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 |
Not sure about the etymology of the word vaccination. Vaccinia is a term for cowpox so probably vaccination is derived from it. Kpjas
needs a writeup on how the bad press on vaccination got started and how it got debunked ... Alex.tan 18:24 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
--Myth #1: Measles deaths had declined by 99.4% (from 1901/2, UK) before vaccination.
--Myth #2: There is no evidence vaccination eliminated smallpox, and vaccination increased the spread and incidence of the disease, as well as spreading leprosy, syphilis, TB and the like around the world. Huge epidemics were caused by compulsory vaccination which was why they repealed the compulsory vaccination act. Most cases of smallpox had been vaccination.
--Myth #3: The dangers and infectivity of smallpox have been hyped to sell vaccination. It was considered less dangerous than measles in the 18th century and 98% curable under homeopaths or naturopaths, while under allopaths it was 20-30% fatal, due mostly to their use of mercury and ignorance of diet and nutrition--the main protection against smallpox. was invented into vaccine
-- Fact #1: There are no long-term double-blind randomised controlled studies of any vaccine for any disease published in any journal in any country in any time period. (To perform a long-term controlled study of vaccination, one would take two large groups of people, and vaccinate one group and not vaccinate the other. Then one would wait and see how the individuals in each group fared over a period of years.)
-- Fact #2: Epidemiological evidence shows that vaccines are not 100% effective, that they do have undesirable side effects, and that they sometimes can cause the disease they seek to prevent.
-- Fact #3: Epidemiological evidence show that vaccine programs can decrease the incidence and prevalence of disease.
-- Fact #4: Post-exposure prophylaxis vaccination has been demonstarted to reduce the incidence and severity of such diseases as smallpox and rabies.
-- Fact #5: Some of the reduced incidence in given diseases for which vaccinations are given is due to improved nutrition and improved sanitation, and cannot be entirely attributed to the vaccination's effects.
We need a better write-up of this. It must include sources or at least areas where myth is prevalent and sources for so-called facts. Also it can't be a numbered list. Measles is not the number one myth subject in America for instance. I doubt these should be called myths and facts at all to keep in NPOV. Rmhermen 16:03, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
The article seems to perpetuate the myth that variolation was a valid precursor of vaccination. Variolation means injecting the patient with the live virus and seeing if they live or die. Not exactly a preventive measure and one that was avoided by families of the day who could avoid treatment (including apparently the British Royal Family). No, the true progenitor of vaccination was Edmund Jenner who actually prevented disease by using a milder or killed form of the virus. Vaccination was not invented in Turkey. That is a myth. ( Romperlevis ( talk) 09:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
A link to About.com entitled "Killing the Messenger: Firing Dr. Andrew Wakefield" was deleted because the link no longer exists. Instead, it redirects to a page about Autism Spectrum Disorders with no mention of thimerosal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotMySecondOpinion ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Should this be merged with vaccine? Rmhermen 17:09, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
please merge; vaccine and vaccination are basicely the same thing in 2 different gramatical forms. ~~unknown~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 ( talk) 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a POV until scientifically reviewed, and if the facts are right, scientists will never deem this true, because, according to Myth #3, vaccination is overhyped, and therefore, if that was true, the scientists would never deem this true, because then it would hurt their credability. KirbyMeister 11:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC) --- KirbyMeister, you are talking about myth #3 as though it were a fact; it is a myth. even though it is worded like a fact, the person is citing is as untrue. keep that in mind. --- I think the article is out-of-balance. The other side of the picture is completely absent. There are many published objections to vaccinations. A few could be mentioned here. Yes, I'm the culprit who added the NVIC link. Afterall, it is probably the best source of facts on the internet on this topic. Paul B Mann
If that is to be included you also have to allow the legal staus of vaccination with regard to civil law in every other country on the planet. I fell this could result in the article looking rather silly <ANON>
well more to the point... is it true?? Erich 12:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Pretty much all damages due to vaction in the US are payed by the US govenment. Geni 23:28, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
so, just to clarify, can you still sue and receive damages, but the government picks up the tab? Erich 11:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As far as I understand it pretty much Geni 11:58, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So, this article is to contain no information on the vaccination needs of adults and children of various ages in the USA? Right? But isn't that what many people will come here for information on? Yet there is not even a link leading to anything like this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/health/25patient.html
Why would you want to make your article useless to most people who will see it? Regards, Rumjal rumjal 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal ( talk • contribs)
two pages from the ratbags site
http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight/vaccines1.htm
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
looks like a provacination site to me. Geni 23:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've just been reading the smallpox page which includes the following paragraph:
As the date of this account of Indian practice to British physicians preceeded Edward Jenner's vaccine by nearly 30 years I am wondering if some cross-fertilisation of ideas occured. This is just speculation on my part. I have no expertise in this area. Just wanted to mention it here. Oska 08:51, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
There have been a few additions/deletions of the whale.to link. Maybe this is a good place to discuss what is the reasoning behind the removal of the link and are there valid reasons to omit a link with such extensive information on the topic? Jkpjkp 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
A tag has been added requesting expansion of the new adjuvant section. Ombudsman 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The content of these two article crosses over a great deal. Perhaps we should consider either merging them completely, or seperating them into independent articles (as much as is reasonable). I, personally, am in favor of the former, but am not wholly opposed to the alternative given an adequate rationale for that course of action. If there's no response, I'll likely just be bold in the next few days and merge them myself. – Clockwork Soul 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As long as the pruning keeps the balance intact this is fine. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/swish-cgi.pl?query=vaccination&field=all (Not serving the JPEGs just now, but I think it usually will work. There are various assertions about what happened flaoting around, these are the pukka article. Midgley 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Last I heard, there may indeed be links between vaccination and autism... Someone check that there has been no strong connection before we say so! -- AlanH 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This page is cool and interesting.
