![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
This article is mostly poorly formed ad hominem attacks. I propose it be deleted. Zbrock 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Several studies have found no link between Hep B vaccination and MS ( PMID 10683009, PMID 11172163, PMID 12707063 for example, in Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine). At least one study did find an increased risk ( PMID 15365133). The authors of the positive study, from the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote a 2006 editorial entitled "Hepatitis B vaccination and multiple sclerosis: the jury is still out" ( PMID 16245367), in which they examined the methodology of all of these studies and found some degree of flaw with each. Their conclusion was that there's not enough evidence to establish a causative link between Hep B vaccine and MS, but also not enough evidence to completely disprove such a link. And of course, "further study is needed" as always. This shouldn't be too hard to write into the article, yes? MastCell 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the political agenda of JPandS is relevant (as one of their major political issues is anti-vaccinationism). The journal has a clearly stated political agenda, and the piece in question was, in fact, authored by someone with a legal rather than scientific or medical background. Setting it up as if it "rebuts" the Cochrane Library report is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. As it claims to be a medical journal, the fact that it's not indexed in MEDLINE is relevant. MastCell Talk 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is that long list of vaccine supporters and critics doing on the page? Shouldn't they be at least on their own list pages, like List of vaccine supporters and another for critics? They take up an immense amount of space on the page, for nothing much I can see. It's got to violate a couple WP:NOTs, like indiscriminate information, mere collection of internal links, directory, etc. -- WLU 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Should the article Anti-vaccinationist be merged into this one? The two articles cover a lot of the same ground, and I do not see a reason why there should not be a single cohesive article on this subject, as opposed to two disorganised ones. - Severa ( !!!) 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two concerns about recent edits to the lead. First, mentioning (in the first paragraph, no less) a U.S. bill proposing to investigate a vaccine/autism link is a bit odd. This is not only recentist and U.S.-centric, but the bill has not even been voted on, so far as I can tell, and its prospects for becoming law are unknown. Mention it, sure, but in the lead?
Secondly, the final paragraph on the vaccine compensation fund has some of the same issues of U.S.-centrism, and it seems like a non-sequitur in its current position in the lead paragraph. Undoubtedly, the fund needs to be mentioned in this article, but again, I don't think it's necessarily lead material, especially since the fund itself does not seem particularly "controversial", and the paragraph doesn't make clear how it relates to the "vaccine controversy". MastCell Talk 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The MMR controversy takes up a disproportionate part of the article. It's longer than all of the separate Thiomersal controversy article. The MMR controversy is somewhat complicated with all the media aspects etc and thus essential information would be dropped if it were significantly trimmed down. I think it would be reasonable to move the MMR controversy to a separate article. -- Jkpjkp 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It would seem reasonable to rename the article to "Vaccine controversies" as there are many separate controversies - thiomersal, MMR/autism, vaccination and religion, the debates over the role which vaccines had in the decline of different diseases, the debate over how common adverse effects are, the debate whether vaccines cause diabetes, the debate whether vaccines cause other autoimmune disease etc. -- Jkpjkp 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been substantially rewritten by a single editor, and is now breathtakingly biased. Section title after section title present arguments against vaccination, without even a token effort to present the mainstream view. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox for minority opinion; it is supposed to prevent a fair summary of the consensus view. Eubulides 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the severity of the cleanup issues; familiarity with WP:MOS would help. Is there a better version that can be reverted to ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Replying to the comment in #Quality issues about whether the theory that MMR vaccine causes autism is a "fringe theory". It's not as fringe a theory as (say) the theory that autism is caused by diabolical possession. But it is more of a fringe theory than (say) the theory that autism is largely caused by exposure to pesticides. All these theories are most likely incorrect, based on the scientific evidence that we have now. The MMR vaccine theory was briefly plausible but has been investigated and discarded. This is not a question of my opinion: it's a question of what the reliable sources say. Eubulides 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Check out http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_7910416 195.38.117.220 ( talk) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is marked for cleanup since June 2006, which was one thing which prompted me to start rearranging the article and making other edits. As can be seen on the page edit log, opinion has been expressed that the edits have made the article quality lower than higher. Could we be more specific, and discuss what the quality issues are? NPOV and weasel words are two which are tagged separately, but how about other issues. For example, the long list of external reference seems like quite a big portion of this article - while it gives references to the article subject, is it disproportionate? How about organization / subtitling? I think it still needs some work - maybe some grouping of the controversies, as there are quite many subtitles now at the same level. Also, the "Common arguments" for and against vaccinations seem redundant and repetitive after the Overview - how about ditching them and writing a Summary at the end instead? Maybe that would also alleviate the NPOV concern, since the summary could repeat the claims of each public health organization and government that their policy is the right one. --
Jkpjkp
10:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's fine to include political commentary, but the politics of the issue should not be presented as if they're the science of the issue. The JPandS paragraph I removed was clearly designed to "rebut" Cochrane; I agree that it's inappropriate. Simply put, we should not present work from a non-MEDLINE-indexed "house magazine of a far-right group" as if it's the equal, in scientific terms, of more respected work. I'm fine with quoting JPandS as an example of a particular brand of anti-vaccinationism (motivated primarily by libertarianism and anti-govermentalism rather than religion etc), just not as a high-quality source of scientific information. MastCell Talk 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Should there be included a section on the goals of individuals and groups opposed to vaccination? Obviously, the section on compulsory vaccination is self-contained. But, if someone is opposed to vaccination, are they against everyone receiving a vaccine? Are they against all vaccines or just some? What if an individual wants a vaccine? Should they be prevented from receiving one? Or is someone opposed to vaccination just simply not willing to get on themselves. These seem like obvious questions that just aren't answered. Justin Custer 08:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I had added references to many of the unsourced statements - all of those were wiped out by User:SandyGeorgia who did a massive wipe of the recent edits after very little discussion but with lots of shouting and handwaving by User:SandyGeorgia. Now I'm wondering whether there's a point in re-adding the references, or will they have the same fate again. Any guesses? -- Jkpjkp 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The following entry in the text:
* Secondary and long-term effects on the immune system from introducing immunogens and immunologic adjuvants directly into the body are not fully understood. Some autoimmune diseases, like acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis and multiple sclerosis, are known, suspected, hypothesized, or claimed to be connected to vaccines.[23]
Refers to reference 23:
The referenced article does not validate any of the above claims. It could be that there is no citation, or that the incorrect citation is being used. If anyone knows and could correct, that would be good... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.25.115 ( talk) 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
About Vaccination and Liberty -- does anyone actually argue that vaccination is an infringement of some sort of right, besides conspiracy theorists? Do we allow baseless conspiracy theories to be repeated as legitimate on wikipedia? Can I delete this section?
Removing for citation and interpretation according to medical sources, see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Possible sources (I don't have full access):
Brown et al. 2004 is an influential study, though the concern about prenatal infections and neurological disorders goes way back. Penner & Brown 2007 ( PMID 17610387) looks like a great source, but it's not in my library. Brown's 2006 summary ( PMID 16469941) is the best reviewish thing I could find (it's not really a review, but it does summarize his recent work well, it's free, and Brown is 1st-class). I added a section along these lines but am not particularly happy with it (especially the article organization; what a mess!). Perhaps someone can improve it? Eubulides ( talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
MastCell did you read the article from the Washington Post (linked above), where Brown who is one of the researchers in this filed is quoted? Its not the infection its self that is the problem but the immunological response the mother has to the infection and since the flu shot produced the same response. The incidence of mental illness from pre-natal infections is low, and the question now seems to be were the incidence is the same for a flu infection verses immunization. What percent of pregnant women will get the flu, and is it advisable for all pregnant woman to be immunized. If there is good chance of contracting the flu- one is better off being immunized. The sources from medpub are older papers that do not really propose a mechanism that harms the fetus, Brown makes the case that we can pin the problem on maternal antigens (antibodies) effecting the fetus during its early development. Hopefully a full pledged study will be published soon- but there was no indication of this in the Washington Post piece. The story went out yesterday over the wire servecs and I came across it in our local paper first. Hardyplants ( talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I know of no reliable source directly linking vaccine-induced maternal immune activation with the child's schizophrenia, or with any other neurological disorder in the child for that matter. That's not to say there's no link. It's an active research area. Let's put it this way: I know of no reliable review where the authors say one way or another whether such a link is plausible. Eubulides ( talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Hardyplants reverted the new section on the grounds that it "was a misunderstanding of the issue, Its the mothers imulogical response that is harmful to the baby, not the virus its self." I'm afraid this is based on a misreading of the new section. The new section does not say that the virus harms the baby. It says there is evidence that exposure to infection helps cause schizophrenia. This closely mimicks the cited source ( Brown 2006), which says "Accumulating evidence suggests that prenatal exposure to infection contributes to the etiology of schizophrenia." I see nothing incorrect about the new section, as far as it went; it was deliberately vague about exactly how an infection might cause schizophrenia. But I sense that Hardyplants also wants the article to contain something about a possible link from flu vaccine via maternal immune response and schizophrenia. Here the scientific case is much more speculative, but I made a further change to try to address that point. Eubulides ( talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin then reverted the further change, on the grounds that "Neither reference supported this silly piece of original research." I don't see how Orangemarlin could have come to that conclusion. The new section is not original research. Here are all the sentences in the new section, along with quotes from the cited sources that directly support these sentences.
I suppose one could argue that the new section relies too heavily on Brown, but Brown is one of the most important researchers in this area, and I don't detect any sign of him being on the fringe. So, unless I hear good arguments otherwise, I'm inclined to put this material back in, in one form or another. Eubulides ( talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[[:Image:August Hirt.jpg|thumb|150px|right| August Hirt dissecting a corpse.]] There are several aspects not adequately covered. Not all vaccine critics are hysterical pseudo-scientists. For example:
That's all for now. CM ( talk) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A recent change was made on the grounds that
"Victims is a bit POV.". The word victims was replaced with "claimants," which seems a bit double-speakish to me.
See also:
Injured persons are usually referred to as victims in tort. CM ( talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The odd thing is that the Vaccine Injury program is being presented as if it were proof that vaccines are harmful or deadly. In fact, the opposite is true. The program exists because universal vaccination is undisputably a societal good. We've replaced thousands of cases of disease or disability due to disease with a handful of cases due to vaccination. Still, many ethical readings (including my own) suggest that we as a society owe compensation to individuals injured by vaccination, regardless of the unanswerable issue of whether they would have gotten sick if they hadn't been vaccinated, and regardless of the undeniable fact that vaccination saves countless lives. The Vaccine Injury program is a recognition that vaccination is of huge benefit to society as a whole, though associated with harm in a handful of cases which we as a socity are obliged to try to mitigate. MastCell Talk 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends on how much one values a child's life. If children's lives are not worth much, then Cagey Millipede is correct that the biggest economic benefit of childhood chickenpox vaccination is letting parents work; see the economic analysis in Preblud 1986 ( PMID 3093966). However, if the children's lives are considered to be valuable, then those calculations are, shall we say, incomplete. Preblud reports two deaths per 100,000 varicella cases among otherwise-healthy persons; the rate rises to 7.2 deaths per 100,000 for babies (under age 1), and 30.9 deaths per 100,000 for adults (above age 19). Speculation and comparison to abortions etc. is out of place in this article: we need reliable sources and we need to stick to the topic. Eubulides ( talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This change removed the following text:
with the comment "Per WP:WEIGHT. Let's keep the lies out". I don't see any "lies" in the quoted text; on the contrary, the quotation contributes the useful information that the two vaccine controversies are independent. Furthermore, the controversies are indeed major ones: if you visit Google News right now, both the MMR and the thiomersal controversies have seen dozens of articles in the past month, far more than any other autism-related story. This article is about vaccine controversies; it is not neutral to summarize the controversy merely with a statement "There is no evidence that any childhood vaccine contributes to autism.", as the above change does.
