Talk:