![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The graphs Geni keeps deleting provide evidence essential to understanding the controversy around vaccinations. They are unacceptable and amount to vandalism, and I will take the issue as far as I need to. -- Leifern 13:14, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Having been involved in these disputes with you in several areas, I want to make a couple of observations:
I have to wonder whether you really are an agent provocateur in this debate; if you are, let it be known that I disassociate myself from such a method. -- Leifern 14:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
The graphs are a reasonable starting point for looking at the issue empirically, but I would much prefer an educated overview of the current state of scientific research on the matter as published in peer reviewed journals (PubMED should be able to dig up a few abstracts). If I conduct a study with a control group, then I want both groups to be subject to the same conditions with the exception of the one I'm looking at. Here, however, you are comparing graphs which show the mortality rates for very different diseases.
It seems far-fetched to try to infer any conclusions about the effects of vaccination on diphtheria from the effects of non-vaccination on scarlet fever. A cross-country comparison, where two modern countries followed a largely similar approach for the same diseases, but one used vaccines, and the others did not, seems like a better way to look at the effects of vaccination on a disease. Vaccine critics may see the issue of vaccination as independent from the type of vaccine, but vaccine supporters will very likely not agree with that assumption.
As a layperson, I would also suspect that Australia is a very specific case, with quarantine measures and border controls being relatively easy to implement. But what about a country where people from a neighbouring country with worse hygienic conditions immigrate, legally or illegally, in large numbers?-- Eloquence * 02:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
On a slightly different note, the copyright attribution on the graph images is improper. The website the images were taken from (vaccinationdebate.com, Ian Sinclair) indicates it took these images from the book Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma by Greg Beattie. These are copyright 1997 by Greg Beattie, so Ian Sinclair does not have standing to grant permission for their use on wikipedia. -- Tabor 15:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni's latest edits needed some cleaning up. Public health measures are not proven to reduce the rate of infection of these illnesses appreciably (though one could find that natural immunity is stronger under better conditions), but there is no question that mortality rates are reduced, which is the (edited) last point. -- Leifern 16:29, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Geni - there you go again, throwing around statistical terminology as if you know what they mean. An R^2 is a statistical measure used in regression analysis, which is used to identify multiple contributing factors. You use it (and its more precise adjusted R^2 to suggest causality of multiple factors), not to identify a trend. A trend, in this case, refers to a downward or upward slope, e.g., "unemployment is increasing," or "inflation is decreasing." There are statistical methods to prove such trends, but they are not used when the trend is apparent. Only a fool would dispute the assertion that mortality from pertussis has decreased in Australia in the last 100 years. -- Leifern 10:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Geni has a tendency to simply delete information that he either disagrees with or doesn't support his opinion. This borders on vandalism, and I'm considering making a formal case of it. In the meantime, Geni has proven repeatedly that he has very limited knowledge of basic statistics, including what represents statistical proof (e.g., asking for an R^2 square for a univariate analysis). In the case of deletion of graphs that show reduction in mortality rates, he is arguing that "there is no evidence that such a comparison is valid." The comparison is certainly valid, what conclusions you can draw from making such a conclusion are unclear, but we are not promoting a particular conclusion. The graphs stay. -- Leifern 14:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, a "vaccine policy" could mean "no vaccines to anyone, ever." I think what the term is supposed to mean, is that cases are made for and against obligatory vaccination for a wide range of illnesses. But this is misleading as well. There are, of course, those who think vaccines should be abolished, but there are others who believe they should be used more sparingly, and among those there are a wide range of convictions. The headlines used before probably need work, but the ones we have now don't work, either. -- Leifern 12:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that editors need to keep a close watch on Ombudsman's activities with regard to vaccines. Examination of his edits and many of the topics he has started show a clear agenda of alleging that autism is an epidemic, that it is substantially caused by vaccines, that there is a "medical establishment" cover-up, and that those who try to edit wiki along lines of established evidence - which does not support any of his propositions - are malign, if not corruptly influenced. In pursuit of this, he has created page after page overlapping with existing subjects, generally creating alternative narratives to those worked on by others over many months. He has also added a network of links that would tend to lead readers away from the contributions of others. He has repeatedly deleted links on such pages - most often to delete links to the autism page, where he has been unable to gain influence. He has repeatedly breached the three-reversion rule in his attempts to promote a handful of anti-vaccine activists, edited comments on his own page, making it difficult for readers to follow what's going on. He plainly has no specialist knowledge of any of these topics, and in the rare cases where he references a claim, it will generally be to an anti-vaccine opinion website. I am all for free speech and multiple viewpoints, but I would hope that those with real knowledge of autism can find the time to follow this phenomenon. Misinformation on these topics has caused real distress to parents, and, in my view, exposed children to real risks. 86.129.121.203
Since there's obviously been a lot of discussion on this page, I didn't want to edit it, but how on earth can whale.to be considered a reliable source for anything? Here's an example of the prose on the site: "[Most health hazards are created or encouraged by the Illuminati through their various monopolies, eg Medical with Pharma drug overuse and suppression of life saving alternative medicine; Political monopoly with Fluoride, Wars, Masts, Aspartame; Food/Farming Cartel with GM foods, Junk foods. Their covert war against humanity can be seen here, it is not just about robbing the taxpayer." I think this link diminishes the credibility of the article. -- Stijl Council 00:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
A bit of reorganization at the links - anti and promotion classification added. Jkpjkp 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I question a few things.