The newly added claim is also incorrect in its own right. There is some evidence that childhood vaccines contribute to autism. The problem is that the evidence is not scientific. Furthermore, the citations given in support of the claim do not, in fact, support it. The first citation (Baird et al. 2008, PMID 18252754) merely gives strong evidence that Wakefield's MMR hypothesis is wrong. The second citation (Fitzpatrick 2007, PMID 17688775) is also about MMR. Neither citation suffices to prove that there is no evidence that any childhood vaccine contributes to autism; they are both talking only about MMR.
For now I have attempted to work around the problem by removing the "Autism" section header entirely, but I think this has removed useful information (such as the independence of the controversies mentioned above). Eubulides ( talk) 08:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdenting) SandyGeorgia gets 1000 times the grief that I do, despite being a much better editor. (Or perhaps that's because editor quality is correlated with grief-getting?) Changing the subject slightly, I recently discovered that many chiropractors oppose vaccination and added a note to this effect to Vaccine controversy without (ahem) controversy so far, but when I made a similar addition to Chiropractic it was almost immediately reverted with the comment "We need to discuss this on Talk first." The discussion there has not been conclusive yet; I hope that something will go in, but given the mess and controversy surrounding that article I'm not sure it's worth the effort to try to clean up the stables there. Eubulides ( talk) 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin, don't piss-off your allies. Calling Eubulides a "POV pusher of Autism and vaccines" or saying he just works "on the easy articles" doesn't help and the only reason it isn't offensive is that it is so laughably untrue. Perhaps Eubulides doesn't wear a pro-mainstream POV on his sleeve quite as prominently as you, but that is because we are all supposed to be discussing the article, not the people, and trying to write what our sources say, not what we want to say. The controversy may well be based on a 100% false hypothesis, but it still exists and has been on the front page of many newspapers for years. Trying to suppress that is a book burning attitude that won't help the battle to produce a NPOV article. Colin° Talk 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I just stopped in after Eubulides stopped in at the chiropractic article making some perfectly valid points concerning chiropractic and an anti-vaccination stance. There is a colorful history associated with this that was probably at the heart of the medicine/chiropractic turf wars from the 1920s to the 1950s. Yes, it was heated and hard fought as medicine worked very hard and basically succeeded in getting enough people vaccinated. The efforts of chiropractors to stop the process may well have been the impetus that caused chiropractic to lose face with the public health machine that was reacting to the very frightening polio outbreaks. In 1963, BJ Palmer died and chiropractic began a different path; increasing education standards and so much more. My point here is that the statement about chiropractic in the first section concerning the controversy is a little over the top:
While it probably won't make too much of a difference, I think we have to go further in describing 1) what "Traditional" chiropractic is (a small but very vocal group).. 2)clarify why the ACA and ICA statements currently support exemptions. The way we have it written makes it sound like they are against vaccinations, but really they are pro freedom of choice. I think it is important to give exactly the weight that chiropractors do play in this debate. In other words, if we state that ALL chiropractors are against vaccination that empowers the anti-vaccinationists too much because we are talking about 70,000 chiropractors out there preaching "no vaccines", which I am sure we all agree would be quite a force to reckon with. But, if we say that NO chiropractors are against vaccination, that would be wrong, too. If it is okay with everyone, I can try to reflect this in the article. I would consider this to be a good neutral source [6]. I would also need that survey that is mentioned in the paragraph above. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I did find another survey, but this was published in a conference and not a refereed journal so I don't think it's worth citing in the article. It was done in 2005 and surveyed chiropractors in Kansas. Some results:
So it sounds like, as recently as 2005, anti-vaccination sentiment continued to be strong but not dominant. The source: Holman S, Nyberg SM (2006).
"Attitudes and beliefes toward routine vaccination: a survey of Kansas Chiropractors" (PDF). Proceedings: 2nd Annual Symposium on Graduate Research and Scholarly Projects. Wichita State University. Retrieved 2008-02-13. {{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)
Eubulides (
talk)
22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a few problems with the current passage on chiropractic on vaccine
Chiropractic originally strongly opposed vaccination on the grounds that diseases are traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore cannot be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[24] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic. The ambivalence towards vaccination is seen by the opposing views of chiropractors and their associations. The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws on the grounds that vaccines have risk; a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease,[25] and a 2005 survey of Kansas chiropractors found them nearly evenly split over whether vaccines are effective.[26] In contrast, the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination; however, surveys in Canada in 2000 and 2002 found that only 40% of chiropractors supported vaccination, and that over a quarter opposed it and advised patients against vaccinating themselves or their children.[24]
1) the palmer quote appears gratuitous, out of context and as mccready would say is 'puff' 2) an apparent cherry picking of the evidence and finding surveys that does not represent the profession as a whole (i.e. Kansas DCs) 3) The inclusion of precise statistics as opposed to generalizable trends. Stats can easily be manipulated to a POV, trends, not so much. I would like to see the specifics here condensed into more generalizable statements. 4) this is in the wrong section; chiropractic opposition does not necessarily stem from lack of effectiveness, but differences in philosophy as to what is the right approach towards prevention of illness 5) lack of inclusion of other CAM professions who share a similar viewpoint re: vaccination. EBDCM ( talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I made a bold edit that encompasses the discussion above, mostly that the chiropractors that do oppose vaccination, do so for more reasons than effectiveness. I think it woul dbe fair to add naturopaths and homeopaths to this same section to give the reader an overall picture of who the anti-vacc people are. Feel free to revert, I'm just trying to help get it organized. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[undent] This is a fair compromise, sections of chiropractors. I apologize for my non-constructive post; I was a bit cranky and apparently needed some food (have noticed a strong correlation between those 2). Anyways, MastCell is right but I'm glad this was sorted out in the proper way. EBDCM ( talk) 16:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a graph that shows the decline of diseases before the vaccine's introduction to get an to put the decline of diseases in context? This is the basis for some of the controversy, and it should be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.9.224 ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In many cases, the "best" for each individual would be for everyone else to be vaccinated, since indeed there might be some risk from the vaccine. This situation presents a basic tension between the individual and society. The existence of the dilemma is not very controversial, and deserves to be clearly laid out in the article.
The same applies also to quarantines etc. - 69.87.203.171 ( talk) 14:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This a a credible reference that can be integrated in the article: [10] MaxPont ( talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Events following reductions in vaccination" section seems to be way to welcoming to cherry-picking, and there are no corresponding sections on the "against" side of things. The section should either report opposite findings, demonstrate that the pattern is absolute, or not be given such a prominent part of the article. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Yes, we can only cite a subset of all available research and opinion, but we can do our best to make sure that these references reflect the full body of data and the scientific consensus. For instance, the CDC seems pretty certain that decreasing vaccination rates would have adverse public health consequences. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This change contained some good points, but some problems:
I made this change to accomplish the fixes suggested above. Eubulides ( talk) 05:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a comment from a new Time article. The article probably contains other good information that can be used in this and other related articles. -- Fyslee / talk 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on vaccine makers motives and actions seems a bit weak and one-sided. (Just presents the "criticism" without other perspectives.) I added a little bit of balancing (noting some of the financial motives among critics - specifically e.g. Wakefiled and co.)
It might also be worth including that vaccines are not necessarily highly profitable. (As compared to say Viagra (high demand), or Supplements (in the US, vaccines have to be proven safe and effective, supplements don't, which means considerable savings in development and manufacture)). A few years ago when there was a shortage of Influenza vaccine in the USA, this got some coverage in the popular press. (Manufacture of that vaccine is hard to automate, many vaccine buyers are poor or public agencies, etc.) I haven't added it to the article because I don't have a good citation. Anybody have a good citation on this?
The article on vaccines has some material related to this under Vaccine#Economics of development. But it also lacks citation. Zodon ( talk) 03:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The section titled Auto-immune disorders might be improved by adding a couple of items for perspective.
I don't have references off hand on either of these - but thought worth adding if we can come up with sources. Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 04:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I installed this change to reorder the article so that it discussions each topic one by one, rather than having one big section for the pro-vaccine side, and another big section for the anti-vaccine side. This sort of refactoring is long overdue. This article should be about the controversies; it shouldn't be a debate where one side gets the 1st half of the article and the other side gets the 2nd half. This sort of refactoring was done in August but that version was reverted as it introduced a massive POV problem. The refactoring I just did consisted entirely of moving text around, plus rewording section headers and moving some linking text into the lead (replacing inferior text that was already there). Eubulides ( talk) 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit changed "the financial risks for producers are great" to "the financial risks for developers and producers are great". But the cited source nowhere says that the financial risks are great for developers; only for producers. The source says:
This is talking about production and manufacturing. It is not talking about development. I worked around the problem by removing "developers and" from the article. Eubulides ( talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sears R (2007). The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child. Little, Brown. ISBN 0316017507. This book provides very useful information about vaccines. Hepatitis B for example. Hepatitis B vaccination and the risk of multiple sclerosis.He writes that one of the companies who produce the vaccine warns that people should be informed about multiple sclerosis risk before they decide to use the vaccine. -- Coyote3 ( talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
This change by an IP address added an NPOV tag without any commentary here or specific suggestions for improvement. I'm inclined to remove the tag, unless someone can make specific suggestions. Eubulides ( talk) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit [13] added a regional bias tag, with the edit summary suggesting NPOV concerns. It is customary to make specific suggestions on the talk page when tagging an article, especially for NPOV concerns. Since no specific concerns have been raised, I have removed the tag. Yobol ( talk) 21:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit introduced some changes that made the article worse:
I have removed the parts of the change that had the problems noted above. I suggest discussing here what further changes to make. Eubulides ( talk) 07:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the 2nd paragraph from the lede, as it implied that all anti-vaccination concerns are unfounded.
Let's present both sides of the controversy, without telling the reader which side we are on. Better, yet, as contributors lets not take any side but merely give the pros and cons of each position. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
WHAT??? You want a Wikipedia article to present all the information from all credible sources? That would allow people to make up their own minds. We can't have that. FX ( talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Financial Motives section contains text whose reference doesn't seem to support it. I'm removing the following: "Legal counsel and expert witnesses employed in anti-vaccine cases may be motivated by profit" as it is not supported by the reference. Also, in context, it seems to be anti-vaccine, while the reference itself speaks about unreliable anti-vaccine witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RhoOphuichi ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides, you seem to have a problem grasping the concept of a neutral point of view. From the second pillar of Wikipedia: "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion". This is the point that you are missing. By saying "This assumption is flawed" you attribute the statement to noone (except for Wikipedia itself, implicitly). I don't care if it reads "It has been stated that the idea is flawed" or "Researchers have indicated that the assumption is ludicrous", honestly. Just pick something, anything, neutral and put it there. Besides that, the *first* sentence of the referenced article states "An extensive new review summarizes the many studies refuting the claim of a link between vaccines and autism", and so the wording I chose *is*, in fact, an appropriate paraphrase of the referenced material. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 19:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A recent addition to the Effectiveness section added information regarding the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine. It would seem this material would be more appropriate in the Influenza vaccine article (and a quick glance shows that most of the cited articles are already represented in the Effectiveness of vaccines subsection in that article). I would think this article should focus on general effectiveness issues with vaccinations, with the specific issues relegated to each specific vaccine page, otherwise it would get too large with the effectiveness of each vaccine being added here. Yobol ( talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to express your opinion, your views, your conclusions about this, or any matter, start a Blog and go do it.