I can see that other people have mentioned this before, but I will start a section, since it is important to this article.
Calling the information presented in this article "Vaccination" is incorrect. Vaccination refers only to the induction of immune responses against smallpox using the vaccinia vaccine. The term Immunization covers all of the other topics on this page (i.e., every other "vaccine" mentioned besides the one for smallpox). Yes, colloquially the terms are used interchangeably, but Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and thus should be as technically correct as possible.
Even more worrisome is that this article then goes on to imply that there is some inherent difference in the mechanism by which immunization and vaccination occur. There is NO difference in the mechanism, as vaccination is a TYPE of immunization. Most of the information (except for the information specifically about vaccination via vaccinia) needs to be moved to the Immunization page.
I would welcome any thoughts on this matter.-- DO11.10 22:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has lot's of information about possible risks of vaccination and the controversy surrounding it, but does not e.g. mention the estimated number of lives saved every year because of the ongoing vaccination programs. I consider this somewhat onesided and POV. -- Joonasl 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The article talks as if Jenner was the first to use cowpox as a vaccine for smallpox in 1796. Although this is widly believed to be true, the first documented use was by Benjamin Jesty who innoculated his family during the 1774 smallpox epidemic. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d( Suggestion?| wanna chat?) 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) A recently published article by Peter Plett (Sudhoffs Archiv, Vol.90-2, p. 219-232, 2006, Stuttgart, Germany) states: Before Edward Jenner tested the possibility of using the cowpox vaccine as an immunisation for smallpox in himans for the first time in 1796, at least six people had done the same several years earlier: An English person whose identity is unknown, Mrs. Sevel (Germany), Mr. Jensen (Germany), the English farmer Benjamin Jesty in 1774, Mrs. Rendall (England)and the German teacher Peter Plett in 1791. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.238.83 ( talk) 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I undid a link to vaccine controversy on top of the article. I agree that vaccine controversy is important, but the readers typing in "vaccination" wants to know about vaccination, and not primarily its controversy. That, they might want to know more about when reading the basics. Therefore, the link belongs rather to the bottom of the article. In fact, it is already found there. Mikael Häggström 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
plus most of it is false information as not vaccinating is dangerous, and has been proven in many non-vaccinated children around the world already. Markthemac ( talk) 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is mass vaccination only mentioned once, in passing, in this article? Surely this is a notable topic in itself, perhaps even deserving its own Wikipedia article, yet it is barely even mentioned at present. - Mais oui! ( talk) 06:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the latter article is cautious not to intrude upon this one, whereas the vaccination article does not even link to inoculation, let alone make the distinction between the two procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.128.23 ( talk) 03:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the vaccination article is repetitive. Inoculation is dealt with in the 4th paragraph (at the same time as explaining use of words vaccination and immunisation). Inoculation comes up again in the ===Vaccination versus inoculation=== versus inoculation section without any new detail. I think the references in this section should be moved up to paragraph 4 and the section and its heading deleted. What do other people think? Emble64 ( talk) 19:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Do babies get all vaccination including rabies shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master King ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The Turkish work was variolation, something actually distinct from vaccination. 77.100.103.108 ( talk) 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Guys, the article mentions in passing in the beginning that vaccination is against viruses or bacteria; but then in the body, and especially in the types of vaccination, only viruses are mentioned.
As a kid, I was taught that vaccinations only work against viruses: I just realized that's an oversimplification, because I've just gotten vaccinated against Typhoid, caused by a bacteria.
Can someone who understand these things include a bit of information about vaccination against bacteria? Particularly, why can some bacteria be vaccinated against, and others (like the one that causes Malaria) not be?