1) Can anyone provide incidence-rate graphs? I seriously question the mortality-rate graphs, and feel incidence-rate graphs would be much more meaningful, and less likely to be a deliberate slant masked in statistics.
2) Can anyone show there actually IS an increased incidence per capita of leukemia, multiple sclerosis, or SIDS? I already know the data "proving" such on autism, as well as the problems with that data.
3) Why aren't there any direct sitations for, eg, "number of individuals in a number of cases who were assumed to be immunized and still contracted the illness" or "possible links between the increasing incidence of cancer and vaccines"?
Thsgrn
05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Leifern, what do the graphs show that's worth a quarter of the article? You're the one being silly. They require a copious amount of clarification to not be actively misleading, and the bullet point "Critics of vaccination policy point out that the mortality rates of relevant illnesses were already dramatically reduced before vaccines were introduced, and claim that further reductions cannot immediately be attributed to vaccines." seems to convey the exact same information, and to do so without attempting to push this confusion between mortality and prevalence as being the most important point of the article.
Replace them with graphs of prevalence if they're so important, since that at least isn't misleading.
Thsgrn
01:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Ombudsman, I leave you an open question: Why can't you replace the graphs with graphs of prevalence? That would be fair and honest. The mortality graphs are inherently dishonest, because the claim by vaccine advocates is primarily that vaccines reduce prevalence, and morality decreases are a mere side-effect. Thsgrn 07:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I obtained permission from the copyright holder to keep the graphs; I posted this to the relevant page; and they were still deleted. Please let me know what happened. -- Leifern 16:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I was very suprised to find this highly flawed research [2] included in the "The case for widespread vaccines" section . It is a shame that this research is proprietary and only readable via subscription. A | fuller analysis reveals that the first 14 days after vaccination where excluded from the study, which every vaccine researcher knows is usually the peek of mortality for vaccinated subjects. It seems to me that on a page about the vaccine controversy some more analysis of such a report would be useful, and if not the report should be excluded. Siting this single highly flawed report with the attached statement is dangerously to the neutrality of the article, and we should be moving towards more established facts. What do people think? -- Gremble 24 October 2005
All medical research to support the MMR-doesn't-cause-autism stance is full of holes john 18:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am no particular fan of Wakefield, but it seems to me that to accuse him of a conflict of interest is like accusing all scientists in any field of such a conflict. The test should be what the opportunity cost is for someone - if Wakefield could have done as well or better doing something else besides being activist about the MMR vaccine, then it's far-fetched to accuse him of having a conflict of interest. -- Leifern 22:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Arcadian, for that fantastic encyclopedic NPOV edit [3]! JFW | T@lk 20:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Adding supporters is absurd on a vaccine controversy page. john 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
THe headline is given in the text. Going to what is asserted to be a copy of the reference cited (it is a page on whale.to which looks as though it is a BMJ paper from some time ago, I find the remark on incidence is:-
"The annual number of deaths attributed to measles on death certificates fell from 39 in 1970 to 17 in 1983,"
The rest of that sentence is "... but the ratio of deaths to measles notifications showed no declining trend over the period" which is of course relevant to death rates.
