vaccine"
In 2010 the FDA announced that components of an extraneous virus have been found in a Rotarix vaccine. As a response they recommended a temporarily suspension. [6] Prokaryotes ( talk) 17:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I'm no expert on this topic, but it seems half of the information on this page is virtually repeated on the vaccination page. This makes me wonder why there are two pages. 122.107.217.142 ( talk) 07:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to include some of the developments in edible vaccines on the page. Alexstrom14 ( talk) 02:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the timeline is missing references. The 1000AD figure for Chinese variolation seems to be hard to find on the Internet, and I'm wondering where it's from. Dmutters ( talk) 23:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the article should explain why a vaccine can be effective even after infection by the actual virus. Why does the actual disease agent not itself work as effectively as a vaccine. What benefit is obtained by vaccinating after infection ? 92.21.214.28 ( talk) 16:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The article uses terms such as virus, agent, disease-causing microorganism, microbe and so on as if they are interchangeable or equivalent. Is this in fact the case. Could a clearer introcuction be written describing in less nebulous terms the range of disease causing agents that can be tackled by vaccines. If any disease might potentially be subject to a vaccine, please explain more clearly. 92.21.214.28 ( talk) 16:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the introductory line. Previous entry was scientifically very dubious and seemed the product of someone on a political (anti-vaccine) agenda. The reference [3] seemed quite misinterpreted to support a statement of non-effectiveness of vaccines. Please do not revert to previous version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.246.184 ( talk) 11:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Archive-1 is less than 31k (2003-2014) and could have been left here a while longer. Even when an archive is made it would be helpfull if only the stuff older than say 1 year is moved ? Much of Archive 1 still seems relevant to the current article. Any objection to dearchiving most or all of it ? - Rod57 ( talk) 15:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
These edit look like spam [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vaccine. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits [14] have added this statement: "There is those who oppose vaccines and support Vitamin D supplementation and/or sun exposure in conjunction of a healthy diet since scientific research has concluded that the immune system requires sufficient blood levels of Vitamin A and Vitamin D to produce sufficient immune system cells to defend its host from pathogens." Ignoring grammar, there is no dispute that I'm aware of that appropriate levels of vitamins are required to maintain one's immune system. How this is tied to "those who oppose vaccination" is not made clear. The sources simply support the need for vitamins, not the statement of opposition. This appears to be a synthesis or a form of coatracking. Acroterion (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The point is that the human body can defend itself when it has sufficient Vitamin D circulating in the blood since Vitamin D is ANTIVIRAL. Hence vaccines aren't required. No need to force someone to be injected with a vaccine when their immune system is strong enough to kill the virus themselves. The information is relevant to the present article. Essereio ( talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Lying and disregarding the science really shows who the fraud is. I really don't know how you sleep at night by making a mess. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3308600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166406/ Essereio ( talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Vaccines(training wheels) are required by those with weak immune systems because it is self evident their immune system is too weak to kill the real virus. Using logic, sufficient Vitamin A & D makes our immune system strong, therefore vaccines are unnecessary to those with strong immune systems because it is self evident our immune system can kill the virus ourselves and if vaccines were necessary to those with a strong immune system, you wouldn't have deleted my post on the main page and no reputable scientist is going to focus on the negative by pointing out that vaccines(man made) are unnecessary to those with strong immune systems. They are focusing on the positive of Vitamin A & D. Lastly, (forcing) vaccines is a subtle form of abuse(stab with a needle) to those with strong immune systems. Completely unnecessary. Hopefully you're capable of following this form of basic logic. Essereio ( talk) 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is supported and you're contradicting yourself. Is it possible to gain immunity without vaccines? Yes. The majority of people have trouble gaining immunity because they lack sufficient immune system cells to defend themselves since they have accepted their domesticated way of life. Hence no sunshine to produce sufficient Vitamin D. /info/en/?search=Vaccine#Developing_immunity It isn't my analysis. It is self-evident that Vitamins are required to prevent degeneration and promote healthy growth. There is no anti-vaccination agenda. Just a non-vaccination agenda since a vaccine is a cutthroat solution originating from a Frankenstein mentality. Sadly corruption pays and your political bullying is useless. Essereio ( talk) 00:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I had made a change on this page, adding truthful and documented facts here on Wiki. It was then "rightfully reverted" and I was told to talk here about it. Please let me know if this is not the appropriate location for this discussion. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter.
I reworded this:
"Egg
protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present."
to say this:
"Egg
protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present, such as human fetal DNA from aborted babies,
fetal bovine serum,
human serum albumin,
porcine DNA,
bovine serum albumin, and other animal DNA
[1]"
The only thing I can think of would be changing "human fetal DNA from aborted babies" to "recombinant human albumin" or "human albumin", or "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts", or "MRC-5 cells", or "human diploid cell cultures (WI-38)", or any of the various ways they explain it, but ultimately, you are still talking about human aborted fetal cells. I didn't add the guinea pig DNA that is in varicella, because that isn't in as much. But between the others I listed above, you get all the main methods of DNA in vaccines.
The changes I made should stand, as they are entirely truthful, and documented by the CDC, along with proof from the CDC in the form of a link. Therefore my edits should stand and be left alone. Instead, they are being removed. This is the second time it was removed, so I am wondering what the purpose is of removing truthful and accurate information. I figured rather than putting it up again, I would attempt to find out the reasoning to delete truthful information. At this point, it just seems that some want this hidden, and no one should hide facts from those wanting to research any medical choice, such as vaccines.
By the way, am not intending to "IP-hop", but am not able to control my IP address. It is based on my location, work or home, and whether I am on my VPN or not...
Thank you in advance for your reply.
47.185.111.92 ( talk) 02:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is what I would like to change this sentence from:
to:
69.78.235.130 ( talk) 19:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
References
I think some of the bulleted lists in the article require citations in certain places. For example, under "Types - Experimental" there is no source verifying the statements made about DNA vaccines, particularly that experimental work has been done as of 2015 but not for human use. Similarly under "Effectiveness" there exists a list of factors affecting vaccine efficacy with citations for only two of the five claims being made.
There are also recent developments underway commercially for new forms of vaccines that are unmentioned here. One of which that comes to mind is the work being done on encapsulated vaccines or encapsulated surface antigens for the body to detect similar to traditional vaccines [1] [2].