Conversely, why can't we come up with a vaccination against certain viruses (like HIV)? A paragraph or two on these topics would be greatly illuminating. 71.101.164.169 ( talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
--- Re: comment above (and below) --- Malaria is not bacterial, it's caused by a protozoan. Vaccines are being developed for macroparasites like malaria ( malaria vaccine) and filarial worms ( [1]), i.e. not just bacteria and viruses. I'm therefore going to remove the bacteria and viruses bracket in the first paragraph. I will leave the word pathogens, which is more accurate and already includes viruses and bacteria. Emble64 ( talk) 18:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have heard about chiropractic philosophy opposing vaccination, but haven't heard the reason why. If someone could figure it out, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.63.235 ( talk) 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
For now, I have removed this section. It contained only a single, unsourced, and dubious statement: "Combined vaccinations are now widely used around the world, a result of the rapid increase in the number of shots recommended in current vaccination schedules." Two aspects of this are highly questionable. First, I am highly skeptical that the sum of reliable sources support the claim of a "... rapid increase in the number of shots recommended...". This is a contentious statement that requires strong sourcing. Second, even if such a statement were sourced, I am also skeptical that this is necessarily the reason why combined vaccines are widely used. Separate sourcing from reliable sources would be necessary for this claim. In the absence of such sourcing, it seems likely that this claim constitutes original research. Locke9k ( talk) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see some citations of researches that used scientific method to the statement that vaccines can prevent or ameliorate the effects of infection by a pathogen, please. 2aprilboy talk 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) HPV Chang Y, Brewer NT, Rinas AC, Schmitt K, Smith JS (2009). "Evaluating the impact of human papillomavirus vaccines". Vaccine. 27 (32): 4355–62.
doi:
10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.03.008.
PMID
19515467. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and chicken pox Liesegang TJ (2009). "Varicella zoster virus vaccines: effective, but concerns linger". Can. J. Ophthalmol. 44 (4): 379–84.
doi:
10.1139/i09-126.
PMID
19606157. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) So yes there is lots of high quality evidence for vaccination.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)In the history section,this article said that turks used cowpox to inoculate thwmselves,which is false.They used smallpox as the indians and chinese did.The first ones to use cowpox,and therefore the inventors of vaccination,were the english like Jenner.The rest is inoculation.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (a vaccine) to produce immunity to a disease. Vaccines can prevent or ameliorate the effects of infection by many pathogens. There is strong evidence for the efficacy of the influenza vaccine[1], the HPV vaccine[2] and the chicken pox vaccine[3] among others.
Is there some issue being introduced that the reader must elsewhere deduce from the article? Is it strong evidence for the three diseases referenced but overwhelmingly convincing for other vaccines? In the third sentence of the article, "strong evidence" sounds a little strange, almost as if it's a compromise stance. Primarily, why single out three diseases in the first paragraph when it's a general discussion of vaccines?
Is the evidence of the efficacy of vaccines in general "strong" or convincing? It would seem to be the latter, unless there is still room left for doubt and debate. Dynasteria ( talk) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll go along with "strong" and "convincing" being more or less synonymous. My secondary question refers to the purpose of the statement at all and what it's doing in the opening paragraph. Consider: "There is strong (or convincing) evidence that changing a flat tire improves the drivability of a car." That is factually true, but it also allows for a level of doubt that is unwarranted. Everyone knows you should change your tire when you get a flat. It's a small point. It just struck me as odd. Dynasteria ( talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. However, I'm a language guy, not a medical guy. I think it should be factual, like, "Approximately x number of vaccines have been developed and are currently in use. World wide, the most prevalent vaccinations are against a ... b... c... diseases. The efficacy of vaccines is supported by evidence from decades of research and field experience. However, controversy still exists concerning safety, public policy, and overall effectiveness."
There probably are a lot of arguments against vaccination. Some of them may be weak, like saying that you shouldn't change your tire in the middle of a busy freeway, therefore changing a flat tire is dangerous and unadvisable. Those issues would be addressed later in the article. Dynasteria ( talk) 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5W87jAs9mPrcilNDPYP7vxBjqdw?docId=e361bf7682cc43ce998219c5eb2d151e • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering, how can you be creating a vacine for malaria - I believe it is caused by a protist, not a virus, and vaccination solely works against viruses... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.48.161 ( talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
--- Please see my response to similar question at the top of the page under the heading "Vaccination Against Bacteria -- not explained?" Emble64 ( talk) 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the info with the image file, and some of the translations for the caption in different languages date the photo at 1944, while some date it at 1943. I am wondering if either of those dates are even correct, considering that colour photography was very rare in the 1940's, and the photo does not look like the type of colour film that did exist at the time. Thoughts? Anyone certain about this date? Thanks. MsBatfish ( talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
MsBatfish ( talk) 00:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Peter Doherty, Nobel laureate and Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Melbourne University today on Australia's Radio National ( listen 12 minutes in):
Generally if you go to Wikipedia, you'll get a pretty good description. When I've looked at Wikipedia, in the areas I know about, it's generally been very good.