The arithmetic seems unexplained, and it is unclear also what it is about that paper that is claimed to support the assertion in which it is presented as a reference. Midgley 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I am perfectly prepared to believe that people will take up a cause simply to enrich themselves through litigation, but this is a point of view based on certain premises about the tort system. I'm not going to edit it now, but I think it's hard to assume that the legal system will enrich the undeserving - the assumption should rather be that cases will win in the courts based on their merit. -- Leifern 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Geni insists that it's only been since 2005 that "anti-vaccinationists" (a contrived term) have objected to vaccines. He knows just as well as anyone that this is false. Parents in many countries have been concerned to the either the aggressive schedule of vaccinations or thimerosal or both, without being "anti-vaccines" beyond that. What is this? -- Leifern 03:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I removed Geni's attempts at associating one set of criticism against vaccines with another, as if the two were related, represented the only controversies, and (I have to imagine) of equal (de)merit (at least in Geni's opionion). I also took out language telling parents what they should realize, since this was both biased and misplaced in the introduction. -- Leifern 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This article now reads like a defense for governmental vaccine policies, eliminating specific charges of harm done by vaccines. The substantial information on why there is a controversy, and the specific evils that vaccines, in their differing marketing presentations, have been shown or suspected to inflict, need to be reinstated. Beggining this job. 201.121.166.164 15:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
But perhaps that is not a priority. Midgley 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that I take exception to the Leifern's recent summary comment [5] in this article. It is one of a recent unbroken series of egregious violations of WP:CIVIL by him in my direction. If Leifern has ever made a comment involving me which actually falls within WP:CIVIL I regret that I cannot recall it. Perhaps someone else has seen one. And Leifern has made a lot of such comments. Looking around WP, there are many controversial topics which do not benefit from Leifern's input, and the participants in whcih are free from this level of nastiness. I suspect it may not be a coincidence. Midgley 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it usual to include the date something started (and if it finished, that date as well)? When then did "vaccine controversy" start? And is it actually vaccine controversy, or something that predated vaccines, and was opposition to variolation, retargeted on vaccination in 1798? Midgley 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, the relevant articles are being hijacked by editors who believe that anything out of the mainstream is quackery and should be discredited. They have taken to deleting content they find disagreeable. There are only a few of us who are trying to make sure that readers get a complete overview of the state of biomedical intervention and the controversy surrounding the cause(s) of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
For better or worse, there is a bit of mob rule on Wikipedia - it takes a lot of participants to make sure that a controversial perspective is represented fairly and accurately. Right now, editors who believe that any more or less "alternative" approaches to treating our kids are at best ill-informed and at worst quackery are winning the day. As an example, a recent biographical article on Peter Fletcher, the former chief scientific officer at the United Kingdom's Department of Health was deleted because he has spoken up about the possibility of a link between MMR and autism.
Some examples of problematic articles are:
203.208.251.205 ( talk · contribs)
It's just occurred to me that the scientific 'debates' and issues, and the ideological disagreements (controversies) are getting constantly jumbled up. (arguing from different premises as it were) Therefore, I 'll put the article it in the 'debate' category as well -to encourage some effort of separation to take place; or at least, a debate about it.-- Aspro 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that vaccination may be responsible for every single case of terrorism, 50% of cancer cases and possibly the september 11 incident. I feel that my completely reasonable view has been unfairly excluded simply because its alternative.
I know I am probably just adding fuel to the fire here, but I read the beginning of this article and stopped about 3 paragraphs into it.
The beginning of this article seems entirely biased to favor vaccination programs.