Wikipedia is not your soapbox, it is not for your original ideas or research, and it isn't about your point of view. On that there is no controversy. On articles about controversial matters, (or any article) attempting to push a point of view and censor sources, is against Wikipedia. Stop doing it.
Thank you in advance.
FX (
talk)
16:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit to the Vaccine overload section changed this:
to this:
This change isn't directly supported by the cited source, Gerber & Offit 2009 ( PMID 19128068), for two reasons:
This wording has been extensively discussed (see #Concerning NPOV wording and #RFC: NPOV wording above, for example) and is currently awaiting mediation in search of a compromise. Before changing the wording in the article, I suggest looking at these previous discussions (and the mediation, once it gets going), and proposing new wordings on the talk page. For now, I moved the edit's wording to the start of this thread. Eubulides ( talk) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases. [3]
The cited source says nothing about that. FX ( talk) 04:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Immunization safety concerns have existed since the day of the first available vaccine. Since the introduction of Jenner’s cowpox vaccine, however, the benefits of saving children from tragic outcomes of common diseases outweighed the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization (AEFIs).
I don't think you can see it. The source says three pertinent things.
1: Safety concerns have always existed.
2: Since the first vaccine the benefits have outweighed the risks.
3: The risk is of "perceived adverse effects".
What the wiki article said: "Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases."
So you are taking the article, which states three clear facts, and then saying "Controversies in this area revolve around the question", which is not what the source said. The source clearly states "the benefits have outweighed the risks". The source clearly states there is no question. FX ( talk) 05:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This whole article reads like pro-vaccer screed! I thought wikipedia was supposed to be an objective, encyclopedia resource. Glossing over the bad science used by pro-vaccers to back up big pharma and the research-industrial complex isn't really doing much to support ACTUAL science.
Or are you just going to keep pretending that the reality ISN'T that the overwhelming majority of vaccinated children get autism or ADHD????? 136.159.117.2 ( talk) 20:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that many people are editing the lead sentence to the Vaccine overload sentence. The current tagging is inappropriate, and appears to reflect more editors' personal disagreements with reliable sources, rather than any real issues among the sources themselves. Rather than join the edit war, I am going to suggest a new draft here, which is based more closely on what the cited source says.
The Hilton reference is the same as what's currently in the article, namely this one:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)</ref>It uses the word "notion" when it first mentions overload. Eubulides ( talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the recently introduced attribution necessary and in accordance with WP:ASF. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this recent edit, which made the following insertion:
The edit summaries said "attribute" and "closer to what a review does", but this is not the sort of language that one would normally find in a review, when summarizing material that is not controversial among reliable sources. Reviews normally do not mention journal names in main text, nor do they spell out author names (unless they do so for all citations, Harvard-style, which is not the style here), nor do they give author affiliations. Furthermore, the discussion in this section is not supported merely by Gerber and Offit 2009 ( PMID 19128068); it is supported by several other reliable sources that say pretty much the same thing (e.g., Schneeeweiss et al. 2008, PMID 19471677, and Gregson & Edelman 2003, PMID 14753385), and attributing it only to Gerber and Offit in the text gives the misleading impression to the reader that the opinion is held only by some reliable sources and not others. I suggest that the change be reverted and that we discuss better wording (if needed) here. Eubulides ( talk) 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Since there are many sources that say the same thing, list them all and attribute them all. This is a bit cumbersome, but is often the best way of solving intractable problems. Eg, - Writing in journal A, X and Y of This University said "this idea is junk". Similarly, writing in journal B, P and Q of That University stated "the idea is laughable". This view was also expressed by M and N of Random University in a 2009 review published in journal C, stating that "I can't believe anybody seriously said this". - Continue until you have added all the recent reliable sources that discuss the question. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Today I reverted another users that changed the wording in the "Effectiveness" section from
Fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives [...]
to
One source states that fully vaccinating [...]
which has been reintroduced now, but I (obviously) don't think it should stay that way. First of all, it's really hard to tell how many sources there are because the article we use as source is speaking about CDC officials, but what is more important is that to me the wording sounds like it's meant to question the validity of the estimation (in which case it would be more appropriate to find another source with a trustworthy estimation). However, I'm not a native speaker so I might be wrong about how the average reader would understand this sentence. What do uninvolved editors (ideally native speakers) think of the wording? -- Six words ( talk) 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The edits of banned Blowme c===3 and their newer account Panicfanatic001 need to be examined for fragments that might not have been deleted. Apparently the ban was because of the original username, but the disruptive nature of the individual's edits should still draw attention. If the edits aren't NPOV, they should be reverted or modified. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Recently strong evidence for a direct link between mercury in vaccines and autism has become what must be described as more than just relatively abundant. Interviews with scores of doctors, researchers, investigators, organizations and publicly led and supported research groups are propping up globally as well as clear evidence from the so called "danish studies", faults or flaws in the interpretation of those studies, evidence from the respected Oxford NPO, The Cochrane Collaboration, an institute for evidence based medicine and research. Recently revealed sources of the pharmaceutical industry's own meetings, reports and minutes from their meetings all indicate or rather effectively prove the strong correlation between mercury use in vaccines and autism and hundreds of other severe long term adverse side effect that have impaired people or led to serious disability or been seriously detrimental to their health in any number of ways. The obvious flaws in the interpretation of the Danish studies that allegedly proved that autism rose even after thimerosal was removed was based on the fact that the danish health institute started up a program for registering autism and autists after the correlation was noted, effectively leading many more to come forward to gain the help that the authorities offered and be registered. This is even to this day still erroneously reported on this wikipedia page and shows how a lack of understanding of what research and public debate and reporting actual controversies are about on the part of wiki admins. It is such a blatant disregard for actual controversy and public knowledge that it borders on intent to mislead the public. Its as repugnant as it is intellectually dishonest. Wiki admins have become notorious in their lack of following links, reading public documents and summarily posting one sides of current controversies effectively portraying themas if they were actually already settled and that one party was irrefutably confirmed by the public community as a whole. I find it disturbing, but at the rate and speed with which information floats and have started to circulate only the last 12 months they will be thoroughly discredited within the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunamiut ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
|}
/* Alternative medicine */ field --> profession. The source used the word " profession". I should probably seek consensus before making arbitrary alterations of this nature for this controversial topic. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit made the following change in the Vaccine overload section:
with the edit summary " I read the reference, it is not a soruce for teh suggestion, it merely asserts that it has been made. I say again, who, as a reliable soruce, actually came up with this stupid".
The vaccine-overload theory has not been proposed by any reliable source. But that does not mean that the theory has not been proposed as a cause for autism; it clearly has (by Andrew Wakefield, and by others). Today the vaccine overload theory is perhaps the most common reason why parents in Europe and North America don't follow vaccination recommendations. There is no need for the article to cite a "reliable source" that has proposed a popular-but-unsupported theory: this article is about vaccine controversies, regardless of whether the controversies have scientific support on both sides.
There is no dispute among reliable sources that the vaccine-overload-causes-autism theory is popular. Inserting text like "The Toronto Star reported" makes it sound like only the Toronto Star is reporting the theory's popularity, and that it is seriously disputed whether the theory is popular. No such dispute exists. Furthermore, the edit introduced the text "without attrributing the suggestion to any particualr soruce, or offering any suggested evidence or cause" which is clearly editorializing.
I attempted to improve the situation by replacing the text in question with "Many parents of autistic children firmly believe that vaccine overload causes autism", a statement that is more-directly supported by the cited source. Eubulides ( talk) 07:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The original statement in dispute (from the section on Vaccine Overload):
"The idea has several flaws."
Does this wording reflect neutrality or bias? My contention is that the cannotations of this statement lean strongly towards the latter. In the interest of preserving NPOV standards, I would prefer something along these lines:
"Evidence has shown that this assumption is fundamentally flawed."
All comments/recommendations are welcome. Thank You. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I think it's important to keep in mind that citing a source does not require the associated text to be a verbatim transfer of words. I'm not talking about artistic license, either; there is a certain level of inference allowed, by convention. I do agree, however, that the process should not be permitted unconstrained, and in that respect overall conformity with the source is preferable. That said, the real issue here is the quality of the words chosen to represent the referenced source. Are we to adopt a derogatory, condescending tone, or one that sounds most reasonable, civil, and unbiased? My view is that the former tends to isolate readers and thus undermine the whole intent of writing an article in the first place - to educate people about the facts. Like a physician faced with a doubting parent, we should approach the matter with tact, and choose words that don't incite. Anyway, you're suggestion was a little better, but it still seems to fall just short of a perfect solution. What about this:
"Several flaws have been found in this assumption."
Much less edgy, and yet it's essentially identical to the original statement. Would that work? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
But, in fact, it has been seriously considered (indeed, if not then we should all have something to worry about). Suppose that the side-effects of substance X are well constrained and predictable. Likewise for the substances Y and Z. Yet, is it unreasonable to ask if a combination thereof could cause unforseen side-effects? Of course not. It follows then that the question exists for *any* possible combination of substances; the issue must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Thus, in this situation, to say that it "has been found" that the assumption was incorrect is a reasonable chronological characterization. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I was simply illustrating (by logical deduction, by the way, not conjecture) that the phrase "has been found" does not necessarily imply a "false chronology", in this context. And to be honest, in light of the extreme sensitivity of the subject that we are dealing with here, it surprises me that such a weak example of "false chronology" would even be so tenaciously pursued, at the expense of creating quality content that is both tactful *and* accurate. Care to address that point? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
To quote the referenced policy: "(offensive wording) should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored". This is clearly not the case (and if you argue that this is the citation of a quote then it should be structured as such). The wording *should* be accurate and faithful to the source, but should not be done in a tasteless manner, for the sole reason that it is "closer to what was said". So far I have recommended attributing the statement to the source, generalizing it, framing it tactfully, presenting it neutrally, etc. I think it's fair to say that I have been diplomatic and reasonable. Anyone else care to join in on the process? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Here is my list of candidates:
"Several studies have been conducted on the subject<reference>, and the assumption has proven to be flawed.<reference>" (the two statements correlate and cite their respective sources)
"The idea has been challenged and deemed flawed.<reference>"
"On the basis of findings from numerous studies<reference>, the assumption is flawed.<reference>" (the two statements correlate and cite their respective sources)
"Studies prove, however, that the assumption is fundamentally flawed.<reference><reference>" (the two statements merged and cited jointly)
"Studies do not support this claim<reference>, however, and the idea is considered flawed.<reference>" (the two statements correlate and cite their respective sources)
"Research has shown that the assumption is flawed.<reference>"
Sebastian Garth ( talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, how about one of these:
"Evidence shows that this assumption is flawed.<reference>"
"These claims however are not supported by evidence, and in fact have proven to be flawed.<reference>"
"Research has revealed that the idea is flawed, for several reasons.<reference>"
The last one looks especially promising, I think, due to the fact that it essentially conveys the exact meaning of the original without sounding unobjective. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Much better, but the ending is somewhat disjoint. The word "is" could be replaced or expanded by something more descriptive. I really think "has proven" would be a good choice since it asserts that the doubts have been methodically addressed and ruled out as significant. As far as the suggestive (eg. false chronological) implications, they really seem extremely minor, in my opinion. Anyway, perhaps it could be restructured just a bit, such as in:
"The suggestion has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children. Yet no scientific evidence supports this claim, and several flaws in the idea have been exposed."