Though he is critical of online content in general. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 02:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Common Chemicals May Weaken Vaccine Response - A study finds disturbing evidence that chemicals found in furniture, fast-food packaging and microwave popcorn bags may compromise children's immune systems. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/exposure-to-common-chemicals-may-weaken-vaccine-response/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I keep seeing the same thing: "vaccination only works if you do it to everybody." [2] Is this discussed in this article in detail somewhere? It is kind of confusing to me: it implies that vaccination will not work if the vaccinated person is exposed to what they are vaccinated against... I mean, to me it implies that if everyone does not get vaccinated, there is no point to get vaccinated because it is useless. (And one can be fairly sure not everyone gets vaccinated.) Is the BBC misguided? Am I missing something? Int21h ( talk) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
What they presumably mean is that for a society to have herd immunity to a disease (whereby a sufficient number of members of a group are immune to a disease that individuals within it who are not immune are in vastly reduced danger of contracting it) an overwhelming majority of the population must be innoculated. Vaccinations will "work" for the individual who is vaccinated regardless of who else is vaccinated. This distinction is relevant for two reasons. (1) There are people in society who through no fault of their own are unable to be vaccinated, and would therefore be at risk unless they are living in a society with herd immunity (2) the claim that vaccination is a purely personal choice is demonstrably false, as herd immunity requires all (or at least most) people to be vaccinated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.35 ( talk) 06:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vRz4IFom
and
Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vS0NxMmf
AND
Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 ( talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism
I reverted this because the source didn't support the claim of "rebuttal" attributed to it in the article; in fact it seems to be an effective demolition of Wakefield's position. The link's still available through the page history, of course, if anybody wants to see for themselves, but WP:YT suggests that it could be a contributory copyright violation. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
As this section has its own subsidiary article, dealing with the topic in detail, is there scope for trimming it back a bit? There seems to be a risk of giving it undue prominence here; this article is supposed to be dealing with the whole topic of vaccination, in broad terms. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel like the history of vaccination should begin with mithridatism, i.e. long before the 16th century, since that practice included exposure to venoms that presumably elicited an antigen response. Admittedly, finding references for this is difficult: some sources say that vaccination was akin to mithridatism ( [4] and [5] page 11) but it is harder to find a source that says that mithridatism ever truly was a form of vaccination, or more correctly of inoculation as the article presents. Wnt ( talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer removed my previous entry http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vaccination&curid=32473&diff=570499061&oldid=570497322 and noted "NVIC is not a RS here (or anywhere, for that matter). This type of event isn't worthy of inclusion. ". I ask now for other opinions - why this section shouldn't be worthy to be included: On March 22, 2010, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials adhering to the precautionary principle advised American doctors to suspend use of Rotarix vaccine until the agency finds out why DNA from a swine virus (porcine circovirus 1 or PCV1) was found in the live rotavirus vaccine. [1] Direct link to FDA announcement http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm205625.htm Although this is not an isolated incident, contamination and following affected people is a rather broad circumstance, see Polio Vaccination and Simian virus 40 in humans http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1941725/ Prokaryotes ( talk) 07:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); line feed character in |journal=
at position 17 (
help)
Over 300 peer reviewed studies are associated with adverse effects of vaccination, they are listed and sourced here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-vaccine-research# Because of the amount of data there should be a section on adverse effects which vary depending on the specific vaccination Prokaryotes ( talk) 08:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
July 12, 2013, The new data shows autism is strongly linked to type 1 diabetes another epidemic inflammatory disease where the epidemic has been proven to be caused by vaccines. The new paper is authored by immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD."We have been publishing for many years that vaccine induced inflammation is causing an epidemic of type 1 diabetes and other diseases. Our new data, as well as the extensive data from others regarding the role of inflammation in the development autism, leaves little doubt vaccines play a significant role in the autism epidemic," says Dr. J. Bart Classen, MD. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130712-904463.html Prokaryotes ( talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The user Killer Chihuahua recently reverted a legitimate addition https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vaccination&curid=32473&diff=570971095&oldid=570969095 As pointed out is there a citation missing about the claim that several vaccine makers stopped production. And he removed the addition of the study on "vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease". The full section on adverse effects as of August 31, 2013.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
There is a phenomenom, and there are people, and orgnaisations, and they probably deserve a very small section here. There was a page called antivaccinationism, but a group of editors objected greatly to it, and it is currently called something else. It started before the word vaccination was coined - by Jenner from Vacca for cow - and is a continuation of the fuss over inoculation. One of the natural experiments carried out in the new American colonies around 1721 was kindly repeated in the 19th century, at the instigation of the antivaccinationists, and with the same result. http://www.ganfyd.org/index.php?title=Natural_experiments_in_medicine A pathognomic feature of these people is that they seek to turn every article touching on an aspect of immunisation into one on adverse efects, and are impervious to argument. Midgley ( talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vaccination. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just commenting here to show that the IP editor was indeed correct in their edit here. Verified in the source text at Google Books. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Cost-effectiveness of vaccination
Vaccination: The Best Return on Investment
http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/ethics/vaccination-the-best-return-on-investment
By Vaclav Smil
28 Jun 2017
Reporting on a study reported in Health Affairs in 2016.
The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
"The highest rewards were for averting measles: a 58-fold return, with a range from 29 to 105" [benefit 29 to 105 times cost, most likely range 58 times cost]
Report on this study:
Sachiko Ozawa1, Samantha Clark, Allison Portnoy, Simrun Grewal, Logan Brenzel and Damian G. Walker
Return On Investment From Childhood Immunization In Low- And Middle-Income Countries, 2011–20
DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1086
Health Aff February 2016 vol. 35 no. 2 199-207
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 |
Not sure about the etymology of the word vaccination. Vaccinia is a term for cowpox so probably vaccination is derived from it. Kpjas
needs a writeup on how the bad press on vaccination got started and how it got debunked ... Alex.tan 18:24 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
--Myth #1: Measles deaths had declined by 99.4% (from 1901/2, UK) before vaccination.