This is an important topic obviously. I have a nephew who was just diagnosed with PDD so I came here for insight. Even the tone of the debate here seems very biased. co94 March 31, 2006
This article takes an opinon that is not really held by any medical professional and presents it as if it were mainstream. Yes, there is going to be a certain percentage of deaths among any mass-vaccination, but every educated person knows this percentage is infinitesimal compared to the number of deaths without the vaccinations. The reason that drug companies already don't invest in vaccines as much as they should is becasue idiotic people that don't understand the concept of vaccines will bring massive law suits against any maker of vaccines.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And you know you is responsible for all of that.....The Jews!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is valid. Sometimes a scientific methodology does not produce desirable results. Take MMR/Autism. Epidemiological research is typically inadequate in this area (refer Cochrane and others) - frequently it is not possible to find populations to compare that are both sufficiently large, and alike except for having / not having the vaccination. Frequently the populations compared are significantly unequal in autism rates, but there are too many possible causes for any one to be isolated with confidence. The scientific conclusion is then reported "the study revealed no evidence of a connection MMR/Autism" and perhaps should be read as "the study revealed nothing". This is then reported in the media and policy guidance as "Further evidence that MMR is safe" and people who question this should be considered as unsafe / deluded.-- 213.212.65.12 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
To let me know that Bono supports vaccination? To tell me that a few MDs support vaccination and a few MDs don't? If they are important figures or organizations in the 'vaccination controversy' world, their position on the issue should be mentioned in prose under the sections 'The case for widespread vaccines' or 'Criticism of widespread vaccine policy'. -- Dodo bird 12:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
How is the list of vaccination critics different from the list in Anti-vaccinationist ? Amcfreely 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made these lists a bit smaller so they take up slightly less space. I can't say I find the lists particularly illuminating. Nunquam Dormio 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
An attempt at a definition is part of vaccine critic. You might think that this would be one place to put a list of vaccine critics, though not of course anti-vaccinationists. Midgley 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My suggestions. Word the names into prose. (eg. ...celebrity and humanitarian Bono has shown strong support for vaccination..., Archie Kalokerinos, an australian physician claimed that vaccination schemes have been used for deliberate genocide among indigenous Australians, and in spreading HIV in Africa, Louis Pasteur(1822-1895), creator of the rabies vaccine is a supporter of vaccination back in those times when no one actually objects to vaccination, Mark Blaxill, who has an MBA and is not important enough for an article of his own on wikipedia objects to vaccination.) After we done that to all the names, it would be clear which names don't deserve to be here. -- Dodo bird 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I know that introductions of articles tend to have been worked on with a fine toothed comb, but I see a way to improve it. Instead of the sentences:
I have removed the latter and have the link to anti-vaccinationist be from the word "Critics". They now read:
It reads cleaner. I tend to believe that "See (also) ..." statements are much more inelegant than links, in a medium like this. The second sentence also had a ever so slight air of POV disparagement, I think due to the "anti" prefix, and that "the individuals involved" has a faint ring of fringeness, a (perhaps wrong) implication being that, wow, if there are so few that they can actually be enumerated, they must be wrong.
I am of course aware that the critics are the minority, and some of their work is quite fringe, and worse. But some isn't. This now reads more neutrally, while in ins context accurately.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The graphs Geni keeps deleting provide evidence essential to understanding the controversy around vaccinations. They are unacceptable and amount to vandalism, and I will take the issue as far as I need to. -- Leifern 13:14, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Having been involved in these disputes with you in several areas, I want to make a couple of observations:
I have to wonder whether you really are an agent provocateur in this debate; if you are, let it be known that I disassociate myself from such a method. -- Leifern 14:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
The graphs are a reasonable starting point for looking at the issue empirically, but I would much prefer an educated overview of the current state of scientific research on the matter as published in peer reviewed journals (PubMED should be able to dig up a few abstracts). If I conduct a study with a control group, then I want both groups to be subject to the same conditions with the exception of the one I'm looking at. Here, however, you are comparing graphs which show the mortality rates for very different diseases.
It seems far-fetched to try to infer any conclusions about the effects of vaccination on diphtheria from the effects of non-vaccination on scarlet fever. A cross-country comparison, where two modern countries followed a largely similar approach for the same diseases, but one used vaccines, and the others did not, seems like a better way to look at the effects of vaccination on a disease. Vaccine critics may see the issue of vaccination as independent from the type of vaccine, but vaccine supporters will very likely not agree with that assumption.