Not necessarily those words exactly, of course, but maybe something along those lines? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps then you could make a reasonable suggestion that does not imply a false chronology? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
By 'disjoint' I simply meant that the flow was rather awkward. Besides that, it still lacks objectivity. Your contention seems to be that any sort of restructuring/rewording of the content would either create a false chronological relationship or deviate from the intended message of the cited source. In that case, perhaps a direct quote would be more appropriate. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 05:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The very fact that the section addresses a desputable claim (given that the supposition in and of itself is not frivolous) suggests that a controversy exists, so yes to state flatly that it is false would be, by definition, unobjective. It seems reasonable to me then that to "find", "conclude", "show", "prove", "demonstrate", "reveal", "expose", or "determine" that the hypothesis is flawed would be a fair and accurate characterization of the situation. Moreover, the article itself covers a controversial topic, and as such special precautions should be taken so as not to sound one-sided about the matter. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It may be true that there isn't any current dispute, but as the question itself is in fact one of drug interaction, it cannot be ruled out categorically (whereas the example you have given can be). Therefore the assertion that there is no reasonable basis, that it cannot be a matter of consideration, or that no debate could ever exist, is indeed flawed, for several reasons. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, it has been said that certain wording may lend undue weight to a subject that is not debatable (eg. controversial), which suggests that the disputed claim is in fact a fringe theory. Considering the pharmacokinetic implications of the question, though, this cannot be so. I too want to represent the source accurately, and also recognize the importance of the statement in the context of the article, but simply feel that a more appropriate choice of words is in order, all things considered. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but reliable sourcing simply relates to the support of a position, which isn't even the case here. Furthermore, you have neither addressed the key arguments that I have put forward nor shown a significant effort to assume good faith in my objections. I have made repeated attempts to resolve the issue by striving to accomodate everyone's expectations as nearly as possible, at all times willing to make concessions and accept a reasonable compromise, as have I recommended several viable alternatives that would have ensured that the original statement would be largely unaffected. I only ask that everyone make a sincere effort to work towards the goal of real consensus. Can we all agree to that? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep it simple - writing The Evidence has shown ...$_EVIDENCE is repetitive and a mite pompous. The first proposed wording by Eubulides here is I think the best way to go, though honestly the current wording is well-supported and does not feel particularly clunky or out of place. - 2/0 ( cont.) 04:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit here introduced inappropriately worded content to the Financial Motives section. Could we see some better suggestions that would follow a more encyclopedic format? Also, apologies to Eubulides for the complete revert, as opposed to a re-edit - there just seemed to be too many problems with the submitted version. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is my suggestion, presented without citations, for clarity:
Sebastian Garth ( talk) 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It really has nothing to do with being controversial with reliable sources, actually. I would object just as much to the inclusion of a statement such as "vaccine makers could stand to earn billions", or similar. The comment about journalists doesn't sound right, either. It just doesn't read encyclopedically - I don't know how else to put it. Also, it really isn't necessary to list specific, dubious, treatments being offered by certain AMP's. A summary that the treatments are not accepted practices is sufficient, I think. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The replaced text definitely had some issues. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning your first point, I don't think a citation is needed in stating that some have raised the issue, but if you really want one, I'm sure it could be found. To your second point, I thought that was taken care of by the Kerr reference. But either way, I suppose it could simply drop the first part, eg: "Others have pointed out that", as it's superfulous, though I still think it reads better, personally. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I hope I addressed that above by the recommendation of dropping the lead-in. Let me know, if not. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well can you comment on the current draft I have submitted? I'm still reviewing your comments thus far, and will try to address your points shortly. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 02:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, can we drop the last paragraph? There really isn't any need to mention actual profit figures, right? It just seems like an unnecessary digression. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 06:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This article utterly *wreaks* of non-NPOV. Remember: Wikipedia is not to be used to espouse any particular ideology or opinion. This is an Encyclopedia, after all. State the facts from both sides and leave it at that. Is that really too difficult to understand? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What I feel about this article is that it is missing the point of "Vaccine Controversy". I think that the focus should be on stating what arguments have been used against vaccinations. Of course these arguments can be refuted but I feel that sections such as "Population health", "Cost-effectiveness", "Events following reductions in vaccination" etc. would be better suited to the vaccination article and don't really tell us much about vaccine controversy. Mhairiiscool ( talk) 01:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is exactly one side vs. another - the whole debate is defined by the anti vaccination movement, without it this page wouldn't exist. We don't have a Surgery Controversy page because there is no notable "anti-surgery" movement (as far as I am aware of...). There is scientific facts about vaccines and there is "Vaccine Controvery". Not that scientific facts about vaccines aren't relevant to the Vaccine Controversy page (quite on the contrary) but I think the page should mainly be a factual report on what arguments have been used against vaccines rather than a debate about vaccines. There can still be counterarguments and refutations! I just don't think they should be the focus.
For example, I imagine the effectiveness section to go something like: "Bla has said that Vaccines are ineffective. They say bla bla and bla. They cite bla bla bla. However bla evidence bla vaccines do otherwise.
I dunno, this is just what my interpretation of "Vaccine controversy", I think it would be a more useful page and easier to keep NPOV. If that makes any sense... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mhairiiscool (
talk •
contribs)
04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:ASF. Attribution is a policy violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
When there is a dispute over something "out there in the real world", we must not pretend that the dispute doesn't exist. Also, if we (as writers) cannot agree on what percentage of the general public (or some special group such as research scientists, or school principals, or pediatricians, or drug company representatives) favors the various sides, then we should not guess or assume.
It is a fact that some people (myself most definitely included!) are cheerfully and confidently in favor of vaccination in general, but there are others who oppose the concept or who worry about the side effects or other ramifications of certain particular vaccinations.
A neutral article would not bother to say which group is right about which aspect, but would only try to identify the positions, the adherents and (if available) their reasoning. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy #Changes to the wording of the article it's proposed that in the Vaccine overload section we change "The idea is flawed, for several reasons." to "The vaccine-overload notion is not only unsupported by the evidence, it is contradicted by the evidence." Comments? Eubulides ( talk) 00:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The proposed text only captures some of the problems with the vaccine overload hypothesis. Yes it has no evidence so is "unsupported". Yes, experience with vaccines and with exposure to pathogens both "contradict" the notion. But this doesn't capture just how way off the mark the hypothesis is. It has some ironic comedy value like "The notion that Colin is a world class athlete is not only unsupported by the evidence, it is contradicted by the evidence." There is no serious dispute over the language used by experts: that vaccine overload a is "myth", a "misperception" or "flawed." These are strong words.
The mediation request centred on the idea that there was some serious dispute therefore the flaws of the vaccine overload hypothesis could not be stated as fact. The mediation proposer failed to convince the two other parties and appears to have dropped that argument. We now have the current situation that a very weak but "it is a fact: this is wrong" lead sentence is proposed along with recent text that contains a full paragraph of the flaws. Given that the flaws can be listed in ones face it is rather hard to claim that it does not have flaws, of that the idea it has flaws is only an opinion. Mediation utterly failed to show that the existing statement should be changed to being just an opinion, therefore the idea that the text must be changed is wrong. I strongly oppose the idea that hard truths should be watered down just to appease any editor who disagrees with them and is determined enough.
The current text where someone has inserted the "The vaccine-overload notion ... evidence" sentence between the lead sentence and the first flaw should be reverted. It breaks the flow and isn't required.
The paragraph lead text should include one of the words "myth", "misperception" and "flawed". Each of these are equivalent to the extent they show the hypothesis is conceptually wrong (rather than just proven wrong). Since "is flawed" fits nicely with the rest of the paragraph, I see no need to change it. Colin° Talk 09:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
According to this comment it is required to include attribution even when there is scientific consensus among reliable references. This is a waste of time when editors can't agree on the intent of Wikipedia's ASF. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please avoid making personal remarks. The problem is this: We cannot state that the concept is "flawed" because that is not a universal conclusion of the literature. We can quote from a researcher who says it is flawed or we can reword the sentence. Those are the only choices I can see. What is your preference? Sunray ( talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
But the reality is that there is a very real controversy over the issue. Various studies have raised doubts about multiple vaccinitions, parents have filed suits claiming injuries sustained, and health providers have dissented on the issue. These are not the minority views of fringe groups. As editors of Wikipedia, we have a responsibility to our readers to represent these things objectively. We should be very careful not to allow information to be filtered through the colored lens of our own personal bias. Doing so severely degrades the quality of the content of this site, and is a disservice to the community. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all, this isn't an issue of vaccinationists versus anti-vaccinationists. It's whether or not the immune system can respond or react undesirably to multiple vaccines. The evidence is clearly not conclusive, and so it would be unfair to act as if it were. In that respect, comparisons with issues such as the ones that you mention are not completely meaningful. On a side note, my personal feelings towards vaccinations are generally positive. No less than three of my ancestors championed their use, and in times when superstition and witchcraft were rampant in the medical field, no less. I appreciate the hard work that has been done to promote such a beneficial cause. But I also recognize the need for honest reflection, to consider the implications of the way in which the task has been carried out, and what, if any, mistakes have been made in the process. Experts in the field have also asked such questions, and their conclusions have been mixed. We should respect that and give the proper weight of both sides. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Evidently I have missed something. It has been suggested that the statement that "the concept is flawed" is a valid summary of the research findings, rather than an opinion. Would someone please walk me through that? How is it not an opinion? Sunray ( talk) 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
How is it not an opinion? It does not matter when it is an opinion. We assert an opinion as fact when there is no serious dispute. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
is POV and a serious mistake. The first sentence of the Vaccine overload section should simply define the notion without throwing rocks at it, just as the first sentence of Flat Earth simply defines the notion of the flat earth without throwing rocks at it. The interpolation of a citation there, simply to justify the word "flawed", is obviously POV. The repetition of the word "flawed" in the first sentence, and later in the topic sentence of the next paragraph (the paragraph that actually talks about the flaws and where "flawed" is appropriate) is more POV. Please do not repeatedly insert the word "flawed" in the definition of the notion, a location where the word is out of place. This occurrence of the word "flawed" (and the spurious citation to Gerber) should be removed. Eubulides ( talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[79] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox).
Are not the 1870's part of the latter half of 19th century?
24.36.78.185 ( talk) 21:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I just misread it. Carry on. 24.36.78.185 ( talk) 10:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been following this article for awhile and thought I'd chime in on this section, which I think could use some work. Here's how I read the section as written: 1) Studies have shown that prenatal infections can cause schizophrenia. 2) This has public health implications, as vaccinating could prevent some prenatal infections and thus might help prevent some cases of schizophrenia. 3) Vaccine-induced antibodies could also potentially cause schizophrenia. 4) We must balance the benefits of #2 against the risks of #3. 5) Many mainstream organizations recommend pregnant women get influenza vaccinations, yet few do.
My main concern is with #3 -- the idea that vaccine-induced antibodies could cause schizophrenia, because I don't think it's well supported. The source is a quote from a researcher in a newspaper called the Psychiatric Times (the newspaper of the American Psychiatric Association). But when you read that researcher's study, there's no mention of vaccine-induced antibodies causing schizophrenia, or for that matter any mention of vaccination at all. I can't find any scientific literature supporting the idea that vaccine-induced antibodies can cause schizophrenia; there is some literature supporting #2 above. So basically the only source I can find supporting #3 is a quote (from an MD) in a newspaper, which isn't supported by any further evidence that I can find. Thus, I think it should be removed.
If that's the case, then the section could either be re-written to focus on the concerns of vaccinating pregnant women, or since there's already another article on that topic, we could delete the section entirely. Please let me know your thoughts. Trabeculae ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Interested editors should check out the RfC & contribute to the discussion at the Bill Maher talk page (
here).