--Myth #2: There is no evidence vaccination eliminated smallpox, and vaccination increased the spread and incidence of the disease, as well as spreading leprosy, syphilis, TB and the like around the world. Huge epidemics were caused by compulsory vaccination which was why they repealed the compulsory vaccination act. Most cases of smallpox had been vaccination.
--Myth #3: The dangers and infectivity of smallpox have been hyped to sell vaccination. It was considered less dangerous than measles in the 18th century and 98% curable under homeopaths or naturopaths, while under allopaths it was 20-30% fatal, due mostly to their use of mercury and ignorance of diet and nutrition--the main protection against smallpox. was invented into vaccine
-- Fact #1: There are no long-term double-blind randomised controlled studies of any vaccine for any disease published in any journal in any country in any time period. (To perform a long-term controlled study of vaccination, one would take two large groups of people, and vaccinate one group and not vaccinate the other. Then one would wait and see how the individuals in each group fared over a period of years.)
-- Fact #2: Epidemiological evidence shows that vaccines are not 100% effective, that they do have undesirable side effects, and that they sometimes can cause the disease they seek to prevent.
-- Fact #3: Epidemiological evidence show that vaccine programs can decrease the incidence and prevalence of disease.
-- Fact #4: Post-exposure prophylaxis vaccination has been demonstarted to reduce the incidence and severity of such diseases as smallpox and rabies.
-- Fact #5: Some of the reduced incidence in given diseases for which vaccinations are given is due to improved nutrition and improved sanitation, and cannot be entirely attributed to the vaccination's effects.
We need a better write-up of this. It must include sources or at least areas where myth is prevalent and sources for so-called facts. Also it can't be a numbered list. Measles is not the number one myth subject in America for instance. I doubt these should be called myths and facts at all to keep in NPOV. Rmhermen 16:03, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
The article seems to perpetuate the myth that variolation was a valid precursor of vaccination. Variolation means injecting the patient with the live virus and seeing if they live or die. Not exactly a preventive measure and one that was avoided by families of the day who could avoid treatment (including apparently the British Royal Family). No, the true progenitor of vaccination was Edmund Jenner who actually prevented disease by using a milder or killed form of the virus. Vaccination was not invented in Turkey. That is a myth. ( Romperlevis ( talk) 09:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
A link to About.com entitled "Killing the Messenger: Firing Dr. Andrew Wakefield" was deleted because the link no longer exists. Instead, it redirects to a page about Autism Spectrum Disorders with no mention of thimerosal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotMySecondOpinion ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Should this be merged with vaccine? Rmhermen 17:09, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
please merge; vaccine and vaccination are basicely the same thing in 2 different gramatical forms. ~~unknown~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 ( talk) 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a POV until scientifically reviewed, and if the facts are right, scientists will never deem this true, because, according to Myth #3, vaccination is overhyped, and therefore, if that was true, the scientists would never deem this true, because then it would hurt their credability. KirbyMeister 11:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC) --- KirbyMeister, you are talking about myth #3 as though it were a fact; it is a myth. even though it is worded like a fact, the person is citing is as untrue. keep that in mind. --- I think the article is out-of-balance. The other side of the picture is completely absent. There are many published objections to vaccinations. A few could be mentioned here. Yes, I'm the culprit who added the NVIC link. Afterall, it is probably the best source of facts on the internet on this topic. Paul B Mann
If that is to be included you also have to allow the legal staus of vaccination with regard to civil law in every other country on the planet. I fell this could result in the article looking rather silly <ANON>
well more to the point... is it true?? Erich 12:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Pretty much all damages due to vaction in the US are payed by the US govenment. Geni 23:28, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
so, just to clarify, can you still sue and receive damages, but the government picks up the tab? Erich 11:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As far as I understand it pretty much Geni 11:58, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So, this article is to contain no information on the vaccination needs of adults and children of various ages in the USA? Right? But isn't that what many people will come here for information on? Yet there is not even a link leading to anything like this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/health/25patient.html
Why would you want to make your article useless to most people who will see it? Regards, Rumjal rumjal 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal ( talk • contribs)
two pages from the ratbags site
http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight/vaccines1.htm
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
looks like a provacination site to me. Geni 23:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've just been reading the smallpox page which includes the following paragraph:
As the date of this account of Indian practice to British physicians preceeded Edward Jenner's vaccine by nearly 30 years I am wondering if some cross-fertilisation of ideas occured. This is just speculation on my part. I have no expertise in this area. Just wanted to mention it here. Oska 08:51, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
There have been a few additions/deletions of the whale.to link. Maybe this is a good place to discuss what is the reasoning behind the removal of the link and are there valid reasons to omit a link with such extensive information on the topic? Jkpjkp 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
A tag has been added requesting expansion of the new adjuvant section. Ombudsman 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The content of these two article crosses over a great deal. Perhaps we should consider either merging them completely, or seperating them into independent articles (as much as is reasonable). I, personally, am in favor of the former, but am not wholly opposed to the alternative given an adequate rationale for that course of action. If there's no response, I'll likely just be bold in the next few days and merge them myself. – Clockwork Soul 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As long as the pruning keeps the balance intact this is fine. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/swish-cgi.pl?query=vaccination&field=all (Not serving the JPEGs just now, but I think it usually will work. There are various assertions about what happened flaoting around, these are the pukka article. Midgley 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Last I heard, there may indeed be links between vaccination and autism... Someone check that there has been no strong connection before we say so! -- AlanH 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This page is cool and interesting.