As a layperson, I would also suspect that Australia is a very specific case, with quarantine measures and border controls being relatively easy to implement. But what about a country where people from a neighbouring country with worse hygienic conditions immigrate, legally or illegally, in large numbers?-- Eloquence * 02:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
On a slightly different note, the copyright attribution on the graph images is improper. The website the images were taken from (vaccinationdebate.com, Ian Sinclair) indicates it took these images from the book Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma by Greg Beattie. These are copyright 1997 by Greg Beattie, so Ian Sinclair does not have standing to grant permission for their use on wikipedia. -- Tabor 15:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni's latest edits needed some cleaning up. Public health measures are not proven to reduce the rate of infection of these illnesses appreciably (though one could find that natural immunity is stronger under better conditions), but there is no question that mortality rates are reduced, which is the (edited) last point. -- Leifern 16:29, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Geni - there you go again, throwing around statistical terminology as if you know what they mean. An R^2 is a statistical measure used in regression analysis, which is used to identify multiple contributing factors. You use it (and its more precise adjusted R^2 to suggest causality of multiple factors), not to identify a trend. A trend, in this case, refers to a downward or upward slope, e.g., "unemployment is increasing," or "inflation is decreasing." There are statistical methods to prove such trends, but they are not used when the trend is apparent. Only a fool would dispute the assertion that mortality from pertussis has decreased in Australia in the last 100 years. -- Leifern 10:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Geni has a tendency to simply delete information that he either disagrees with or doesn't support his opinion. This borders on vandalism, and I'm considering making a formal case of it. In the meantime, Geni has proven repeatedly that he has very limited knowledge of basic statistics, including what represents statistical proof (e.g., asking for an R^2 square for a univariate analysis). In the case of deletion of graphs that show reduction in mortality rates, he is arguing that "there is no evidence that such a comparison is valid." The comparison is certainly valid, what conclusions you can draw from making such a conclusion are unclear, but we are not promoting a particular conclusion. The graphs stay. -- Leifern 14:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, a "vaccine policy" could mean "no vaccines to anyone, ever." I think what the term is supposed to mean, is that cases are made for and against obligatory vaccination for a wide range of illnesses. But this is misleading as well. There are, of course, those who think vaccines should be abolished, but there are others who believe they should be used more sparingly, and among those there are a wide range of convictions. The headlines used before probably need work, but the ones we have now don't work, either. -- Leifern 12:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that editors need to keep a close watch on Ombudsman's activities with regard to vaccines. Examination of his edits and many of the topics he has started show a clear agenda of alleging that autism is an epidemic, that it is substantially caused by vaccines, that there is a "medical establishment" cover-up, and that those who try to edit wiki along lines of established evidence - which does not support any of his propositions - are malign, if not corruptly influenced. In pursuit of this, he has created page after page overlapping with existing subjects, generally creating alternative narratives to those worked on by others over many months. He has also added a network of links that would tend to lead readers away from the contributions of others. He has repeatedly deleted links on such pages - most often to delete links to the autism page, where he has been unable to gain influence. He has repeatedly breached the three-reversion rule in his attempts to promote a handful of anti-vaccine activists, edited comments on his own page, making it difficult for readers to follow what's going on. He plainly has no specialist knowledge of any of these topics, and in the rare cases where he references a claim, it will generally be to an anti-vaccine opinion website. I am all for free speech and multiple viewpoints, but I would hope that those with real knowledge of autism can find the time to follow this phenomenon. Misinformation on these topics has caused real distress to parents, and, in my view, exposed children to real risks. 86.129.121.203
Since there's obviously been a lot of discussion on this page, I didn't want to edit it, but how on earth can whale.to be considered a reliable source for anything? Here's an example of the prose on the site: "[Most health hazards are created or encouraged by the Illuminati through their various monopolies, eg Medical with Pharma drug overuse and suppression of life saving alternative medicine; Political monopoly with Fluoride, Wars, Masts, Aspartame; Food/Farming Cartel with GM foods, Junk foods. Their covert war against humanity can be seen here, it is not just about robbing the taxpayer." I think this link diminishes the credibility of the article. -- Stijl Council 00:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
A bit of reorganization at the links - anti and promotion classification added. Jkpjkp 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I question a few things.
1) Can anyone provide incidence-rate graphs? I seriously question the mortality-rate graphs, and feel incidence-rate graphs would be much more meaningful, and less likely to be a deliberate slant masked in statistics.
2) Can anyone show there actually IS an increased incidence per capita of leukemia, multiple sclerosis, or SIDS? I already know the data "proving" such on autism, as well as the problems with that data.
3) Why aren't there any direct sitations for, eg, "number of individuals in a number of cases who were assumed to be immunized and still contracted the illness" or "possible links between the increasing incidence of cancer and vaccines"?
Thsgrn
05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Leifern, what do the graphs show that's worth a quarter of the article? You're the one being silly. They require a copious amount of clarification to not be actively misleading, and the bullet point "Critics of vaccination policy point out that the mortality rates of relevant illnesses were already dramatically reduced before vaccines were introduced, and claim that further reductions cannot immediately be attributed to vaccines." seems to convey the exact same information, and to do so without attempting to push this confusion between mortality and prevalence as being the most important point of the article.
Replace them with graphs of prevalence if they're so important, since that at least isn't misleading.