Adel Attari ( talk) 20:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Some discussion should be had in this paragraph about how both bacteria and viruses mutate; and one of the mutations can be (and very very very orften is) that mutations proceed to the point where the (now mutated) infectious organism is sifficiently different to the agent in the vaccine that the antibodies, developed in response to the vaccine, will no longer work against the organism. A discussion of how quickly or slowly this happens and why (eg, influenza versus say tetanus) coudl also be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.147.226 ( talk) 09:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles cover the same subject matter, the article "vaccination" is basically a stripped down version of this article. I think any content in "vaccination" that is not also in this article should be added to this article and "vaccination" should redirect here, it seems confusing that there is at article "vaccination" and a separate article "vaccine" but I wanted to get consensus before merging such large important articles. Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The effectiveness section is the same because I copied it from vaccine after another user pointed out that vaccination lacked an effectiveness section, eaven befor this I felt the articles were too similar to be separate. Tornado chaser ( talk) 01:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) P.S why are the links another user added stuck to the bottom of the page as if they were added by whoever was the last person to comment here? Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S why ... links ... bottom of page ..." ( page as it appeared). In short, because the page bottom is where ref links get put automatically by the Wiki software if no one has otherwise assigned a specific location for them. In main article space this is generally avoided by having a typical
== References ==
section containing a {{
reflist}}
template, but for talkpages and such which lack a dedicated ref section it's pragmatic to place {{
Reflist-talk}}
(
or one of its many redirects) in proximity as needed in individual sections/subsections where refs have been used. You may have
already noticed this in practice but I thought it worthwhile to note here in case others coming by may wonder as well. --
75.188.199.98 (
talk)
15:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Seeking consensus on above merge. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have moved some content in vaccination to vaccine, rather that attempt a full merge, although it still seems redundant to have major articles on vaccine, vaccination, and vaccination policy, is there any material in vaccination that doesn't belong in either vaccine or vaccination policy? Tornado chaser ( talk) 12:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
comment as the articles stand now it's not clear to me as a reader what I would expect to find different between the two of them, so I would suggest either merging or proposing a clear plan of what the difference between the two topics should be and then making that clear in the intros. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I have merged the articles and CSD'd vaccination. Tornado chaser ( talk) 23:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
how am I supposed to know who has seen the RfC?You are not supposed to. RFC usually waits for about a month. People have real life (not to say lots and lots of articles on their watchlist). Please read WP:RFC. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Please notice that there are two more articles to merge: Inoculation and Variolation, both speaking mostly about the history of smallpox inoculation (and even in that they both overlap and diverge, a classical case of WP:CFORK). In fact, IMO there must be a massive merge into a new article, History of immunization, see Immunization#History. In addition, as I see from article text, the term Inoculation requires disambiguation. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
IMO the following sections belong to " Vaccination":
Other remarks
Any other suggestions on restructuring? Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Tornado chaser: @ Staszek Lem: @ BD2412: @ Paul August: @ Scope creep: @ Kvng: @ JonRichfield: @ CapitalSasha: @ Keira1996: @ Moriori: @ Azcolvin429: @ SkepticalRaptor: @ Doc James: @ Maproom: @ Diannaa: I'm going to ping everyone who participated above; if you aren't interested, my apologies, feel free to go on about your life, but I didn't want to take the chance of not enlisting someone who might want to participate. Clearly the merge needs to be undone, and I will do it if no one else steps up, but it is not really my area, so I will not be able to follow Staszek's proposal of a well thought out split or BD2412's proposal of merging in yet other articles or anything else complex. I'll be basically reverting Vaccination to how it was on September 2, then removing all the sections that then become duplicated on Vaccine. If someone has the knowledge and energy to do it better themselves, please say, and I will be more than happy to let you do it. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
it is not really my area- neither me. I see you "work for a company that makes software"; if you make software yourself, you must be familiar with the concept of refactoring. You do not really need to know the subject in depth to carry it out formally. So I would use logic and common sense to perform the first step: to rearrange the text as is into two parts, resisting an urge to edit. The first step, restructuring, is IMO the most intellectually challenging, because this must be done in one step. After the new structures are set, I am sure there will be plenty of "microeditors" to assist you to cleanup/evolve the articles in smaller steps. BTW, you do not need to "revert". Please see " #Reworking" above, which gives examples how to decide which section belongs which article. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Done Thanks! Everyone should feel free to improve further. --
GRuban (
talk)
15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the following sentence to include an oxford comma (makes it easier to read): "factors such as diabetes, steroid use, HIV infection or age." to "factors such as diabetes, steroid use, HIV infection, or age." 0x1B39 ( talk) 23:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
For reference:
Recently published Vaccines: An achievement of civilization, a human right, our health insurance for the future Natureium ( talk) 18:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
https://apnews.com/e92f413c864240d1a6583a3cc8fa3ebd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.254.209 ( talk) 09:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SECTION: Production -> Excipients "Thimerosal is a mercury-containing antimicrobial..." > Change the spelling of Thimerosal => Thiomersal Thyon ( talk) 09:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The "experimental" section claims (correctly, as of today, I think) that no DNA vaccine is 'approved' for human use. This is just half of the picture. Please add the sentence:"Several DNA vaccines are available for veterinary use." -which I copied from the specific DNA_vaccination Wiki. article. I believe the fact that they are used (in animals) is important enough to note here. Also, doesn't the fact that they ARE used make (some of) them NOT "experimental"? and doesn't this mean that this article's exclusionary language needs to be revised? (vaccines are not all live, attenuated, dead, or purified fragments or proteins of the specific target virus) 98.17.180.195 ( talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with death rates. Also the changed description is misleading ("The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the number of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced"). The spread of inf. dieseas cannot me measured by the death cases - rather with number of cases. Among antivaxxers, referring to death rates is a common motiv, but simply wrong. I would remove at least the small pox diagramm. -- Julius Senegal ( talk) 13:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You say "Vaccines show a clear convincing influence on infection rates, not to death rates". Both the image we talk about in this section as your additional graph here show the contrary. So please come up with a source which backs this.
The image doesn't compare city vs the US, these are different graphs. The image just shows different cases (one case about a city and another case about the United States), so what? It just shows the effect of a vaccin for different cases.
Your say my "argument with the numbers as not exact is nonsense. If this was the case, then death numbers would be even more biased." It seems to me that you don't understand that there is a difference between the real number of cases and the registered number of cases. The number of deaths is dependent on the real cases not on the registered cases. Suppose following theoretical example. You have x number of real cases. And the number of registered cases is only a part of that. Suppose you have 30% variation in the part of the number of cases which are registered. Supose you have on average 0.01*x deaths with a variation of 5% (because for example hygienic differences). Only a part of these deaths are registered. Suppose you have 5% variation in the part of the deaths which are registered. Then the deaths are more representative for the spread of the disease then the cases (in total less variation). This show theoretically it is not impossible that the deaths are a better indication then the cases for the spread of the disease.
You say there is no correlation in this graph here between deaths and cases. I just calculated the correlation on this graph between deaths and cases [15] and the correlation is 0.61. This is a moderate to strong correation (see Guideline for interpreting correlation coefficient. Certainly if you take into a account that the death numbers are highly rounded (which limits the possible correlation), this is a strong correlation. So you come up with a source which backs up my argument.-- PJ Geest ( talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
There's obviously been a lot of talk about the vaccines, and alternate theories about them. I think it's all nonsense, but it's significant enough that it warrants a section on its own. VALENTINE SMITH | TALK 05:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Technology platform. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Technology platform until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe it should read "The adjuvant enhances the immune response to the antigen" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.193.91 ( talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't understand why we use an image of Edward Jenner to illustrate the idea of "Vaccine." We have images of actual vaccines (See commons:Vaccine), so why not use those? AviationFreak 💬 00:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add an image like this to show the timescale of how vaccines are developed (source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coronavirus-vaccine-development-compares-to-other-shots-in-history-2020-11 ). The mRNA technology allows for unusually rapid development. Maybe include on Timeline of human vaccines as well. TGCP ( talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I wanted to edit the article to add a link form the ELISA concept to the ELISA page in wikipedia (just substitute ELISA for ELISA ). Since the page is semi-protected, I can not do it myself.
Thanks. 195.77.128.147 ( talk) 11:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Medupdate, this is the sentence as you have edited it: Vaccine manufacturers do not receive licensing until a complete clinical cycle of development and trials proves the vaccine is safe and has long-term effect, followed by scientific review by research institutions and by multinational or national regulatory organizations, such as US VRC...
. My problems with your changes are these:
I'm not necessarily against a mention of the VRC, but you're going to have to explain what it is, and why we need to mention it alongside the FDA. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 15:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious why the history is so far down in the article. Judging by other science articles, particularly something with such a long history, typically that would be before the rest of the article...? Anastrophe ( talk) 19:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to edit to insert a section on contraindications as follows:
Various vaccines have various contraindications to adminstration, including, but not limited to, the following: anaphylaxis after a previous dose, Encephalopathy not attributable to another cause after reciving DTP or DTAP vaccine, allergies to eggs or yeast, Known severe immunodeficiency, and pregnancy, among others.