Valerius Tygart (
talk)
20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
We are going to have same problems that USA and Canada in some years. It is time to prepare to translate that anti-vaccionists are wrong. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.55.198 ( talk) 12:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Gerber
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
This article is mostly poorly formed ad hominem attacks. I propose it be deleted. Zbrock 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Several studies have found no link between Hep B vaccination and MS ( PMID 10683009, PMID 11172163, PMID 12707063 for example, in Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine). At least one study did find an increased risk ( PMID 15365133). The authors of the positive study, from the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote a 2006 editorial entitled "Hepatitis B vaccination and multiple sclerosis: the jury is still out" ( PMID 16245367), in which they examined the methodology of all of these studies and found some degree of flaw with each. Their conclusion was that there's not enough evidence to establish a causative link between Hep B vaccine and MS, but also not enough evidence to completely disprove such a link. And of course, "further study is needed" as always. This shouldn't be too hard to write into the article, yes? MastCell 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the political agenda of JPandS is relevant (as one of their major political issues is anti-vaccinationism). The journal has a clearly stated political agenda, and the piece in question was, in fact, authored by someone with a legal rather than scientific or medical background. Setting it up as if it "rebuts" the Cochrane Library report is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. As it claims to be a medical journal, the fact that it's not indexed in MEDLINE is relevant. MastCell Talk 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is that long list of vaccine supporters and critics doing on the page? Shouldn't they be at least on their own list pages, like List of vaccine supporters and another for critics? They take up an immense amount of space on the page, for nothing much I can see. It's got to violate a couple WP:NOTs, like indiscriminate information, mere collection of internal links, directory, etc. -- WLU 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Should the article Anti-vaccinationist be merged into this one? The two articles cover a lot of the same ground, and I do not see a reason why there should not be a single cohesive article on this subject, as opposed to two disorganised ones. - Severa ( !!!) 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two concerns about recent edits to the lead. First, mentioning (in the first paragraph, no less) a U.S. bill proposing to investigate a vaccine/autism link is a bit odd. This is not only recentist and U.S.-centric, but the bill has not even been voted on, so far as I can tell, and its prospects for becoming law are unknown. Mention it, sure, but in the lead?
Secondly, the final paragraph on the vaccine compensation fund has some of the same issues of U.S.-centrism, and it seems like a non-sequitur in its current position in the lead paragraph. Undoubtedly, the fund needs to be mentioned in this article, but again, I don't think it's necessarily lead material, especially since the fund itself does not seem particularly "controversial", and the paragraph doesn't make clear how it relates to the "vaccine controversy". MastCell Talk 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The MMR controversy takes up a disproportionate part of the article. It's longer than all of the separate Thiomersal controversy article. The MMR controversy is somewhat complicated with all the media aspects etc and thus essential information would be dropped if it were significantly trimmed down. I think it would be reasonable to move the MMR controversy to a separate article. -- Jkpjkp 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It would seem reasonable to rename the article to "Vaccine controversies" as there are many separate controversies - thiomersal, MMR/autism, vaccination and religion, the debates over the role which vaccines had in the decline of different diseases, the debate over how common adverse effects are, the debate whether vaccines cause diabetes, the debate whether vaccines cause other autoimmune disease etc. -- Jkpjkp 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been substantially rewritten by a single editor, and is now breathtakingly biased. Section title after section title present arguments against vaccination, without even a token effort to present the mainstream view. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox for minority opinion; it is supposed to prevent a fair summary of the consensus view. Eubulides 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the severity of the cleanup issues; familiarity with WP:MOS would help. Is there a better version that can be reverted to ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Replying to the comment in #Quality issues about whether the theory that MMR vaccine causes autism is a "fringe theory". It's not as fringe a theory as (say) the theory that autism is caused by diabolical possession. But it is more of a fringe theory than (say) the theory that autism is largely caused by exposure to pesticides. All these theories are most likely incorrect, based on the scientific evidence that we have now. The MMR vaccine theory was briefly plausible but has been investigated and discarded. This is not a question of my opinion: it's a question of what the reliable sources say. Eubulides 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Check out http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_7910416 195.38.117.220 ( talk) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is marked for cleanup since June 2006, which was one thing which prompted me to start rearranging the article and making other edits. As can be seen on the page edit log, opinion has been expressed that the edits have made the article quality lower than higher. Could we be more specific, and discuss what the quality issues are? NPOV and weasel words are two which are tagged separately, but how about other issues. For example, the long list of external reference seems like quite a big portion of this article - while it gives references to the article subject, is it disproportionate? How about organization / subtitling? I think it still needs some work - maybe some grouping of the controversies, as there are quite many subtitles now at the same level. Also, the "Common arguments" for and against vaccinations seem redundant and repetitive after the Overview - how about ditching them and writing a Summary at the end instead? Maybe that would also alleviate the NPOV concern, since the summary could repeat the claims of each public health organization and government that their policy is the right one. --
Jkpjkp
10:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's fine to include political commentary, but the politics of the issue should not be presented as if they're the science of the issue. The JPandS paragraph I removed was clearly designed to "rebut" Cochrane; I agree that it's inappropriate. Simply put, we should not present work from a non-MEDLINE-indexed "house magazine of a far-right group" as if it's the equal, in scientific terms, of more respected work. I'm fine with quoting JPandS as an example of a particular brand of anti-vaccinationism (motivated primarily by libertarianism and anti-govermentalism rather than religion etc), just not as a high-quality source of scientific information. MastCell Talk 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Should there be included a section on the goals of individuals and groups opposed to vaccination? Obviously, the section on compulsory vaccination is self-contained. But, if someone is opposed to vaccination, are they against everyone receiving a vaccine? Are they against all vaccines or just some? What if an individual wants a vaccine? Should they be prevented from receiving one? Or is someone opposed to vaccination just simply not willing to get on themselves. These seem like obvious questions that just aren't answered. Justin Custer 08:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I had added references to many of the unsourced statements - all of those were wiped out by User:SandyGeorgia who did a massive wipe of the recent edits after very little discussion but with lots of shouting and handwaving by User:SandyGeorgia. Now I'm wondering whether there's a point in re-adding the references, or will they have the same fate again. Any guesses? -- Jkpjkp 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The following entry in the text:
* Secondary and long-term effects on the immune system from introducing immunogens and immunologic adjuvants directly into the body are not fully understood. Some autoimmune diseases, like acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis and multiple sclerosis, are known, suspected, hypothesized, or claimed to be connected to vaccines.[23]
Refers to reference 23:
The referenced article does not validate any of the above claims. It could be that there is no citation, or that the incorrect citation is being used. If anyone knows and could correct, that would be good... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.25.115 ( talk) 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
About Vaccination and Liberty -- does anyone actually argue that vaccination is an infringement of some sort of right, besides conspiracy theorists? Do we allow baseless conspiracy theories to be repeated as legitimate on wikipedia? Can I delete this section?
Removing for citation and interpretation according to medical sources, see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Possible sources (I don't have full access):
Brown et al. 2004 is an influential study, though the concern about prenatal infections and neurological disorders goes way back. Penner & Brown 2007 ( PMID 17610387) looks like a great source, but it's not in my library. Brown's 2006 summary ( PMID 16469941) is the best reviewish thing I could find (it's not really a review, but it does summarize his recent work well, it's free, and Brown is 1st-class). I added a section along these lines but am not particularly happy with it (especially the article organization; what a mess!). Perhaps someone can improve it? Eubulides ( talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
MastCell did you read the article from the Washington Post (linked above), where Brown who is one of the researchers in this filed is quoted? Its not the infection its self that is the problem but the immunological response the mother has to the infection and since the flu shot produced the same response. The incidence of mental illness from pre-natal infections is low, and the question now seems to be were the incidence is the same for a flu infection verses immunization. What percent of pregnant women will get the flu, and is it advisable for all pregnant woman to be immunized. If there is good chance of contracting the flu- one is better off being immunized. The sources from medpub are older papers that do not really propose a mechanism that harms the fetus, Brown makes the case that we can pin the problem on maternal antigens (antibodies) effecting the fetus during its early development. Hopefully a full pledged study will be published soon- but there was no indication of this in the Washington Post piece. The story went out yesterday over the wire servecs and I came across it in our local paper first. Hardyplants ( talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I know of no reliable source directly linking vaccine-induced maternal immune activation with the child's schizophrenia, or with any other neurological disorder in the child for that matter. That's not to say there's no link. It's an active research area. Let's put it this way: I know of no reliable review where the authors say one way or another whether such a link is plausible. Eubulides ( talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Hardyplants reverted the new section on the grounds that it "was a misunderstanding of the issue, Its the mothers imulogical response that is harmful to the baby, not the virus its self." I'm afraid this is based on a misreading of the new section. The new section does not say that the virus harms the baby. It says there is evidence that exposure to infection helps cause schizophrenia. This closely mimicks the cited source ( Brown 2006), which says "Accumulating evidence suggests that prenatal exposure to infection contributes to the etiology of schizophrenia." I see nothing incorrect about the new section, as far as it went; it was deliberately vague about exactly how an infection might cause schizophrenia. But I sense that Hardyplants also wants the article to contain something about a possible link from flu vaccine via maternal immune response and schizophrenia. Here the scientific case is much more speculative, but I made a further change to try to address that point. Eubulides ( talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin then reverted the further change, on the grounds that "Neither reference supported this silly piece of original research." I don't see how Orangemarlin could have come to that conclusion. The new section is not original research. Here are all the sentences in the new section, along with quotes from the cited sources that directly support these sentences.
I suppose one could argue that the new section relies too heavily on Brown, but Brown is one of the most important researchers in this area, and I don't detect any sign of him being on the fringe. So, unless I hear good arguments otherwise, I'm inclined to put this material back in, in one form or another. Eubulides ( talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[[:Image:August Hirt.jpg|thumb|150px|right| August Hirt dissecting a corpse.]] There are several aspects not adequately covered. Not all vaccine critics are hysterical pseudo-scientists. For example:
That's all for now. CM ( talk) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A recent change was made on the grounds that
"Victims is a bit POV.". The word victims was replaced with "claimants," which seems a bit double-speakish to me.
See also:
Injured persons are usually referred to as victims in tort. CM ( talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The odd thing is that the Vaccine Injury program is being presented as if it were proof that vaccines are harmful or deadly. In fact, the opposite is true. The program exists because universal vaccination is undisputably a societal good. We've replaced thousands of cases of disease or disability due to disease with a handful of cases due to vaccination. Still, many ethical readings (including my own) suggest that we as a society owe compensation to individuals injured by vaccination, regardless of the unanswerable issue of whether they would have gotten sick if they hadn't been vaccinated, and regardless of the undeniable fact that vaccination saves countless lives. The Vaccine Injury program is a recognition that vaccination is of huge benefit to society as a whole, though associated with harm in a handful of cases which we as a socity are obliged to try to mitigate. MastCell Talk 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It depends on how much one values a child's life. If children's lives are not worth much, then Cagey Millipede is correct that the biggest economic benefit of childhood chickenpox vaccination is letting parents work; see the economic analysis in Preblud 1986 ( PMID 3093966). However, if the children's lives are considered to be valuable, then those calculations are, shall we say, incomplete. Preblud reports two deaths per 100,000 varicella cases among otherwise-healthy persons; the rate rises to 7.2 deaths per 100,000 for babies (under age 1), and 30.9 deaths per 100,000 for adults (above age 19). Speculation and comparison to abortions etc. is out of place in this article: we need reliable sources and we need to stick to the topic. Eubulides ( talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This change removed the following text:
with the comment "Per WP:WEIGHT. Let's keep the lies out". I don't see any "lies" in the quoted text; on the contrary, the quotation contributes the useful information that the two vaccine controversies are independent. Furthermore, the controversies are indeed major ones: if you visit Google News right now, both the MMR and the thiomersal controversies have seen dozens of articles in the past month, far more than any other autism-related story. This article is about vaccine controversies; it is not neutral to summarize the controversy merely with a statement "There is no evidence that any childhood vaccine contributes to autism.", as the above change does.