Thsgrn
01:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Ombudsman, I leave you an open question: Why can't you replace the graphs with graphs of prevalence? That would be fair and honest. The mortality graphs are inherently dishonest, because the claim by vaccine advocates is primarily that vaccines reduce prevalence, and morality decreases are a mere side-effect. Thsgrn 07:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I obtained permission from the copyright holder to keep the graphs; I posted this to the relevant page; and they were still deleted. Please let me know what happened. -- Leifern 16:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I was very suprised to find this highly flawed research [2] included in the "The case for widespread vaccines" section . It is a shame that this research is proprietary and only readable via subscription. A | fuller analysis reveals that the first 14 days after vaccination where excluded from the study, which every vaccine researcher knows is usually the peek of mortality for vaccinated subjects. It seems to me that on a page about the vaccine controversy some more analysis of such a report would be useful, and if not the report should be excluded. Siting this single highly flawed report with the attached statement is dangerously to the neutrality of the article, and we should be moving towards more established facts. What do people think? -- Gremble 24 October 2005
All medical research to support the MMR-doesn't-cause-autism stance is full of holes john 18:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am no particular fan of Wakefield, but it seems to me that to accuse him of a conflict of interest is like accusing all scientists in any field of such a conflict. The test should be what the opportunity cost is for someone - if Wakefield could have done as well or better doing something else besides being activist about the MMR vaccine, then it's far-fetched to accuse him of having a conflict of interest. -- Leifern 22:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Arcadian, for that fantastic encyclopedic NPOV edit [3]! JFW | T@lk 20:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Adding supporters is absurd on a vaccine controversy page. john 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
THe headline is given in the text. Going to what is asserted to be a copy of the reference cited (it is a page on whale.to which looks as though it is a BMJ paper from some time ago, I find the remark on incidence is:-
"The annual number of deaths attributed to measles on death certificates fell from 39 in 1970 to 17 in 1983,"
The rest of that sentence is "... but the ratio of deaths to measles notifications showed no declining trend over the period" which is of course relevant to death rates.
The arithmetic seems unexplained, and it is unclear also what it is about that paper that is claimed to support the assertion in which it is presented as a reference. Midgley 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I am perfectly prepared to believe that people will take up a cause simply to enrich themselves through litigation, but this is a point of view based on certain premises about the tort system. I'm not going to edit it now, but I think it's hard to assume that the legal system will enrich the undeserving - the assumption should rather be that cases will win in the courts based on their merit. -- Leifern 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Geni insists that it's only been since 2005 that "anti-vaccinationists" (a contrived term) have objected to vaccines. He knows just as well as anyone that this is false. Parents in many countries have been concerned to the either the aggressive schedule of vaccinations or thimerosal or both, without being "anti-vaccines" beyond that. What is this? -- Leifern 03:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I removed Geni's attempts at associating one set of criticism against vaccines with another, as if the two were related, represented the only controversies, and (I have to imagine) of equal (de)merit (at least in Geni's opionion). I also took out language telling parents what they should realize, since this was both biased and misplaced in the introduction. -- Leifern 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This article now reads like a defense for governmental vaccine policies, eliminating specific charges of harm done by vaccines. The substantial information on why there is a controversy, and the specific evils that vaccines, in their differing marketing presentations, have been shown or suspected to inflict, need to be reinstated. Beggining this job. 201.121.166.164 15:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
But perhaps that is not a priority. Midgley 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that I take exception to the Leifern's recent summary comment [5] in this article. It is one of a recent unbroken series of egregious violations of WP:CIVIL by him in my direction. If Leifern has ever made a comment involving me which actually falls within WP:CIVIL I regret that I cannot recall it. Perhaps someone else has seen one. And Leifern has made a lot of such comments. Looking around WP, there are many controversial topics which do not benefit from Leifern's input, and the participants in whcih are free from this level of nastiness. I suspect it may not be a coincidence. Midgley 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it usual to include the date something started (and if it finished, that date as well)? When then did "vaccine controversy" start? And is it actually vaccine controversy, or something that predated vaccines, and was opposition to variolation, retargeted on vaccination in 1798? Midgley 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, the relevant articles are being hijacked by editors who believe that anything out of the mainstream is quackery and should be discredited. They have taken to deleting content they find disagreeable. There are only a few of us who are trying to make sure that readers get a complete overview of the state of biomedical intervention and the controversy surrounding the cause(s) of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
For better or worse, there is a bit of mob rule on Wikipedia - it takes a lot of participants to make sure that a controversial perspective is represented fairly and accurately. Right now, editors who believe that any more or less "alternative" approaches to treating our kids are at best ill-informed and at worst quackery are winning the day. As an example, a recent biographical article on Peter Fletcher, the former chief scientific officer at the United Kingdom's Department of Health was deleted because he has spoken up about the possibility of a link between MMR and autism.