The reference to be inserted is as follows:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, May 4). ACIP Contraindications Guidelines for Immunization. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.(Ret. 2021, June 12). https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/contraindications.html
98.178.191.34 ( talk) 20:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
in the Effects section, the sentence "recognizes the protein coat on the virus" makes specific reference to "protein coat" and "virus", but vaccine targets are restricted to neither of those. I would generalize this sentence to be more inclusive, e.g. replacing it with "recognizes it". 81.0.162.111 ( talk) 06:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Currently, within Section 5 ("Nomenclature") footnote 80 is a reference to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) web page on vaccine names. The URL needs to be corrected (it would appear that the CDC changed the path to the webpage). The correct URL as of 21-Aug-2021 is https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/usvaccines.html .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbigler ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This definition has been changed significantly since COVID-19. Vaccines for polio were 4 total. Then done. Covid vaccines should be called Covid shots 71.85.210.59 ( talk) 01:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, Vaccine should be reverted to its previous definition (prevent disease) and not be reflecting a political point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.174.131.148 ( talk) 13:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems people are very emotional about (Covid19) vaccination based on a believe that all vaccines are created equal.
“The [smallpox] vaccination caused sterilizing immunity, meaning that you don’t carry any of the virus. The antibodies that you generate, the responses you generate, clear the virus from your system entirely,”
Recent research from Israel shows that people vaccinated in January get infected more than we had hoped for when the Scientific American article was written. Expectations should be realistic?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
GAVI: "IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREVENTING DISEASE AND PREVENTING INFECTION"
"There is a subtle yet important difference between preventing disease and preventing infection. A vaccine that “just” prevents disease might not stop you from transmitting the disease to others – even if you feel fine. But a vaccine that provides sterilising immunity stops the virus in its tracks.
In an ideal world, all vaccines would induce sterilising immunity. In reality, it is actually extremely difficult to produce vaccines that stop virus infection altogether." https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/coronavirus-few-vaccines-prevent-infection-heres-why-thats-not-problem
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kassidee999.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Daysiaamariee.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tzc0725.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why there isn't a small section about vaccine hesitancy with a "main" link to the daughter article. Per WP:Summary style we should have such a section. Using content from the lead of that article is often an easy way to produce such a section. How about using this:
Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others. [1] [2] [3] [4] There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective. [5] [6] [7] [8] Vaccine hesitancy often results in disease outbreaks and deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Therefore, the World Health Organization characterizes vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats. [15] [16]
Valjean ( talk) 17:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
References
wolfesharp
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 'Adverse events', after the sentence, 'Elderly (above age 60), allergen-hypersensitive, and obese people have susceptibility to compromised immunogenicity, which prevents or inhibits vaccine effectiveness, possibly requiring separate vaccine technologies for these specific populations or repetitive booster vaccinations to limit virus transmission.[36]', add: People with a compromised immune system also have a lower ability to produce antibodies to neutralise vaccine targets. [1] Bionrv ( talk) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Probably more approriate at the page for covid 19 vaccines right?-- TZubiri ( talk) 05:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@ MrOllie: I'd like to continue the conversation here to avoid an edit war. Wikipedia is not a place where we post obviously well supported information without providing the support. The issue is that statement is not supported by the reference. If you know of a source that supports the statement, put it into the page. Poppa shark ( talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The fundamental logic behind today’s vaccine trials was worked out by statisticians over a century ago.“
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a long history of following the effectiveness of vaccines after they’re approved.“
Vaccines don’t protect only the people who get them. Because they slow the spread of the virus, they can, over time, also drive down new infection rates and protect society as a whole."
Scientists call this broad form of effectiveness a vaccine’s impact. The smallpox vaccine had the greatest impact of all, driving the virus into oblivion in the 1970s. But even a vaccine with extremely high efficacy in clinical trials will have a small impact if only a few people end up getting it.”
The effect of vaccines on public health is truly remarkable. One study examining the impact of childhood vaccination on the 2001 US birth cohort found that vaccines prevented 33,000 deaths and 14 million cases of disease (Zhou et al. 2005). Among 73 nations supported by the GAVI alliance, mathematical models project that vaccines will prevent 23.3 million deaths from 2011–2020 compared to what would have occurred if there were no vaccines available (Lee et al. 2013). Vaccines have been developed against a wide assortment of human pathogens.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 07:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link of the first reference does not lead directly to the cited document, but opens a pdf with just the citation again. Please exchange for this link, which leads directly to the cited source: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/02-27-2019.657.39.11.pdf 31.18.116.85 ( talk) 18:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
What about use of the avian leukemia virus to manufacture vaccinations in chicken eggs and then the subsequent vaccine allergies associated with people who are allergic to eggs?
"Despite the lck of evidence". *Snort* What suddenly makes mercury utterly harmless just because "Thimerosal" has been written on a label? I do wish folx like the FDA would treat their pharmochemicals with as much skepticism as they try to instill in us about medicines they can't make money on.
The MMR vacine has never contained thimerosal. It would not work if it did. While you could claim that thimerosal contains ethly mercury you can see from it's structure [1] that it contains a phenyl ring and a carboxcilic acid salt. It's like claiming polystyrene contians benzene.
All of the largest studies (which contain over 10,000 patients each) shows no statistical evidence supporting any vaccines causing autism. The supporting studies for the vaccines and autism have fewer than 1,000 (and in most cases, only a dozen or so) patients, and even then the link is tenuous at best. The real issue, I feel, and this is in no way related to the article, is the changing relationships between doctor and patient, especially when it deals with consent. In many ways, this controversy is similar to the circumcision debate: Should we, as parents, allow doctors to do these things to our kids just because they say so? The answer, of course, is that measles, mumps, diphtheria and a whole host of other diseases used to be the most common cause of death among those in developed nations. Now it's heart disease and cancer. It's a calculated risk, to be sure, but it's one that should be provided by informed choice, with doctors as counselors and information providers, rather than as authority figures. Of course, with multiple sources of information (the media, anti-vaccination groups, family magazines) other than the medical community, parenting decisions certainly ain't easy anymore.
Nothing about Pasteur?
I have gone through and removed the following from this article because it was either not npov, to specific for a general article on vaccines. *Kat* 08:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I removed this because I thought that it was too technical as well as too convoluted. There was also another paragraph that said almost exactly the same thing (in simpler language). After doing some research (to translate the above paragraph) I more or less combined the two. The second, "simple" paragraph was left almost intact with a few things from the above paragraph included.
Smallpox, for example, appears to have been completely eliminated in the wild.
This had already been stated earlier in the article
I removed this because it veer's off topic. The article is about vaccines in general, not the small pox vaccine in particular.
Again, I think this is too specific for a general article on vaccines. There is an article on the Smallpox vaccine, perhaps it could be incorporated there.
With the exception of the last sentence (which I wrote trying to make the paragraph relevant) this paragraph is about vaccinations
This is about the smallpox vaccine
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032305EA.shtml%7C
The reason why I removed this is because the 2004 report (mentioned in article) rendered this 2001 report moot.
Since this said almost the same thing as the paragraph on the US's vaccine related controversy I more or less combined the two and did my best to make the end result more readable without changing the intent of either paragraph.
reincorporated in a [more] neutral form and as a result, I removed this line: The study also garnered criticism for its small sample size, and for failing to use healthy controls. A couple of the links have been placed in the External links section as well.
Seriously POV, but I'm not enough of an expert to make it NPOV
On Immune Central [11], the entry on inactivated vaccines states that:
So why did Geni see fit to take that caveat out? I'm putting it back in. -- Leifern 18:13, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
What were the bowel disorders that the Lancet article identified? Are we talking IBD, IBS or something else? Just curious. I recognize the issues surrounding that study, so no need to defend/attack the study. -- Westendgirl 07:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
In the book "Vaccines: Are they really safe and effective?: A Parent's Guide to Childhood Shoots" by Neil Z. Miller, on page 17 it says
"The term "vaccine" is derived from "vacca," the Latin word for cow.