I can see that other people have mentioned this before, but I will start a section, since it is important to this article.
Calling the information presented in this article "Vaccination" is incorrect. Vaccination refers only to the induction of immune responses against smallpox using the vaccinia vaccine. The term Immunization covers all of the other topics on this page (i.e., every other "vaccine" mentioned besides the one for smallpox). Yes, colloquially the terms are used interchangeably, but Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and thus should be as technically correct as possible.
Even more worrisome is that this article then goes on to imply that there is some inherent difference in the mechanism by which immunization and vaccination occur. There is NO difference in the mechanism, as vaccination is a TYPE of immunization. Most of the information (except for the information specifically about vaccination via vaccinia) needs to be moved to the Immunization page.
I would welcome any thoughts on this matter.-- DO11.10 22:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has lot's of information about possible risks of vaccination and the controversy surrounding it, but does not e.g. mention the estimated number of lives saved every year because of the ongoing vaccination programs. I consider this somewhat onesided and POV. -- Joonasl 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The article talks as if Jenner was the first to use cowpox as a vaccine for smallpox in 1796. Although this is widly believed to be true, the first documented use was by Benjamin Jesty who innoculated his family during the 1774 smallpox epidemic. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d( Suggestion?| wanna chat?) 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) A recently published article by Peter Plett (Sudhoffs Archiv, Vol.90-2, p. 219-232, 2006, Stuttgart, Germany) states: Before Edward Jenner tested the possibility of using the cowpox vaccine as an immunisation for smallpox in himans for the first time in 1796, at least six people had done the same several years earlier: An English person whose identity is unknown, Mrs. Sevel (Germany), Mr. Jensen (Germany), the English farmer Benjamin Jesty in 1774, Mrs. Rendall (England)and the German teacher Peter Plett in 1791. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.238.83 ( talk) 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I undid a link to vaccine controversy on top of the article. I agree that vaccine controversy is important, but the readers typing in "vaccination" wants to know about vaccination, and not primarily its controversy. That, they might want to know more about when reading the basics. Therefore, the link belongs rather to the bottom of the article. In fact, it is already found there. Mikael Häggström 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
plus most of it is false information as not vaccinating is dangerous, and has been proven in many non-vaccinated children around the world already. Markthemac ( talk) 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is mass vaccination only mentioned once, in passing, in this article? Surely this is a notable topic in itself, perhaps even deserving its own Wikipedia article, yet it is barely even mentioned at present. - Mais oui! ( talk) 06:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the latter article is cautious not to intrude upon this one, whereas the vaccination article does not even link to inoculation, let alone make the distinction between the two procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.128.23 ( talk) 03:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the vaccination article is repetitive. Inoculation is dealt with in the 4th paragraph (at the same time as explaining use of words vaccination and immunisation). Inoculation comes up again in the ===Vaccination versus inoculation=== versus inoculation section without any new detail. I think the references in this section should be moved up to paragraph 4 and the section and its heading deleted. What do other people think? Emble64 ( talk) 19:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Do babies get all vaccination including rabies shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master King ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The Turkish work was variolation, something actually distinct from vaccination. 77.100.103.108 ( talk) 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Guys, the article mentions in passing in the beginning that vaccination is against viruses or bacteria; but then in the body, and especially in the types of vaccination, only viruses are mentioned.
As a kid, I was taught that vaccinations only work against viruses: I just realized that's an oversimplification, because I've just gotten vaccinated against Typhoid, caused by a bacteria.
Can someone who understand these things include a bit of information about vaccination against bacteria? Particularly, why can some bacteria be vaccinated against, and others (like the one that causes Malaria) not be?