The newly added claim is also incorrect in its own right. There is some evidence that childhood vaccines contribute to autism. The problem is that the evidence is not scientific. Furthermore, the citations given in support of the claim do not, in fact, support it. The first citation (Baird et al. 2008, PMID 18252754) merely gives strong evidence that Wakefield's MMR hypothesis is wrong. The second citation (Fitzpatrick 2007, PMID 17688775) is also about MMR. Neither citation suffices to prove that there is no evidence that any childhood vaccine contributes to autism; they are both talking only about MMR.
For now I have attempted to work around the problem by removing the "Autism" section header entirely, but I think this has removed useful information (such as the independence of the controversies mentioned above). Eubulides ( talk) 08:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdenting) SandyGeorgia gets 1000 times the grief that I do, despite being a much better editor. (Or perhaps that's because editor quality is correlated with grief-getting?) Changing the subject slightly, I recently discovered that many chiropractors oppose vaccination and added a note to this effect to Vaccine controversy without (ahem) controversy so far, but when I made a similar addition to Chiropractic it was almost immediately reverted with the comment "We need to discuss this on Talk first." The discussion there has not been conclusive yet; I hope that something will go in, but given the mess and controversy surrounding that article I'm not sure it's worth the effort to try to clean up the stables there. Eubulides ( talk) 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin, don't piss-off your allies. Calling Eubulides a "POV pusher of Autism and vaccines" or saying he just works "on the easy articles" doesn't help and the only reason it isn't offensive is that it is so laughably untrue. Perhaps Eubulides doesn't wear a pro-mainstream POV on his sleeve quite as prominently as you, but that is because we are all supposed to be discussing the article, not the people, and trying to write what our sources say, not what we want to say. The controversy may well be based on a 100% false hypothesis, but it still exists and has been on the front page of many newspapers for years. Trying to suppress that is a book burning attitude that won't help the battle to produce a NPOV article. Colin° Talk 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I just stopped in after Eubulides stopped in at the chiropractic article making some perfectly valid points concerning chiropractic and an anti-vaccination stance. There is a colorful history associated with this that was probably at the heart of the medicine/chiropractic turf wars from the 1920s to the 1950s. Yes, it was heated and hard fought as medicine worked very hard and basically succeeded in getting enough people vaccinated. The efforts of chiropractors to stop the process may well have been the impetus that caused chiropractic to lose face with the public health machine that was reacting to the very frightening polio outbreaks. In 1963, BJ Palmer died and chiropractic began a different path; increasing education standards and so much more. My point here is that the statement about chiropractic in the first section concerning the controversy is a little over the top:
While it probably won't make too much of a difference, I think we have to go further in describing 1) what "Traditional" chiropractic is (a small but very vocal group).. 2)clarify why the ACA and ICA statements currently support exemptions. The way we have it written makes it sound like they are against vaccinations, but really they are pro freedom of choice. I think it is important to give exactly the weight that chiropractors do play in this debate. In other words, if we state that ALL chiropractors are against vaccination that empowers the anti-vaccinationists too much because we are talking about 70,000 chiropractors out there preaching "no vaccines", which I am sure we all agree would be quite a force to reckon with. But, if we say that NO chiropractors are against vaccination, that would be wrong, too. If it is okay with everyone, I can try to reflect this in the article. I would consider this to be a good neutral source [6]. I would also need that survey that is mentioned in the paragraph above. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I did find another survey, but this was published in a conference and not a refereed journal so I don't think it's worth citing in the article. It was done in 2005 and surveyed chiropractors in Kansas. Some results:
So it sounds like, as recently as 2005, anti-vaccination sentiment continued to be strong but not dominant. The source: Holman S, Nyberg SM (2006).
"Attitudes and beliefes toward routine vaccination: a survey of Kansas Chiropractors" (PDF). Proceedings: 2nd Annual Symposium on Graduate Research and Scholarly Projects. Wichita State University. Retrieved 2008-02-13. {{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)
Eubulides (
talk)
22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a few problems with the current passage on chiropractic on vaccine
Chiropractic originally strongly opposed vaccination on the grounds that diseases are traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore cannot be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[24] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic. The ambivalence towards vaccination is seen by the opposing views of chiropractors and their associations. The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws on the grounds that vaccines have risk; a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease,[25] and a 2005 survey of Kansas chiropractors found them nearly evenly split over whether vaccines are effective.[26] In contrast, the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination; however, surveys in Canada in 2000 and 2002 found that only 40% of chiropractors supported vaccination, and that over a quarter opposed it and advised patients against vaccinating themselves or their children.[24]
1) the palmer quote appears gratuitous, out of context and as mccready would say is 'puff' 2) an apparent cherry picking of the evidence and finding surveys that does not represent the profession as a whole (i.e. Kansas DCs) 3) The inclusion of precise statistics as opposed to generalizable trends. Stats can easily be manipulated to a POV, trends, not so much. I would like to see the specifics here condensed into more generalizable statements. 4) this is in the wrong section; chiropractic opposition does not necessarily stem from lack of effectiveness, but differences in philosophy as to what is the right approach towards prevention of illness 5) lack of inclusion of other CAM professions who share a similar viewpoint re: vaccination. EBDCM ( talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I made a bold edit that encompasses the discussion above, mostly that the chiropractors that do oppose vaccination, do so for more reasons than effectiveness. I think it woul dbe fair to add naturopaths and homeopaths to this same section to give the reader an overall picture of who the anti-vacc people are. Feel free to revert, I'm just trying to help get it organized. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[undent] This is a fair compromise, sections of chiropractors. I apologize for my non-constructive post; I was a bit cranky and apparently needed some food (have noticed a strong correlation between those 2). Anyways, MastCell is right but I'm glad this was sorted out in the proper way. EBDCM ( talk) 16:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a graph that shows the decline of diseases before the vaccine's introduction to get an to put the decline of diseases in context? This is the basis for some of the controversy, and it should be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.9.224 ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In many cases, the "best" for each individual would be for everyone else to be vaccinated, since indeed there might be some risk from the vaccine. This situation presents a basic tension between the individual and society. The existence of the dilemma is not very controversial, and deserves to be clearly laid out in the article.
The same applies also to quarantines etc. - 69.87.203.171 ( talk) 14:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This a a credible reference that can be integrated in the article: [10] MaxPont ( talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Events following reductions in vaccination" section seems to be way to welcoming to cherry-picking, and there are no corresponding sections on the "against" side of things. The section should either report opposite findings, demonstrate that the pattern is absolute, or not be given such a prominent part of the article. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Yes, we can only cite a subset of all available research and opinion, but we can do our best to make sure that these references reflect the full body of data and the scientific consensus. For instance, the CDC seems pretty certain that decreasing vaccination rates would have adverse public health consequences. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This change contained some good points, but some problems:
I made this change to accomplish the fixes suggested above. Eubulides ( talk) 05:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a comment from a new Time article. The article probably contains other good information that can be used in this and other related articles. -- Fyslee / talk 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on vaccine makers motives and actions seems a bit weak and one-sided. (Just presents the "criticism" without other perspectives.) I added a little bit of balancing (noting some of the financial motives among critics - specifically e.g. Wakefiled and co.)
It might also be worth including that vaccines are not necessarily highly profitable. (As compared to say Viagra (high demand), or Supplements (in the US, vaccines have to be proven safe and effective, supplements don't, which means considerable savings in development and manufacture)). A few years ago when there was a shortage of Influenza vaccine in the USA, this got some coverage in the popular press. (Manufacture of that vaccine is hard to automate, many vaccine buyers are poor or public agencies, etc.) I haven't added it to the article because I don't have a good citation. Anybody have a good citation on this?
The article on vaccines has some material related to this under Vaccine#Economics of development. But it also lacks citation. Zodon ( talk) 03:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The section titled Auto-immune disorders might be improved by adding a couple of items for perspective.
I don't have references off hand on either of these - but thought worth adding if we can come up with sources. Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 04:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I installed this change to reorder the article so that it discussions each topic one by one, rather than having one big section for the pro-vaccine side, and another big section for the anti-vaccine side. This sort of refactoring is long overdue. This article should be about the controversies; it shouldn't be a debate where one side gets the 1st half of the article and the other side gets the 2nd half. This sort of refactoring was done in August but that version was reverted as it introduced a massive POV problem. The refactoring I just did consisted entirely of moving text around, plus rewording section headers and moving some linking text into the lead (replacing inferior text that was already there). Eubulides ( talk) 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit changed "the financial risks for producers are great" to "the financial risks for developers and producers are great". But the cited source nowhere says that the financial risks are great for developers; only for producers. The source says:
This is talking about production and manufacturing. It is not talking about development. I worked around the problem by removing "developers and" from the article. Eubulides ( talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sears R (2007). The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child. Little, Brown. ISBN 0316017507. This book provides very useful information about vaccines. Hepatitis B for example. Hepatitis B vaccination and the risk of multiple sclerosis.He writes that one of the companies who produce the vaccine warns that people should be informed about multiple sclerosis risk before they decide to use the vaccine. -- Coyote3 ( talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
This change by an IP address added an NPOV tag without any commentary here or specific suggestions for improvement. I'm inclined to remove the tag, unless someone can make specific suggestions. Eubulides ( talk) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit [13] added a regional bias tag, with the edit summary suggesting NPOV concerns. It is customary to make specific suggestions on the talk page when tagging an article, especially for NPOV concerns. Since no specific concerns have been raised, I have removed the tag. Yobol ( talk) 21:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit introduced some changes that made the article worse:
I have removed the parts of the change that had the problems noted above. I suggest discussing here what further changes to make. Eubulides ( talk) 07:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the 2nd paragraph from the lede, as it implied that all anti-vaccination concerns are unfounded.
Let's present both sides of the controversy, without telling the reader which side we are on. Better, yet, as contributors lets not take any side but merely give the pros and cons of each position. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
WHAT??? You want a Wikipedia article to present all the information from all credible sources? That would allow people to make up their own minds. We can't have that. FX ( talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Financial Motives section contains text whose reference doesn't seem to support it. I'm removing the following: "Legal counsel and expert witnesses employed in anti-vaccine cases may be motivated by profit" as it is not supported by the reference. Also, in context, it seems to be anti-vaccine, while the reference itself speaks about unreliable anti-vaccine witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RhoOphuichi ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides, you seem to have a problem grasping the concept of a neutral point of view. From the second pillar of Wikipedia: "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion". This is the point that you are missing. By saying "This assumption is flawed" you attribute the statement to noone (except for Wikipedia itself, implicitly). I don't care if it reads "It has been stated that the idea is flawed" or "Researchers have indicated that the assumption is ludicrous", honestly. Just pick something, anything, neutral and put it there. Besides that, the *first* sentence of the referenced article states "An extensive new review summarizes the many studies refuting the claim of a link between vaccines and autism", and so the wording I chose *is*, in fact, an appropriate paraphrase of the referenced material. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 19:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A recent addition to the Effectiveness section added information regarding the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine. It would seem this material would be more appropriate in the Influenza vaccine article (and a quick glance shows that most of the cited articles are already represented in the Effectiveness of vaccines subsection in that article). I would think this article should focus on general effectiveness issues with vaccinations, with the specific issues relegated to each specific vaccine page, otherwise it would get too large with the effectiveness of each vaccine being added here. Yobol ( talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to express your opinion, your views, your conclusions about this, or any matter, start a Blog and go do it.