In wikipedia we say "The term derives from vaccinia, the infectious viral agent of cowpox". - (unsigned)
Both are correct, though our version, giving the closer derivation, is more informative. Vaccine, from French vaccin, from vaccine (cowpox) from New Latin vaccina (in variolae vaccinae = cowpox) from Latin, feminine of vaccinus, adjective, of or from cows, from vacca cow. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed this section for lack of NPOV, unprofessional manner, non-specific language ("our..." instead of "the United States'...") Col.Kiwi 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
So our article stays without a "How it's made" section? Unfortunately I'm not aware of any trusted source to get this info. The guy in my yoga lessons was telling us (the attendants) that some kind of the vaccines is made by making slits in a living cow and waiting for the pus to be generated.. but i don't buy this story. perhaps this was true in the 1980s, but surely automated chemical processes are in effect these days. Ai.unit ( talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the only safety study yet conducted for thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) took place in the 1930s, little is known about its neurotoxicity.
We might or might not know about its neurotoxicity, but the reason adduced is not logically consistent.
As a precaution, TCVs are gradually being phased out,
I think they are being phased out as the need for them decreases because precision in production processes renders infection less likely.
although most flu shots are still manufactured with the preservative.[10]
In the UK, I have not seen any multiple dose containers of Influemza vaccine. Thiomersal(*) is not mentioned in the components of the one we use this year. (example Summary of Product Characteristics here: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=2080 Patient Info leaflet: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=3534 )
In both UK and US I suspect the situation is as given at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/thimerosal.htm with preservatives used in the production, but not deliberately included in the individual doses of finished product. 3 micrograms of Mercury remaining in a dose seems unlikely to cause trouble - it is more closely similar to the amount in 1 litre of body fluids in the population walking around than to a significant exposure.
SO I'll edit that bit...
Check out
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_7910416
195.38.117.220 (
talk)
07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have an article about this? Not my field of expertize, so if there are volunteers here to write about it - treat it as an request :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
A fairly recent development: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY This REALLY should be mentioned.
The content of these two article crosses over a great deal. Perhaps we should consider either merging them completely, or seperating them into independent articles (as much as is reasonable). I, personally, am in favor of the former, but am not wholly opposed to the alternative given an adequate rationale for that course of action. If there's no response, I'll likely just be bold in the next few days and merge them myself. – Clockwork Soul 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I goto wiki to invesigate Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and somehow end up at the vaccine entry. ALL articles with huge talk pages, btw. Alternative health woo-woo's know no bounds! -- Kvuo 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So, is there an argument that WP:RS is satisfied, and WP:EL should not apply, to that link? If there is, and it is convincing once presented here on this talk page, then let's see it go back in by concensus. Otherwise, not. Midgley 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"Zostavax represents a significant breakthrough, several scientists said. It is the first therapeutic vaccine, meaning it prevents or eases the severity of the problems from an infection that has already occurred." Therapeutic vaccine deserves either its own wiki entry or at least discussion in Vaccine. 208.42.18.222 27 May 2006
Does someone keep deleting a URL for this section due to the controversy over administering vaccines? I wonder if rewording the heading would help prevent deletion ... something like List of Vaccines Approved by the FDA for US Distribution. Keesiewonder 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence of the section states: "Recently, the Bush Administration has taken measures to drastically ease many regulations preventing mercury from being put into vaccines, and also has taken measures to permit industrial producers to use levels of mercury in vaccines much higher than previously permitted."
However, the sentence is sourced by www.dissidentvoice.org. The source states that "Research has now determined that the cause of the escalation is Thimerosal, a mercury-based product that until recently was added to childhood vaccines as a preservative in multi-dose bottles to increase profits for the drug companies that manufacture vaccines."...which has been later debunked by numerous other researches. Also, the last sentence states: "For autistic children, doomed to life-long suffering, the introduction of this new bill adds insult to injury. I can’t believe this corrupt band of Republicans can have the audacity to draft this kind of legislation and still sleep at night." I highly doubt that the source is neutral or qualified for use on Wikipedia.
Also, the source never stated that the Bush Administration has eased regulations and allow for higher levels of Thimerosal in vaccines. The sentence is not sourced by the ref and uses an inappropriate source. I'm removing the sentence. Revert if you like, but please explain. Thanxs. =) Jumping cheese Cont @ct 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does the "potential side effects" section ignore adjuvants ? Looking at the Immunologic Adjuvant article, it seems that this is a major concern regarding vaccines. As I remember, aluminium is a concern since years or more. The article about adjuvant is trying to give a balanced view : "generally reported as safe" - "but a recent paper suggest that "levels comparable to those administered to Gulf War veterans can cause motor neuron death". I had a quick look at the paper (Petrik et al., 2007), which is indeed very recent. It does not only suggest motor neuron death, but also cognitive impairment. In addition, it is not clear that these levels where "specific to the Gulf War", it seems that kids receive comparable if not large doses by comparison to their body weight (I did not check that carefully).
I would not regard a single paper as the final proof that there is a serious risk. However, since the issue was already debated in the past is apparentlly not fully rulled out (as shown by the new publication), it seems to me that it should be mentionned here, as a potentially significant side effect of vaccines.
Note : I have no training in medicine and would not like to suggest the contrary. However, I do not think that this automatically dismiss my remark / question. - unsigned
Nice comparison but I think that it is exagerated and thus innapropriate. Low doses of NaCl are not at all harmfull (both elements are in fact needed buy the body in some form). The paper cited in the immunologic adjuvant article (see above) clearly concludes that these levels of aluminium components found in many vaccine (not just a minority) may be harmfull, i.e. it seems very likely to be harmfull provided that the effect on human is the same as on mice at comparable concentrations. I did not investigate the cited literature but it is not a new story and it appears in the peer reviewed litterature. My impression is that this aluminium issue is one of the most, if not the single, serious topic for a controversy regarding vaccine security. It seems to me that it is possible, really possible, that the aluminium found in usual vaccines may have adverse consequences on the exposed public - i.e. everyone, not just the gulf war soilders motivating the investigations. It is of course not sure but it does not need to be sure to be a major concern regarding vaccines. - unsigned
This article needs to be completed with a vet's contribution. Vaccines are used in animals too, as you can see here 1. Doesn't any of you have a pet? Ask his vet about veterinary vaccines and their history. RO BlueMonday 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why some vaccinations cause scarring around the injection area while others do not? Perhaps an explanation could be added to the article. Thank you. JRWalko 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In vaccine controversy, nothing is mentioned about the OPV_AIDS_hypothesis, which points to AIDS being created trough vaccin manufacturing in Belgian Congo. Please include information about the dangers, ... Also, in the documentairy I watched it was mentioned that now, vaccin manufacturing can be done without eggs and other animal products, which would eliminate the potential hazard of introuducing virusses, bacteria into the vaccin. Please include information about this too. I also found atleast 1 company that makes his vaccins this way. It is called Akzo Nobel and the site where it is doing it is in Boxmeer (the Netherlands). See this website—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.192.177 ( talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a History section, also a discussion of the (perceived) difference between vaccine and bacterin. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This article, as it stands, wanders a bit, and so I'd like to propose some restructuring:
(Ref) (EL)
Concepts not listed: Overdose (usually n/a), Legal status ("usage" will cover things like mandatory vaccination, otherwise too product-specific)
I think I've covered everything that's currently in the article, added a few points like the Salk vaccine and smallpox eradicaton to the history. Feel free to edit the proposed structure if you reply to this post. SDY ( talk) 22:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