Conversely, why can't we come up with a vaccination against certain viruses (like HIV)? A paragraph or two on these topics would be greatly illuminating. 71.101.164.169 ( talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
--- Re: comment above (and below) --- Malaria is not bacterial, it's caused by a protozoan. Vaccines are being developed for macroparasites like malaria ( malaria vaccine) and filarial worms ( [1]), i.e. not just bacteria and viruses. I'm therefore going to remove the bacteria and viruses bracket in the first paragraph. I will leave the word pathogens, which is more accurate and already includes viruses and bacteria. Emble64 ( talk) 18:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have heard about chiropractic philosophy opposing vaccination, but haven't heard the reason why. If someone could figure it out, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.63.235 ( talk) 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
For now, I have removed this section. It contained only a single, unsourced, and dubious statement: "Combined vaccinations are now widely used around the world, a result of the rapid increase in the number of shots recommended in current vaccination schedules." Two aspects of this are highly questionable. First, I am highly skeptical that the sum of reliable sources support the claim of a "... rapid increase in the number of shots recommended...". This is a contentious statement that requires strong sourcing. Second, even if such a statement were sourced, I am also skeptical that this is necessarily the reason why combined vaccines are widely used. Separate sourcing from reliable sources would be necessary for this claim. In the absence of such sourcing, it seems likely that this claim constitutes original research. Locke9k ( talk) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see some citations of researches that used scientific method to the statement that vaccines can prevent or ameliorate the effects of infection by a pathogen, please. 2aprilboy talk 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) HPV Chang Y, Brewer NT, Rinas AC, Schmitt K, Smith JS (2009). "Evaluating the impact of human papillomavirus vaccines". Vaccine. 27 (32): 4355–62.
doi:
10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.03.008.
PMID
19515467. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and chicken pox Liesegang TJ (2009). "Varicella zoster virus vaccines: effective, but concerns linger". Can. J. Ophthalmol. 44 (4): 379–84.
doi:
10.1139/i09-126.
PMID
19606157. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) So yes there is lots of high quality evidence for vaccination.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)In the history section,this article said that turks used cowpox to inoculate thwmselves,which is false.They used smallpox as the indians and chinese did.The first ones to use cowpox,and therefore the inventors of vaccination,were the english like Jenner.The rest is inoculation.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (a vaccine) to produce immunity to a disease. Vaccines can prevent or ameliorate the effects of infection by many pathogens. There is strong evidence for the efficacy of the influenza vaccine[1], the HPV vaccine[2] and the chicken pox vaccine[3] among others.
Is there some issue being introduced that the reader must elsewhere deduce from the article? Is it strong evidence for the three diseases referenced but overwhelmingly convincing for other vaccines? In the third sentence of the article, "strong evidence" sounds a little strange, almost as if it's a compromise stance. Primarily, why single out three diseases in the first paragraph when it's a general discussion of vaccines?
Is the evidence of the efficacy of vaccines in general "strong" or convincing? It would seem to be the latter, unless there is still room left for doubt and debate. Dynasteria ( talk) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll go along with "strong" and "convincing" being more or less synonymous. My secondary question refers to the purpose of the statement at all and what it's doing in the opening paragraph. Consider: "There is strong (or convincing) evidence that changing a flat tire improves the drivability of a car." That is factually true, but it also allows for a level of doubt that is unwarranted. Everyone knows you should change your tire when you get a flat. It's a small point. It just struck me as odd. Dynasteria ( talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. However, I'm a language guy, not a medical guy. I think it should be factual, like, "Approximately x number of vaccines have been developed and are currently in use. World wide, the most prevalent vaccinations are against a ... b... c... diseases. The efficacy of vaccines is supported by evidence from decades of research and field experience. However, controversy still exists concerning safety, public policy, and overall effectiveness."
There probably are a lot of arguments against vaccination. Some of them may be weak, like saying that you shouldn't change your tire in the middle of a busy freeway, therefore changing a flat tire is dangerous and unadvisable. Those issues would be addressed later in the article. Dynasteria ( talk) 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5W87jAs9mPrcilNDPYP7vxBjqdw?docId=e361bf7682cc43ce998219c5eb2d151e • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering, how can you be creating a vacine for malaria - I believe it is caused by a protist, not a virus, and vaccination solely works against viruses... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.48.161 ( talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
--- Please see my response to similar question at the top of the page under the heading "Vaccination Against Bacteria -- not explained?" Emble64 ( talk) 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the info with the image file, and some of the translations for the caption in different languages date the photo at 1944, while some date it at 1943. I am wondering if either of those dates are even correct, considering that colour photography was very rare in the 1940's, and the photo does not look like the type of colour film that did exist at the time. Thoughts? Anyone certain about this date? Thanks. MsBatfish ( talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
MsBatfish ( talk) 00:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Peter Doherty, Nobel laureate and Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Melbourne University today on Australia's Radio National ( listen 12 minutes in):
Generally if you go to Wikipedia, you'll get a pretty good description. When I've looked at Wikipedia, in the areas I know about, it's generally been very good.