Wikipedia is not your soapbox, it is not for your original ideas or research, and it isn't about your point of view. On that there is no controversy. On articles about controversial matters, (or any article) attempting to push a point of view and censor sources, is against Wikipedia. Stop doing it.
Thank you in advance.
FX (
talk)
16:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit to the Vaccine overload section changed this:
to this:
This change isn't directly supported by the cited source, Gerber & Offit 2009 ( PMID 19128068), for two reasons:
This wording has been extensively discussed (see #Concerning NPOV wording and #RFC: NPOV wording above, for example) and is currently awaiting mediation in search of a compromise. Before changing the wording in the article, I suggest looking at these previous discussions (and the mediation, once it gets going), and proposing new wordings on the talk page. For now, I moved the edit's wording to the start of this thread. Eubulides ( talk) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases. [3]
The cited source says nothing about that. FX ( talk) 04:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Immunization safety concerns have existed since the day of the first available vaccine. Since the introduction of Jenner’s cowpox vaccine, however, the benefits of saving children from tragic outcomes of common diseases outweighed the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization (AEFIs).
I don't think you can see it. The source says three pertinent things.
1: Safety concerns have always existed.
2: Since the first vaccine the benefits have outweighed the risks.
3: The risk is of "perceived adverse effects".
What the wiki article said: "Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases."
So you are taking the article, which states three clear facts, and then saying "Controversies in this area revolve around the question", which is not what the source said. The source clearly states "the benefits have outweighed the risks". The source clearly states there is no question. FX ( talk) 05:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This whole article reads like pro-vaccer screed! I thought wikipedia was supposed to be an objective, encyclopedia resource. Glossing over the bad science used by pro-vaccers to back up big pharma and the research-industrial complex isn't really doing much to support ACTUAL science.
Or are you just going to keep pretending that the reality ISN'T that the overwhelming majority of vaccinated children get autism or ADHD????? 136.159.117.2 ( talk) 20:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that many people are editing the lead sentence to the Vaccine overload sentence. The current tagging is inappropriate, and appears to reflect more editors' personal disagreements with reliable sources, rather than any real issues among the sources themselves. Rather than join the edit war, I am going to suggest a new draft here, which is based more closely on what the cited source says.
The Hilton reference is the same as what's currently in the article, namely this one:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)</ref>It uses the word "notion" when it first mentions overload. Eubulides ( talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the recently introduced attribution necessary and in accordance with WP:ASF. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with this recent edit, which made the following insertion:
The edit summaries said "attribute" and "closer to what a review does", but this is not the sort of language that one would normally find in a review, when summarizing material that is not controversial among reliable sources. Reviews normally do not mention journal names in main text, nor do they spell out author names (unless they do so for all citations, Harvard-style, which is not the style here), nor do they give author affiliations. Furthermore, the discussion in this section is not supported merely by Gerber and Offit 2009 ( PMID 19128068); it is supported by several other reliable sources that say pretty much the same thing (e.g., Schneeeweiss et al. 2008, PMID 19471677, and Gregson & Edelman 2003, PMID 14753385), and attributing it only to Gerber and Offit in the text gives the misleading impression to the reader that the opinion is held only by some reliable sources and not others. I suggest that the change be reverted and that we discuss better wording (if needed) here. Eubulides ( talk) 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Since there are many sources that say the same thing, list them all and attribute them all. This is a bit cumbersome, but is often the best way of solving intractable problems. Eg, - Writing in journal A, X and Y of This University said "this idea is junk". Similarly, writing in journal B, P and Q of That University stated "the idea is laughable". This view was also expressed by M and N of Random University in a 2009 review published in journal C, stating that "I can't believe anybody seriously said this". - Continue until you have added all the recent reliable sources that discuss the question. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Today I reverted another users that changed the wording in the "Effectiveness" section from
Fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives [...]
to
One source states that fully vaccinating [...]
which has been reintroduced now, but I (obviously) don't think it should stay that way. First of all, it's really hard to tell how many sources there are because the article we use as source is speaking about CDC officials, but what is more important is that to me the wording sounds like it's meant to question the validity of the estimation (in which case it would be more appropriate to find another source with a trustworthy estimation). However, I'm not a native speaker so I might be wrong about how the average reader would understand this sentence. What do uninvolved editors (ideally native speakers) think of the wording? -- Six words ( talk) 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The edits of banned Blowme c===3 and their newer account Panicfanatic001 need to be examined for fragments that might not have been deleted. Apparently the ban was because of the original username, but the disruptive nature of the individual's edits should still draw attention. If the edits aren't NPOV, they should be reverted or modified. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Recently strong evidence for a direct link between mercury in vaccines and autism has become what must be described as more than just relatively abundant. Interviews with scores of doctors, researchers, investigators, organizations and publicly led and supported research groups are propping up globally as well as clear evidence from the so called "danish studies", faults or flaws in the interpretation of those studies, evidence from the respected Oxford NPO, The Cochrane Collaboration, an institute for evidence based medicine and research. Recently revealed sources of the pharmaceutical industry's own meetings, reports and minutes from their meetings all indicate or rather effectively prove the strong correlation between mercury use in vaccines and autism and hundreds of other severe long term adverse side effect that have impaired people or led to serious disability or been seriously detrimental to their health in any number of ways. The obvious flaws in the interpretation of the Danish studies that allegedly proved that autism rose even after thimerosal was removed was based on the fact that the danish health institute started up a program for registering autism and autists after the correlation was noted, effectively leading many more to come forward to gain the help that the authorities offered and be registered. This is even to this day still erroneously reported on this wikipedia page and shows how a lack of understanding of what research and public debate and reporting actual controversies are about on the part of wiki admins. It is such a blatant disregard for actual controversy and public knowledge that it borders on intent to mislead the public. Its as repugnant as it is intellectually dishonest. Wiki admins have become notorious in their lack of following links, reading public documents and summarily posting one sides of current controversies effectively portraying themas if they were actually already settled and that one party was irrefutably confirmed by the public community as a whole. I find it disturbing, but at the rate and speed with which information floats and have started to circulate only the last 12 months they will be thoroughly discredited within the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunamiut ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
|}
/* Alternative medicine */ field --> profession. The source used the word " profession". I should probably seek consensus before making arbitrary alterations of this nature for this controversial topic. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit made the following change in the Vaccine overload section:
with the edit summary " I read the reference, it is not a soruce for teh suggestion, it merely asserts that it has been made. I say again, who, as a reliable soruce, actually came up with this stupid".
The vaccine-overload theory has not been proposed by any reliable source. But that does not mean that the theory has not been proposed as a cause for autism; it clearly has (by Andrew Wakefield, and by others). Today the vaccine overload theory is perhaps the most common reason why parents in Europe and North America don't follow vaccination recommendations. There is no need for the article to cite a "reliable source" that has proposed a popular-but-unsupported theory: this article is about vaccine controversies, regardless of whether the controversies have scientific support on both sides.
There is no dispute among reliable sources that the vaccine-overload-causes-autism theory is popular. Inserting text like "The Toronto Star reported" makes it sound like only the Toronto Star is reporting the theory's popularity, and that it is seriously disputed whether the theory is popular. No such dispute exists. Furthermore, the edit introduced the text "without attrributing the suggestion to any particualr soruce, or offering any suggested evidence or cause" which is clearly editorializing.
I attempted to improve the situation by replacing the text in question with "Many parents of autistic children firmly believe that vaccine overload causes autism", a statement that is more-directly supported by the cited source. Eubulides ( talk) 07:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The original statement in dispute (from the section on Vaccine Overload):
"The idea has several flaws."
Does this wording reflect neutrality or bias? My contention is that the cannotations of this statement lean strongly towards the latter. In the interest of preserving NPOV standards, I would prefer something along these lines:
"Evidence has shown that this assumption is fundamentally flawed."
All comments/recommendations are welcome. Thank You. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I think it's important to keep in mind that citing a source does not require the associated text to be a verbatim transfer of words. I'm not talking about artistic license, either; there is a certain level of inference allowed, by convention. I do agree, however, that the process should not be permitted unconstrained, and in that respect overall conformity with the source is preferable. That said, the real issue here is the quality of the words chosen to represent the referenced source. Are we to adopt a derogatory, condescending tone, or one that sounds most reasonable, civil, and unbiased? My view is that the former tends to isolate readers and thus undermine the whole intent of writing an article in the first place - to educate people about the facts. Like a physician faced with a doubting parent, we should approach the matter with tact, and choose words that don't incite. Anyway, you're suggestion was a little better, but it still seems to fall just short of a perfect solution. What about this:
"Several flaws have been found in this assumption."
Much less edgy, and yet it's essentially identical to the original statement. Would that work? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
But, in fact, it has been seriously considered (indeed, if not then we should all have something to worry about). Suppose that the side-effects of substance X are well constrained and predictable. Likewise for the substances Y and Z. Yet, is it unreasonable to ask if a combination thereof could cause unforseen side-effects? Of course not. It follows then that the question exists for *any* possible combination of substances; the issue must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Thus, in this situation, to say that it "has been found" that the assumption was incorrect is a reasonable chronological characterization. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I was simply illustrating (by logical deduction, by the way, not conjecture) that the phrase "has been found" does not necessarily imply a "false chronology", in this context. And to be honest, in light of the extreme sensitivity of the subject that we are dealing with here, it surprises me that such a weak example of "false chronology" would even be so tenaciously pursued, at the expense of creating quality content that is both tactful *and* accurate. Care to address that point? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
To quote the referenced policy: "(offensive wording) should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored". This is clearly not the case (and if you argue that this is the citation of a quote then it should be structured as such). The wording *should* be accurate and faithful to the source, but should not be done in a tasteless manner, for the sole reason that it is "closer to what was said". So far I have recommended attributing the statement to the source, generalizing it, framing it tactfully, presenting it neutrally, etc. I think it's fair to say that I have been diplomatic and reasonable. Anyone else care to join in on the process? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Here is my list of candidates:
"Several studies have been conducted on the subject<reference>, and the assumption has proven to be flawed.<reference>" (the two statements correlate and cite their respective sources)
"The idea has been challenged and deemed flawed.<reference>"
"On the basis of findings from numerous studies<reference>, the assumption is flawed.<reference>" (the two statements correlate and cite their respective sources)
"Studies prove, however, that the assumption is fundamentally flawed.<reference><reference>" (the two statements merged and cited jointly)
"Studies do not support this claim<reference>, however, and the idea is considered flawed.<reference>" (the two statements correlate and cite their respective sources)
"Research has shown that the assumption is flawed.<reference>"
Sebastian Garth ( talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, how about one of these:
"Evidence shows that this assumption is flawed.<reference>"
"These claims however are not supported by evidence, and in fact have proven to be flawed.<reference>"
"Research has revealed that the idea is flawed, for several reasons.<reference>"
The last one looks especially promising, I think, due to the fact that it essentially conveys the exact meaning of the original without sounding unobjective. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Much better, but the ending is somewhat disjoint. The word "is" could be replaced or expanded by something more descriptive. I really think "has proven" would be a good choice since it asserts that the doubts have been methodically addressed and ruled out as significant. As far as the suggestive (eg. false chronological) implications, they really seem extremely minor, in my opinion. Anyway, perhaps it could be restructured just a bit, such as in:
"The suggestion has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children. Yet no scientific evidence supports this claim, and several flaws in the idea have been exposed."