Zodon ( talk) 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As a random aside, would it actually make sense to merge Vaccine and Vaccination? If not, what goes in which article? SDY ( talk) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There should be more content here on vaccine safety. I would like to mention Dr. Kenneth Bock, who has has dedicated his pediatric practice to the connection between toxic exposure and illnesses like asthma, allergy, autism, and ADHD. His highly successful work with severely ill children (with natural implications for adults with chemical sensitivity and other debilitating illnesses) may not be performed under "controlled" conditions, but the research and bibliography starting on page 419 of his book The Healing Program should convince the Wiki team that Wiki's Vaccines page is incomplete. Mel0209 ( talk) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Mel0209 ( talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Further regarding the scope of Wiki's Vaccines page: studies show autism rates remain high when mercury is removed from vaccines. However, autism appears by age 3 in 1 per 160 people in the United States but is absent from communities (like traditional Amish) that do not use vaccines--a statistically very significant difference. Maybe the toxins that replace mercury (such as aluminum and formaldehyde) are equally damaging. If Wiki does not delve deeper into the implications of statistics like these then the article seems quite biased. Mel0209 ( talk) 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that the dicdef at Polyvalent vaccine could be merged into this article? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the text. One nit: doesn't "monovalent" go together with "polyvalent", and similarly "univalent" go together with "multivalent"? The current text mixes this up. Eubulides ( talk) 09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the logic behind this edit, which replaced '{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}' with '<div class="references-small"><references /></div>'. This change makes the output look considerably worse on Firefox, because it drops support for multiple columns. From this comment on my talk page it appears that the motivation is support for a smaller font with IE7, but doesn't {{ reflist}} already do that? (It certainly does that with Firefox.) In any event, as long as the output remains useful on IE7 I'm not sure it's a good idea to make the output ugly on more-modern browsers simply to make it look a bit better on IE7. Eubulides ( talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't understand the comment "links that you changed need to be piped to the "new" page names, not the "redirect" pages". For example, the text refers to variolation using "[[variolation]]". Currently, Variolation is a redirect to Inoculation, so I suppose one could change the Vaccine text to "[[Inoculation|variolation]]". But suppose in the future that Variolation becomes an article in its own right, separate from Inoculation. Then "[[Inoculation|variolation]]" will be incorrect. In the meantime, "[[Inoculation|variolation]]" isn't needed and makes the article harder to edit, so why make the change at all? Eubulides ( talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I was redirected from "serum therapy" to this page. Vaccination and serum therapy are not the same. Serum therapy deserves its own page, if only as a part of the history of medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lriley47 ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Besides the Bill & Melinda Foundation, another company too is making a malaria vaccine. This is Sanaria, together with LUMC and St Radboud. Spokesman is Chris Janse, do google search and add to article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.168.20 ( talk) 08:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The article Vaccine interference should be merged into this article; the most plausible section is Developing immunity. Eubulides ( talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit introduced some dubious material into Vaccine #History; in particular it added an unsourced and not-that-relevant claim that Franklin D. Roosevelt had polio. For what it's worth, the most reliable source I know of on that topic is Goldman et al. 2003 ( PMID 14562158), which says FDR possibly had polio but most likely had Guillain-Barré syndrome. (For more on the topic, please see Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness.)
Rather than get bogged down in trivia about FDR, which after all is said and done is not that relevant to Vaccine, I looked for a reliable source on the topic of vaccine history, found Stern & Markel 2005 ( PMID 15886151), and rewrote the section to match this source. Hope this helps. Eubulides ( talk) 07:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
A recent series of edits introduced the following text to the Trends section:
While the mannose receptor is an important area of current research in vaccines, this text does not seem appropriate for the Vaccine article. First, one of the sources (Vlahopoulos et al.) is a primary study, and in a well-researched area like this Wikipedia should be citing reliable reviews. The second source, Gazi & Martinez-Pomares, is a review, but it is not about vaccines per se (the word "vaccine" and "vaccination" appears nowhere in the title or abstract) and we should be citing more on-point sources, so as to avoid original research.
Finally, the text is out of place. It is added, seemingly at haphazard, to a bullet item talking about stimulating innate immune responses (as opposed to adaptive). Mannose receptors are involved in both adaptive and innate immune response, but this bullet item is much broader than that, and includes topics such as CpG oligonucleotides or Toll-like receptors. Surely such a level of detail is inappropriate for Vaccine, and belongs in more-specialized articles. Eubulides ( talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Is vaccine not a Antibody generator ? If so, please include this to the definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.80.56 ( talk) 06:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know much about adding this information or how to correctly format it, so I'm putting it here for your review and posting.
n 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (The Hadwen Documents)
- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don`t Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)
- In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)
- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)
- In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)
- In the 1970`s a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)
- In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk, who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )
- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People`s Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)
- In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)
-The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.
- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)
- In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)
- In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990) - In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated, "Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)
- In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994) - In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.
- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)
Thanks.
65.175.131.38 (
talk)
13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The definition is unfortunately totally incorrect. Actualy what happens is that the DNA inserted into the cells codes for proteins that are of pathogenic origin and the immunity does not come from the cells that are infected but from the cells of the adaptive immune system (T-cells and B-cells) that recognise the proteins. Usually the DNA construct inserted codes for genes that have tags for secretion so they can be recognised by B cells
By accident, a new way of making vaccines with plants has been discovered. [12] Probably it will take awhile before vaccines can be made, since this is a new approach.
I think that since the vaccine debate article has an NPOV tag, that the referring section that is a summary of that article should also have an NPOV and particularly for the Potential for adverse side effects in general section should have a weasel words tag, since there are not attributed sources to either side of the debate.
Strictly speaking, the opening sentence is not correct: "A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease". Not every person will achieve immunity through reception of a vaccine. I propose a more neutral wording in this regard- change "that improves" to "designed to improve". A definition from the first source I looked at was inline with this, Princeton's open WordNet 2.0: "immunogen consisting of a suspension of weakened or dead pathogenic cells injected in order to stimulate the production of antibodies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
Adminhelp}}
Please semi-protect this article, preferably permanently. It is a magnet for IP vandals. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
But what about all the parents that say they watched their kids slip into diseases like autism soon after they recieved a vaccine? I know there isn't much research on this, but there is probably a reason for that. I feel that reason is if it suddenly became apparent that vaccines potentially caused diseases like autism, then no one would get their kid vaccinated, thus financially effecting the pockets of many MD's, companies, etc. I don't know, but it all seems suspicious and I wish there was actual research into this. If there isn't anything to worry about in a vaccine why isn't there more research. It seems someone is afraid of what they might find. 199.34.4.20 ( talk) 08:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)1/25/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.34.4.20 ( talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The History section of this article starts in the 1770s with the famous story about Edward Jenner. It looks to me, however, that the history of inoculation goes back much farther, with people in Boston getting inoculated from smallpox in 1721, after Cotton Mather learned of the practice from Onesimus, a Sudanese slave. You can read more in the article about Mather. I think that we should include some information about the use of inoculation predating Jenner in Boston, and also in Africa and Turkey, so that we don't give the impression that vaccines were something that Jenner started up out of the blue. Gary ( talk) 16:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hygiene hypothesis says "..., vaccination only uses the Th2 mechanism." but I can't see any mention of this in this vaccine article. Is it [still] correct and are there any sources ? Rod57 ( talk) 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This is my first edit. Please be gentle. :) This article starts with "Invented by the Chinese..." but the Chinese connection isn't mentioned at all in the History section or anywhere else in this article. The inoculation page does mention a Chinese history, but it also discusses the possibility of an Indian origin. Based on my understanding of the distinction being drawn between vaccination and inoculation and given the lack of certainty regarding the origins of inoculation, I suggest striking these words from the vaccine article. Would this be the appropriate action? Paul24682003 ( talk) 22:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The "oppositon to vaccination" section includes a claim referenced to a link from an activist website alleging that spreading opposition to vaccination amounts to involuntary manslaughter. It's not making medical claims, so WP:MEDRS isn't an issue, though I have some doubts as to the usefulness of the source. Given that this section is a summary of the Vaccine controversy article and that topic is not covered there, I've removed it for now. SDY ( talk) 03:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I have several concerns with the last sentence in this section, which I have re-posted below. Following the numbered responses, I include a brief referenced quotation and then my comments on it.
"In response, concern has been raised that spreading unfounded information about the medical risks of vaccines increases rates of life-threatening infections, not only in the children whose parents refused vaccinations, but also in other children, perhaps too young for vaccines, who could contract infections from unvaccinated carriers (see herd immunity).[24]"
1)
"In response, concern"
Phrasing the above as a response indicates it deviates from the subject / subheading. It starts a criticism of opposition to vaccination.