Some examples of problematic articles are:
203.208.251.205 ( talk · contribs)
It's just occurred to me that the scientific 'debates' and issues, and the ideological disagreements (controversies) are getting constantly jumbled up. (arguing from different premises as it were) Therefore, I 'll put the article it in the 'debate' category as well -to encourage some effort of separation to take place; or at least, a debate about it.-- Aspro 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that vaccination may be responsible for every single case of terrorism, 50% of cancer cases and possibly the september 11 incident. I feel that my completely reasonable view has been unfairly excluded simply because its alternative.
I know I am probably just adding fuel to the fire here, but I read the beginning of this article and stopped about 3 paragraphs into it.
The beginning of this article seems entirely biased to favor vaccination programs.
This is an important topic obviously. I have a nephew who was just diagnosed with PDD so I came here for insight. Even the tone of the debate here seems very biased. co94 March 31, 2006
This article takes an opinon that is not really held by any medical professional and presents it as if it were mainstream. Yes, there is going to be a certain percentage of deaths among any mass-vaccination, but every educated person knows this percentage is infinitesimal compared to the number of deaths without the vaccinations. The reason that drug companies already don't invest in vaccines as much as they should is becasue idiotic people that don't understand the concept of vaccines will bring massive law suits against any maker of vaccines.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And you know you is responsible for all of that.....The Jews!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is valid. Sometimes a scientific methodology does not produce desirable results. Take MMR/Autism. Epidemiological research is typically inadequate in this area (refer Cochrane and others) - frequently it is not possible to find populations to compare that are both sufficiently large, and alike except for having / not having the vaccination. Frequently the populations compared are significantly unequal in autism rates, but there are too many possible causes for any one to be isolated with confidence. The scientific conclusion is then reported "the study revealed no evidence of a connection MMR/Autism" and perhaps should be read as "the study revealed nothing". This is then reported in the media and policy guidance as "Further evidence that MMR is safe" and people who question this should be considered as unsafe / deluded.-- 213.212.65.12 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
To let me know that Bono supports vaccination? To tell me that a few MDs support vaccination and a few MDs don't? If they are important figures or organizations in the 'vaccination controversy' world, their position on the issue should be mentioned in prose under the sections 'The case for widespread vaccines' or 'Criticism of widespread vaccine policy'. -- Dodo bird 12:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
How is the list of vaccination critics different from the list in Anti-vaccinationist ? Amcfreely 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made these lists a bit smaller so they take up slightly less space. I can't say I find the lists particularly illuminating. Nunquam Dormio 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
An attempt at a definition is part of vaccine critic. You might think that this would be one place to put a list of vaccine critics, though not of course anti-vaccinationists. Midgley 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
My suggestions. Word the names into prose. (eg. ...celebrity and humanitarian Bono has shown strong support for vaccination..., Archie Kalokerinos, an australian physician claimed that vaccination schemes have been used for deliberate genocide among indigenous Australians, and in spreading HIV in Africa, Louis Pasteur(1822-1895), creator of the rabies vaccine is a supporter of vaccination back in those times when no one actually objects to vaccination, Mark Blaxill, who has an MBA and is not important enough for an article of his own on wikipedia objects to vaccination.) After we done that to all the names, it would be clear which names don't deserve to be here. -- Dodo bird 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I know that introductions of articles tend to have been worked on with a fine toothed comb, but I see a way to improve it. Instead of the sentences:
I have removed the latter and have the link to anti-vaccinationist be from the word "Critics". They now read:
It reads cleaner. I tend to believe that "See (also) ..." statements are much more inelegant than links, in a medium like this. The second sentence also had a ever so slight air of POV disparagement, I think due to the "anti" prefix, and that "the individuals involved" has a faint ring of fringeness, a (perhaps wrong) implication being that, wow, if there are so few that they can actually be enumerated, they must be wrong.
I am of course aware that the critics are the minority, and some of their work is quite fringe, and worse. But some isn't. This now reads more neutrally, while in ins context accurately.