Not necessarily those words exactly, of course, but maybe something along those lines? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 00:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps then you could make a reasonable suggestion that does not imply a false chronology? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
By 'disjoint' I simply meant that the flow was rather awkward. Besides that, it still lacks objectivity. Your contention seems to be that any sort of restructuring/rewording of the content would either create a false chronological relationship or deviate from the intended message of the cited source. In that case, perhaps a direct quote would be more appropriate. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 05:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The very fact that the section addresses a desputable claim (given that the supposition in and of itself is not frivolous) suggests that a controversy exists, so yes to state flatly that it is false would be, by definition, unobjective. It seems reasonable to me then that to "find", "conclude", "show", "prove", "demonstrate", "reveal", "expose", or "determine" that the hypothesis is flawed would be a fair and accurate characterization of the situation. Moreover, the article itself covers a controversial topic, and as such special precautions should be taken so as not to sound one-sided about the matter. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It may be true that there isn't any current dispute, but as the question itself is in fact one of drug interaction, it cannot be ruled out categorically (whereas the example you have given can be). Therefore the assertion that there is no reasonable basis, that it cannot be a matter of consideration, or that no debate could ever exist, is indeed flawed, for several reasons. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, it has been said that certain wording may lend undue weight to a subject that is not debatable (eg. controversial), which suggests that the disputed claim is in fact a fringe theory. Considering the pharmacokinetic implications of the question, though, this cannot be so. I too want to represent the source accurately, and also recognize the importance of the statement in the context of the article, but simply feel that a more appropriate choice of words is in order, all things considered. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but reliable sourcing simply relates to the support of a position, which isn't even the case here. Furthermore, you have neither addressed the key arguments that I have put forward nor shown a significant effort to assume good faith in my objections. I have made repeated attempts to resolve the issue by striving to accomodate everyone's expectations as nearly as possible, at all times willing to make concessions and accept a reasonable compromise, as have I recommended several viable alternatives that would have ensured that the original statement would be largely unaffected. I only ask that everyone make a sincere effort to work towards the goal of real consensus. Can we all agree to that? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep it simple - writing The Evidence has shown ...$_EVIDENCE is repetitive and a mite pompous. The first proposed wording by Eubulides here is I think the best way to go, though honestly the current wording is well-supported and does not feel particularly clunky or out of place. - 2/0 ( cont.) 04:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit here introduced inappropriately worded content to the Financial Motives section. Could we see some better suggestions that would follow a more encyclopedic format? Also, apologies to Eubulides for the complete revert, as opposed to a re-edit - there just seemed to be too many problems with the submitted version. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is my suggestion, presented without citations, for clarity:
Sebastian Garth ( talk) 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It really has nothing to do with being controversial with reliable sources, actually. I would object just as much to the inclusion of a statement such as "vaccine makers could stand to earn billions", or similar. The comment about journalists doesn't sound right, either. It just doesn't read encyclopedically - I don't know how else to put it. Also, it really isn't necessary to list specific, dubious, treatments being offered by certain AMP's. A summary that the treatments are not accepted practices is sufficient, I think. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The replaced text definitely had some issues. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning your first point, I don't think a citation is needed in stating that some have raised the issue, but if you really want one, I'm sure it could be found. To your second point, I thought that was taken care of by the Kerr reference. But either way, I suppose it could simply drop the first part, eg: "Others have pointed out that", as it's superfulous, though I still think it reads better, personally. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I hope I addressed that above by the recommendation of dropping the lead-in. Let me know, if not. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well can you comment on the current draft I have submitted? I'm still reviewing your comments thus far, and will try to address your points shortly. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 02:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, can we drop the last paragraph? There really isn't any need to mention actual profit figures, right? It just seems like an unnecessary digression. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 06:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This article utterly *wreaks* of non-NPOV. Remember: Wikipedia is not to be used to espouse any particular ideology or opinion. This is an Encyclopedia, after all. State the facts from both sides and leave it at that. Is that really too difficult to understand? Sebastian Garth ( talk) 03:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What I feel about this article is that it is missing the point of "Vaccine Controversy". I think that the focus should be on stating what arguments have been used against vaccinations. Of course these arguments can be refuted but I feel that sections such as "Population health", "Cost-effectiveness", "Events following reductions in vaccination" etc. would be better suited to the vaccination article and don't really tell us much about vaccine controversy. Mhairiiscool ( talk) 01:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is exactly one side vs. another - the whole debate is defined by the anti vaccination movement, without it this page wouldn't exist. We don't have a Surgery Controversy page because there is no notable "anti-surgery" movement (as far as I am aware of...). There is scientific facts about vaccines and there is "Vaccine Controvery". Not that scientific facts about vaccines aren't relevant to the Vaccine Controversy page (quite on the contrary) but I think the page should mainly be a factual report on what arguments have been used against vaccines rather than a debate about vaccines. There can still be counterarguments and refutations! I just don't think they should be the focus.
For example, I imagine the effectiveness section to go something like: "Bla has said that Vaccines are ineffective. They say bla bla and bla. They cite bla bla bla. However bla evidence bla vaccines do otherwise.
I dunno, this is just what my interpretation of "Vaccine controversy", I think it would be a more useful page and easier to keep NPOV. If that makes any sense... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mhairiiscool (
talk •
contribs)
04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:ASF. Attribution is a policy violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
When there is a dispute over something "out there in the real world", we must not pretend that the dispute doesn't exist. Also, if we (as writers) cannot agree on what percentage of the general public (or some special group such as research scientists, or school principals, or pediatricians, or drug company representatives) favors the various sides, then we should not guess or assume.
It is a fact that some people (myself most definitely included!) are cheerfully and confidently in favor of vaccination in general, but there are others who oppose the concept or who worry about the side effects or other ramifications of certain particular vaccinations.
A neutral article would not bother to say which group is right about which aspect, but would only try to identify the positions, the adherents and (if available) their reasoning. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy #Changes to the wording of the article it's proposed that in the Vaccine overload section we change "The idea is flawed, for several reasons." to "The vaccine-overload notion is not only unsupported by the evidence, it is contradicted by the evidence." Comments? Eubulides ( talk) 00:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The proposed text only captures some of the problems with the vaccine overload hypothesis. Yes it has no evidence so is "unsupported". Yes, experience with vaccines and with exposure to pathogens both "contradict" the notion. But this doesn't capture just how way off the mark the hypothesis is. It has some ironic comedy value like "The notion that Colin is a world class athlete is not only unsupported by the evidence, it is contradicted by the evidence." There is no serious dispute over the language used by experts: that vaccine overload a is "myth", a "misperception" or "flawed." These are strong words.
The mediation request centred on the idea that there was some serious dispute therefore the flaws of the vaccine overload hypothesis could not be stated as fact. The mediation proposer failed to convince the two other parties and appears to have dropped that argument. We now have the current situation that a very weak but "it is a fact: this is wrong" lead sentence is proposed along with recent text that contains a full paragraph of the flaws. Given that the flaws can be listed in ones face it is rather hard to claim that it does not have flaws, of that the idea it has flaws is only an opinion. Mediation utterly failed to show that the existing statement should be changed to being just an opinion, therefore the idea that the text must be changed is wrong. I strongly oppose the idea that hard truths should be watered down just to appease any editor who disagrees with them and is determined enough.
The current text where someone has inserted the "The vaccine-overload notion ... evidence" sentence between the lead sentence and the first flaw should be reverted. It breaks the flow and isn't required.
The paragraph lead text should include one of the words "myth", "misperception" and "flawed". Each of these are equivalent to the extent they show the hypothesis is conceptually wrong (rather than just proven wrong). Since "is flawed" fits nicely with the rest of the paragraph, I see no need to change it. Colin° Talk 09:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
According to this comment it is required to include attribution even when there is scientific consensus among reliable references. This is a waste of time when editors can't agree on the intent of Wikipedia's ASF. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please avoid making personal remarks. The problem is this: We cannot state that the concept is "flawed" because that is not a universal conclusion of the literature. We can quote from a researcher who says it is flawed or we can reword the sentence. Those are the only choices I can see. What is your preference? Sunray ( talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
But the reality is that there is a very real controversy over the issue. Various studies have raised doubts about multiple vaccinitions, parents have filed suits claiming injuries sustained, and health providers have dissented on the issue. These are not the minority views of fringe groups. As editors of Wikipedia, we have a responsibility to our readers to represent these things objectively. We should be very careful not to allow information to be filtered through the colored lens of our own personal bias. Doing so severely degrades the quality of the content of this site, and is a disservice to the community. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all, this isn't an issue of vaccinationists versus anti-vaccinationists. It's whether or not the immune system can respond or react undesirably to multiple vaccines. The evidence is clearly not conclusive, and so it would be unfair to act as if it were. In that respect, comparisons with issues such as the ones that you mention are not completely meaningful. On a side note, my personal feelings towards vaccinations are generally positive. No less than three of my ancestors championed their use, and in times when superstition and witchcraft were rampant in the medical field, no less. I appreciate the hard work that has been done to promote such a beneficial cause. But I also recognize the need for honest reflection, to consider the implications of the way in which the task has been carried out, and what, if any, mistakes have been made in the process. Experts in the field have also asked such questions, and their conclusions have been mixed. We should respect that and give the proper weight of both sides. Sebastian Garth ( talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Evidently I have missed something. It has been suggested that the statement that "the concept is flawed" is a valid summary of the research findings, rather than an opinion. Would someone please walk me through that? How is it not an opinion? Sunray ( talk) 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
How is it not an opinion? It does not matter when it is an opinion. We assert an opinion as fact when there is no serious dispute. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
is POV and a serious mistake. The first sentence of the Vaccine overload section should simply define the notion without throwing rocks at it, just as the first sentence of Flat Earth simply defines the notion of the flat earth without throwing rocks at it. The interpolation of a citation there, simply to justify the word "flawed", is obviously POV. The repetition of the word "flawed" in the first sentence, and later in the topic sentence of the next paragraph (the paragraph that actually talks about the flaws and where "flawed" is appropriate) is more POV. Please do not repeatedly insert the word "flawed" in the definition of the notion, a location where the word is out of place. This occurrence of the word "flawed" (and the spurious citation to Gerber) should be removed. Eubulides ( talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[79] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox).
Are not the 1870's part of the latter half of 19th century?
24.36.78.185 ( talk) 21:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I just misread it. Carry on. 24.36.78.185 ( talk) 10:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been following this article for awhile and thought I'd chime in on this section, which I think could use some work. Here's how I read the section as written: 1) Studies have shown that prenatal infections can cause schizophrenia. 2) This has public health implications, as vaccinating could prevent some prenatal infections and thus might help prevent some cases of schizophrenia. 3) Vaccine-induced antibodies could also potentially cause schizophrenia. 4) We must balance the benefits of #2 against the risks of #3. 5) Many mainstream organizations recommend pregnant women get influenza vaccinations, yet few do.
My main concern is with #3 -- the idea that vaccine-induced antibodies could cause schizophrenia, because I don't think it's well supported. The source is a quote from a researcher in a newspaper called the Psychiatric Times (the newspaper of the American Psychiatric Association). But when you read that researcher's study, there's no mention of vaccine-induced antibodies causing schizophrenia, or for that matter any mention of vaccination at all. I can't find any scientific literature supporting the idea that vaccine-induced antibodies can cause schizophrenia; there is some literature supporting #2 above. So basically the only source I can find supporting #3 is a quote (from an MD) in a newspaper, which isn't supported by any further evidence that I can find. Thus, I think it should be removed.
If that's the case, then the section could either be re-written to focus on the concerns of vaccinating pregnant women, or since there's already another article on that topic, we could delete the section entirely. Please let me know your thoughts. Trabeculae ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Interested editors should check out the RfC & contribute to the discussion at the Bill Maher talk page (
here).
Valerius Tygart (
talk)
20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
We are going to have same problems that USA and Canada in some years. It is time to prepare to translate that anti-vaccionists are wrong. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.55.198 ( talk) 12:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Gerber
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).