2)"concern has been raised" stated in the passive voice, this phrasing covers that no source is referenced. I find it biased.
3)"spreading unfounded information" This is a straw-man falacy, unfounded information is never a good thing. As the author did not prove that all opposition to vaccination is unfounded, I find it biased, implying that all opposition to vaccination is unfounded, yet not listing specific oppositions and specific criticisms of them.
4)"information about the medical risks of vaccines increases rates of life-threatening infections" The above quote makes a causal statement: information increases infections. 4a- I believe it is incorrect to discourage discussion / discourse 4b- information is not action, though people may chose to act on information.
5) the last section of the sentence with those "perhaps too young for vaccines" a phrase taken from the referenced New England Journal of Med. The referenced article is a decent one, and the comments on 'herd immunity' are perhaps better suited to the Vaccine / Effectiveness section (which appears above the 'opposition to vaccination' section. The Effectiveness section could include text about vaccination rates and herd immunity and use the included reference link. However, its present inclusion in this section gives this subsection the appearance of a persuasive argument as the text about young infants and then the sole citation of a medical text seems to be a rebuttle of any who would oppose vaccination.
---Suggestion---
The sentence be deleted. Herd immunity and associated NEJM reference would be well placed in the section above entitled "Effectiveness" with a sentence on vaccination rates.
Thank-you for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.1.65 ( talk) 23:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur with point 4b about that information does not mean it will change behaviour. The claim implies that information critical of vaccination leads to people not vaccinating in a discrete and linear fashion. This claim should be backed by evidence of a direct causal link. The link between the existence of vaccine-critical information and disease outbreaks is not adequate because there are too many intervening variables. Vaccination behaviour is complex and not easily changed. Where large scale changes have occurred as a result of vaccine-critical information, this has usually been because a medical professional has put forward the theory which has been acted upon by governments in vaccine policy or by sustained media attention.
OM OM ( talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Common Chemicals May Weaken Vaccine Response - A study finds disturbing evidence that chemicals found in furniture, fast-food packaging and microwave popcorn bags may compromise children's immune systems. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/exposure-to-common-chemicals-may-weaken-vaccine-response/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Pentagon video on 'removing' 'god gene'. I dont know what to make of this? is this real or fake?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nADFJlAggnY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 ( talk) 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Came here just to plug the book, but noticed that this page has nothing on adverse effects or safety - which is pretty far from the recommendations over at WP:MEDMOS, and, regardless of where one stands on the vaccine controversies, looks to violate WP:NPOV. The closest section is Vaccine_controversy#Safety. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality has come through in 2012; these studies are regularly done pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Page ix describes the publication as "the largest study undertaken to date, and the first comprehensive review since 1994", although it also says the IOM has done its duty pursuant to the act 11 times, so it's not exactly breaking new ground. Freely accessible online. Page 18 says "the evidence convincingly supports 14 specific vaccine-adverse effect relationships"; the following pages have a table describing those results. II | ( t - c) 06:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added a section and quote. Other quotes could be added. -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The quotation "With the exception of safe water, no other modality, not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction and population growth." appeared twice in this article, sourced to "Plotkin S, Orenstein W, Offit P. Vaccines, 5th ed. Saunders, 2008." but with no indication of which of the three authors actually wrote that line. Checking the source, it just appears in plain text in the book, attributed to nobody. If we can't be sure who actually holds an opinion, it seems a little odd to emphasise it in this way. -- McGeddon ( talk) 19:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The user jps removed the edition of this section with the revert reason = "Massive WP:WEIGHT problem here. This issue should be covered on the page of the specific vaccine"
In 2010 the FDA announced that components of an extraneous virus have been found in a Rotarix vaccine. As a response they recommended a temporarily suspension. [6] Prokaryotes ( talk) 17:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I'm no expert on this topic, but it seems half of the information on this page is virtually repeated on the vaccination page. This makes me wonder why there are two pages. 122.107.217.142 ( talk) 07:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to include some of the developments in edible vaccines on the page. Alexstrom14 ( talk) 02:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the timeline is missing references. The 1000AD figure for Chinese variolation seems to be hard to find on the Internet, and I'm wondering where it's from. Dmutters ( talk) 23:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the article should explain why a vaccine can be effective even after infection by the actual virus. Why does the actual disease agent not itself work as effectively as a vaccine. What benefit is obtained by vaccinating after infection ? 92.21.214.28 ( talk) 16:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The article uses terms such as virus, agent, disease-causing microorganism, microbe and so on as if they are interchangeable or equivalent. Is this in fact the case. Could a clearer introcuction be written describing in less nebulous terms the range of disease causing agents that can be tackled by vaccines. If any disease might potentially be subject to a vaccine, please explain more clearly. 92.21.214.28 ( talk) 16:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the introductory line. Previous entry was scientifically very dubious and seemed the product of someone on a political (anti-vaccine) agenda. The reference [3] seemed quite misinterpreted to support a statement of non-effectiveness of vaccines. Please do not revert to previous version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.246.184 ( talk) 11:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Archive-1 is less than 31k (2003-2014) and could have been left here a while longer. Even when an archive is made it would be helpfull if only the stuff older than say 1 year is moved ? Much of Archive 1 still seems relevant to the current article. Any objection to dearchiving most or all of it ? - Rod57 ( talk) 15:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
These edit look like spam [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vaccine. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits [14] have added this statement: "There is those who oppose vaccines and support Vitamin D supplementation and/or sun exposure in conjunction of a healthy diet since scientific research has concluded that the immune system requires sufficient blood levels of Vitamin A and Vitamin D to produce sufficient immune system cells to defend its host from pathogens." Ignoring grammar, there is no dispute that I'm aware of that appropriate levels of vitamins are required to maintain one's immune system. How this is tied to "those who oppose vaccination" is not made clear. The sources simply support the need for vitamins, not the statement of opposition. This appears to be a synthesis or a form of coatracking. Acroterion (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The point is that the human body can defend itself when it has sufficient Vitamin D circulating in the blood since Vitamin D is ANTIVIRAL. Hence vaccines aren't required. No need to force someone to be injected with a vaccine when their immune system is strong enough to kill the virus themselves. The information is relevant to the present article. Essereio ( talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Lying and disregarding the science really shows who the fraud is. I really don't know how you sleep at night by making a mess. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3308600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166406/ Essereio ( talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Vaccines(training wheels) are required by those with weak immune systems because it is self evident their immune system is too weak to kill the real virus. Using logic, sufficient Vitamin A & D makes our immune system strong, therefore vaccines are unnecessary to those with strong immune systems because it is self evident our immune system can kill the virus ourselves and if vaccines were necessary to those with a strong immune system, you wouldn't have deleted my post on the main page and no reputable scientist is going to focus on the negative by pointing out that vaccines(man made) are unnecessary to those with strong immune systems. They are focusing on the positive of Vitamin A & D. Lastly, (forcing) vaccines is a subtle form of abuse(stab with a needle) to those with strong immune systems. Completely unnecessary. Hopefully you're capable of following this form of basic logic. Essereio ( talk) 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is supported and you're contradicting yourself. Is it possible to gain immunity without vaccines? Yes. The majority of people have trouble gaining immunity because they lack sufficient immune system cells to defend themselves since they have accepted their domesticated way of life. Hence no sunshine to produce sufficient Vitamin D. /info/en/?search=Vaccine#Developing_immunity It isn't my analysis. It is self-evident that Vitamins are required to prevent degeneration and promote healthy growth. There is no anti-vaccination agenda. Just a non-vaccination agenda since a vaccine is a cutthroat solution originating from a Frankenstein mentality. Sadly corruption pays and your political bullying is useless. Essereio ( talk) 00:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I had made a change on this page, adding truthful and documented facts here on Wiki. It was then "rightfully reverted" and I was told to talk here about it. Please let me know if this is not the appropriate location for this discussion. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter.