Though he is critical of online content in general. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 02:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Common Chemicals May Weaken Vaccine Response - A study finds disturbing evidence that chemicals found in furniture, fast-food packaging and microwave popcorn bags may compromise children's immune systems. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/exposure-to-common-chemicals-may-weaken-vaccine-response/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I keep seeing the same thing: "vaccination only works if you do it to everybody." [2] Is this discussed in this article in detail somewhere? It is kind of confusing to me: it implies that vaccination will not work if the vaccinated person is exposed to what they are vaccinated against... I mean, to me it implies that if everyone does not get vaccinated, there is no point to get vaccinated because it is useless. (And one can be fairly sure not everyone gets vaccinated.) Is the BBC misguided? Am I missing something? Int21h ( talk) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
What they presumably mean is that for a society to have herd immunity to a disease (whereby a sufficient number of members of a group are immune to a disease that individuals within it who are not immune are in vastly reduced danger of contracting it) an overwhelming majority of the population must be innoculated. Vaccinations will "work" for the individual who is vaccinated regardless of who else is vaccinated. This distinction is relevant for two reasons. (1) There are people in society who through no fault of their own are unable to be vaccinated, and would therefore be at risk unless they are living in a society with herd immunity (2) the claim that vaccination is a purely personal choice is demonstrably false, as herd immunity requires all (or at least most) people to be vaccinated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.35 ( talk) 06:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vRz4IFom
and
Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vS0NxMmf
AND
Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html unreliable fringe source?#ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 ( talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism
I reverted this because the source didn't support the claim of "rebuttal" attributed to it in the article; in fact it seems to be an effective demolition of Wakefield's position. The link's still available through the page history, of course, if anybody wants to see for themselves, but WP:YT suggests that it could be a contributory copyright violation. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
As this section has its own subsidiary article, dealing with the topic in detail, is there scope for trimming it back a bit? There seems to be a risk of giving it undue prominence here; this article is supposed to be dealing with the whole topic of vaccination, in broad terms. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel like the history of vaccination should begin with mithridatism, i.e. long before the 16th century, since that practice included exposure to venoms that presumably elicited an antigen response. Admittedly, finding references for this is difficult: some sources say that vaccination was akin to mithridatism ( [4] and [5] page 11) but it is harder to find a source that says that mithridatism ever truly was a form of vaccination, or more correctly of inoculation as the article presents. Wnt ( talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer removed my previous entry http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vaccination&curid=32473&diff=570499061&oldid=570497322 and noted "NVIC is not a RS here (or anywhere, for that matter). This type of event isn't worthy of inclusion. ". I ask now for other opinions - why this section shouldn't be worthy to be included: On March 22, 2010, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials adhering to the precautionary principle advised American doctors to suspend use of Rotarix vaccine until the agency finds out why DNA from a swine virus (porcine circovirus 1 or PCV1) was found in the live rotavirus vaccine. [1] Direct link to FDA announcement http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm205625.htm Although this is not an isolated incident, contamination and following affected people is a rather broad circumstance, see Polio Vaccination and Simian virus 40 in humans http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1941725/ Prokaryotes ( talk) 07:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); line feed character in |journal=
at position 17 (
help)
Over 300 peer reviewed studies are associated with adverse effects of vaccination, they are listed and sourced here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-vaccine-research# Because of the amount of data there should be a section on adverse effects which vary depending on the specific vaccination Prokaryotes ( talk) 08:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
July 12, 2013, The new data shows autism is strongly linked to type 1 diabetes another epidemic inflammatory disease where the epidemic has been proven to be caused by vaccines. The new paper is authored by immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD."We have been publishing for many years that vaccine induced inflammation is causing an epidemic of type 1 diabetes and other diseases. Our new data, as well as the extensive data from others regarding the role of inflammation in the development autism, leaves little doubt vaccines play a significant role in the autism epidemic," says Dr. J. Bart Classen, MD. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130712-904463.html Prokaryotes ( talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The user Killer Chihuahua recently reverted a legitimate addition https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vaccination&curid=32473&diff=570971095&oldid=570969095 As pointed out is there a citation missing about the claim that several vaccine makers stopped production. And he removed the addition of the study on "vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease". The full section on adverse effects as of August 31, 2013.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
There is a phenomenom, and there are people, and orgnaisations, and they probably deserve a very small section here. There was a page called antivaccinationism, but a group of editors objected greatly to it, and it is currently called something else. It started before the word vaccination was coined - by Jenner from Vacca for cow - and is a continuation of the fuss over inoculation. One of the natural experiments carried out in the new American colonies around 1721 was kindly repeated in the 19th century, at the instigation of the antivaccinationists, and with the same result. http://www.ganfyd.org/index.php?title=Natural_experiments_in_medicine A pathognomic feature of these people is that they seek to turn every article touching on an aspect of immunisation into one on adverse efects, and are impervious to argument. Midgley ( talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vaccination. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just commenting here to show that the IP editor was indeed correct in their edit here. Verified in the source text at Google Books. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 04:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Cost-effectiveness of vaccination
Vaccination: The Best Return on Investment
http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/ethics/vaccination-the-best-return-on-investment
By Vaclav Smil
28 Jun 2017
Reporting on a study reported in Health Affairs in 2016.
The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
"The highest rewards were for averting measles: a 58-fold return, with a range from 29 to 105" [benefit 29 to 105 times cost, most likely range 58 times cost]
Report on this study:
Sachiko Ozawa1, Samantha Clark, Allison Portnoy, Simrun Grewal, Logan Brenzel and Damian G. Walker
Return On Investment From Childhood Immunization In Low- And Middle-Income Countries, 2011–20
DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1086
Health Aff February 2016 vol. 35 no. 2 199-207