I reworded this:
"Egg
protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present."
to say this:
"Egg
protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present, such as human fetal DNA from aborted babies,
fetal bovine serum,
human serum albumin,
porcine DNA,
bovine serum albumin, and other animal DNA
[1]"
The only thing I can think of would be changing "human fetal DNA from aborted babies" to "recombinant human albumin" or "human albumin", or "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts", or "MRC-5 cells", or "human diploid cell cultures (WI-38)", or any of the various ways they explain it, but ultimately, you are still talking about human aborted fetal cells. I didn't add the guinea pig DNA that is in varicella, because that isn't in as much. But between the others I listed above, you get all the main methods of DNA in vaccines.
The changes I made should stand, as they are entirely truthful, and documented by the CDC, along with proof from the CDC in the form of a link. Therefore my edits should stand and be left alone. Instead, they are being removed. This is the second time it was removed, so I am wondering what the purpose is of removing truthful and accurate information. I figured rather than putting it up again, I would attempt to find out the reasoning to delete truthful information. At this point, it just seems that some want this hidden, and no one should hide facts from those wanting to research any medical choice, such as vaccines.
By the way, am not intending to "IP-hop", but am not able to control my IP address. It is based on my location, work or home, and whether I am on my VPN or not...
Thank you in advance for your reply.
47.185.111.92 ( talk) 02:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is what I would like to change this sentence from:
to:
69.78.235.130 ( talk) 19:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
References
I think some of the bulleted lists in the article require citations in certain places. For example, under "Types - Experimental" there is no source verifying the statements made about DNA vaccines, particularly that experimental work has been done as of 2015 but not for human use. Similarly under "Effectiveness" there exists a list of factors affecting vaccine efficacy with citations for only two of the five claims being made.
There are also recent developments underway commercially for new forms of vaccines that are unmentioned here. One of which that comes to mind is the work being done on encapsulated vaccines or encapsulated surface antigens for the body to detect similar to traditional vaccines [1] [2].
Adel Attari ( talk) 20:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Some discussion should be had in this paragraph about how both bacteria and viruses mutate; and one of the mutations can be (and very very very orften is) that mutations proceed to the point where the (now mutated) infectious organism is sifficiently different to the agent in the vaccine that the antibodies, developed in response to the vaccine, will no longer work against the organism. A discussion of how quickly or slowly this happens and why (eg, influenza versus say tetanus) coudl also be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.147.226 ( talk) 09:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles cover the same subject matter, the article "vaccination" is basically a stripped down version of this article. I think any content in "vaccination" that is not also in this article should be added to this article and "vaccination" should redirect here, it seems confusing that there is at article "vaccination" and a separate article "vaccine" but I wanted to get consensus before merging such large important articles. Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The effectiveness section is the same because I copied it from vaccine after another user pointed out that vaccination lacked an effectiveness section, eaven befor this I felt the articles were too similar to be separate. Tornado chaser ( talk) 01:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) P.S why are the links another user added stuck to the bottom of the page as if they were added by whoever was the last person to comment here? Tornado chaser ( talk) 19:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S why ... links ... bottom of page ..." ( page as it appeared). In short, because the page bottom is where ref links get put automatically by the Wiki software if no one has otherwise assigned a specific location for them. In main article space this is generally avoided by having a typical
== References ==
section containing a {{
reflist}}
template, but for talkpages and such which lack a dedicated ref section it's pragmatic to place {{
Reflist-talk}}
(
or one of its many redirects) in proximity as needed in individual sections/subsections where refs have been used. You may have
already noticed this in practice but I thought it worthwhile to note here in case others coming by may wonder as well. --
75.188.199.98 (
talk)
15:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Seeking consensus on above merge. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have moved some content in vaccination to vaccine, rather that attempt a full merge, although it still seems redundant to have major articles on vaccine, vaccination, and vaccination policy, is there any material in vaccination that doesn't belong in either vaccine or vaccination policy? Tornado chaser ( talk) 12:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
comment as the articles stand now it's not clear to me as a reader what I would expect to find different between the two of them, so I would suggest either merging or proposing a clear plan of what the difference between the two topics should be and then making that clear in the intros. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I have merged the articles and CSD'd vaccination. Tornado chaser ( talk) 23:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
how am I supposed to know who has seen the RfC?You are not supposed to. RFC usually waits for about a month. People have real life (not to say lots and lots of articles on their watchlist). Please read WP:RFC. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Please notice that there are two more articles to merge: Inoculation and Variolation, both speaking mostly about the history of smallpox inoculation (and even in that they both overlap and diverge, a classical case of WP:CFORK). In fact, IMO there must be a massive merge into a new article, History of immunization, see Immunization#History. In addition, as I see from article text, the term Inoculation requires disambiguation. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
IMO the following sections belong to " Vaccination":
Other remarks
Any other suggestions on restructuring? Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Tornado chaser: @ Staszek Lem: @ BD2412: @ Paul August: @ Scope creep: @ Kvng: @ JonRichfield: @ CapitalSasha: @ Keira1996: @ Moriori: @ Azcolvin429: @ SkepticalRaptor: @ Doc James: @ Maproom: @ Diannaa: I'm going to ping everyone who participated above; if you aren't interested, my apologies, feel free to go on about your life, but I didn't want to take the chance of not enlisting someone who might want to participate. Clearly the merge needs to be undone, and I will do it if no one else steps up, but it is not really my area, so I will not be able to follow Staszek's proposal of a well thought out split or BD2412's proposal of merging in yet other articles or anything else complex. I'll be basically reverting Vaccination to how it was on September 2, then removing all the sections that then become duplicated on Vaccine. If someone has the knowledge and energy to do it better themselves, please say, and I will be more than happy to let you do it. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
it is not really my area- neither me. I see you "work for a company that makes software"; if you make software yourself, you must be familiar with the concept of refactoring. You do not really need to know the subject in depth to carry it out formally. So I would use logic and common sense to perform the first step: to rearrange the text as is into two parts, resisting an urge to edit. The first step, restructuring, is IMO the most intellectually challenging, because this must be done in one step. After the new structures are set, I am sure there will be plenty of "microeditors" to assist you to cleanup/evolve the articles in smaller steps. BTW, you do not need to "revert". Please see " #Reworking" above, which gives examples how to decide which section belongs which article. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Done Thanks! Everyone should feel free to improve further. --
GRuban (
talk)
15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the following sentence to include an oxford comma (makes it easier to read): "factors such as diabetes, steroid use, HIV infection or age." to "factors such as diabetes, steroid use, HIV infection, or age." 0x1B39 ( talk) 23:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
For reference:
Recently published Vaccines: An achievement of civilization, a human right, our health insurance for the future Natureium ( talk) 18:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
https://apnews.com/e92f413c864240d1a6583a3cc8fa3ebd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.254.209 ( talk) 09:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
SECTION: Production -> Excipients "Thimerosal is a mercury-containing antimicrobial..." > Change the spelling of Thimerosal => Thiomersal Thyon ( talk) 09:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The "experimental" section claims (correctly, as of today, I think) that no DNA vaccine is 'approved' for human use. This is just half of the picture. Please add the sentence:"Several DNA vaccines are available for veterinary use." -which I copied from the specific DNA_vaccination Wiki. article. I believe the fact that they are used (in animals) is important enough to note here. Also, doesn't the fact that they ARE used make (some of) them NOT "experimental"? and doesn't this mean that this article's exclusionary language needs to be revised? (vaccines are not all live, attenuated, dead, or purified fragments or proteins of the specific target virus) 98.17.180.195 ( talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with death rates. Also the changed description is misleading ("The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the number of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced"). The spread of inf. dieseas cannot me measured by the death cases - rather with number of cases. Among antivaxxers, referring to death rates is a common motiv, but simply wrong. I would remove at least the small pox diagramm. -- Julius Senegal ( talk) 13:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You say "Vaccines show a clear convincing influence on infection rates, not to death rates". Both the image we talk about in this section as your additional graph here show the contrary. So please come up with a source which backs this.
The image doesn't compare city vs the US, these are different graphs. The image just shows different cases (one case about a city and another case about the United States), so what? It just shows the effect of a vaccin for different cases.
Your say my "argument with the numbers as not exact is nonsense. If this was the case, then death numbers would be even more biased." It seems to me that you don't understand that there is a difference between the real number of cases and the registered number of cases. The number of deaths is dependent on the real cases not on the registered cases. Suppose following theoretical example. You have x number of real cases. And the number of registered cases is only a part of that. Suppose you have 30% variation in the part of the number of cases which are registered. Supose you have on average 0.01*x deaths with a variation of 5% (because for example hygienic differences). Only a part of these deaths are registered. Suppose you have 5% variation in the part of the deaths which are registered. Then the deaths are more representative for the spread of the disease then the cases (in total less variation). This show theoretically it is not impossible that the deaths are a better indication then the cases for the spread of the disease.
You say there is no correlation in this graph here between deaths and cases. I just calculated the correlation on this graph between deaths and cases [15] and the correlation is 0.61. This is a moderate to strong correation (see Guideline for interpreting correlation coefficient. Certainly if you take into a account that the death numbers are highly rounded (which limits the possible correlation), this is a strong correlation. So you come up with a source which backs up my argument.-- PJ Geest ( talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
There's obviously been a lot of talk about the vaccines, and alternate theories about them. I think it's all nonsense, but it's significant enough that it warrants a section on its own. VALENTINE SMITH | TALK 05:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Technology platform. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Technology platform until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe it should read "The adjuvant enhances the immune response to the antigen" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.193.91 ( talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't understand why we use an image of Edward Jenner to illustrate the idea of "Vaccine." We have images of actual vaccines (See commons:Vaccine), so why not use those? AviationFreak 💬 00:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add an image like this to show the timescale of how vaccines are developed (source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coronavirus-vaccine-development-compares-to-other-shots-in-history-2020-11 ). The mRNA technology allows for unusually rapid development. Maybe include on Timeline of human vaccines as well. TGCP ( talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, I wanted to edit the article to add a link form the ELISA concept to the ELISA page in wikipedia (just substitute ELISA for ELISA ). Since the page is semi-protected, I can not do it myself.
Thanks. 195.77.128.147 ( talk) 11:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Medupdate, this is the sentence as you have edited it: Vaccine manufacturers do not receive licensing until a complete clinical cycle of development and trials proves the vaccine is safe and has long-term effect, followed by scientific review by research institutions and by multinational or national regulatory organizations, such as US VRC...
. My problems with your changes are these:
I'm not necessarily against a mention of the VRC, but you're going to have to explain what it is, and why we need to mention it alongside the FDA. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 15:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious why the history is so far down in the article. Judging by other science articles, particularly something with such a long history, typically that would be before the rest of the article...? Anastrophe ( talk) 19:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to edit to insert a section on contraindications as follows:
Various vaccines have various contraindications to adminstration, including, but not limited to, the following: anaphylaxis after a previous dose, Encephalopathy not attributable to another cause after reciving DTP or DTAP vaccine, allergies to eggs or yeast, Known severe immunodeficiency, and pregnancy, among others.
The reference to be inserted is as follows:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, May 4). ACIP Contraindications Guidelines for Immunization. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.(Ret. 2021, June 12). https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/contraindications.html
98.178.191.34 ( talk) 20:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
in the Effects section, the sentence "recognizes the protein coat on the virus" makes specific reference to "protein coat" and "virus", but vaccine targets are restricted to neither of those. I would generalize this sentence to be more inclusive, e.g. replacing it with "recognizes it". 81.0.162.111 ( talk) 06:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Currently, within Section 5 ("Nomenclature") footnote 80 is a reference to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) web page on vaccine names. The URL needs to be corrected (it would appear that the CDC changed the path to the webpage). The correct URL as of 21-Aug-2021 is https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/usvaccines.html .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbigler ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This definition has been changed significantly since COVID-19. Vaccines for polio were 4 total. Then done. Covid vaccines should be called Covid shots 71.85.210.59 ( talk) 01:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, Vaccine should be reverted to its previous definition (prevent disease) and not be reflecting a political point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.174.131.148 ( talk) 13:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems people are very emotional about (Covid19) vaccination based on a believe that all vaccines are created equal.
“The [smallpox] vaccination caused sterilizing immunity, meaning that you don’t carry any of the virus. The antibodies that you generate, the responses you generate, clear the virus from your system entirely,”
Recent research from Israel shows that people vaccinated in January get infected more than we had hoped for when the Scientific American article was written. Expectations should be realistic?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
GAVI: "IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREVENTING DISEASE AND PREVENTING INFECTION"
"There is a subtle yet important difference between preventing disease and preventing infection. A vaccine that “just” prevents disease might not stop you from transmitting the disease to others – even if you feel fine. But a vaccine that provides sterilising immunity stops the virus in its tracks.
In an ideal world, all vaccines would induce sterilising immunity. In reality, it is actually extremely difficult to produce vaccines that stop virus infection altogether." https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/coronavirus-few-vaccines-prevent-infection-heres-why-thats-not-problem
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kassidee999.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Daysiaamariee.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tzc0725.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why there isn't a small section about vaccine hesitancy with a "main" link to the daughter article. Per WP:Summary style we should have such a section. Using content from the lead of that article is often an easy way to produce such a section. How about using this:
Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others. [1] [2] [3] [4] There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective. [5] [6] [7] [8] Vaccine hesitancy often results in disease outbreaks and deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Therefore, the World Health Organization characterizes vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats. [15] [16]
Valjean ( talk) 17:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
References
wolfesharp
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 'Adverse events', after the sentence, 'Elderly (above age 60), allergen-hypersensitive, and obese people have susceptibility to compromised immunogenicity, which prevents or inhibits vaccine effectiveness, possibly requiring separate vaccine technologies for these specific populations or repetitive booster vaccinations to limit virus transmission.[36]', add: People with a compromised immune system also have a lower ability to produce antibodies to neutralise vaccine targets. [1] Bionrv ( talk) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Probably more approriate at the page for covid 19 vaccines right?-- TZubiri ( talk) 05:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@ MrOllie: I'd like to continue the conversation here to avoid an edit war. Wikipedia is not a place where we post obviously well supported information without providing the support. The issue is that statement is not supported by the reference. If you know of a source that supports the statement, put it into the page. Poppa shark ( talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The fundamental logic behind today’s vaccine trials was worked out by statisticians over a century ago.“
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a long history of following the effectiveness of vaccines after they’re approved.“
Vaccines don’t protect only the people who get them. Because they slow the spread of the virus, they can, over time, also drive down new infection rates and protect society as a whole."
Scientists call this broad form of effectiveness a vaccine’s impact. The smallpox vaccine had the greatest impact of all, driving the virus into oblivion in the 1970s. But even a vaccine with extremely high efficacy in clinical trials will have a small impact if only a few people end up getting it.”
The effect of vaccines on public health is truly remarkable. One study examining the impact of childhood vaccination on the 2001 US birth cohort found that vaccines prevented 33,000 deaths and 14 million cases of disease (Zhou et al. 2005). Among 73 nations supported by the GAVI alliance, mathematical models project that vaccines will prevent 23.3 million deaths from 2011–2020 compared to what would have occurred if there were no vaccines available (Lee et al. 2013). Vaccines have been developed against a wide assortment of human pathogens.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 07:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link of the first reference does not lead directly to the cited document, but opens a pdf with just the citation again. Please exchange for this link, which leads directly to the cited source: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/02-27-2019.657.39.11.pdf 31.18.116.85 ( talk) 18:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)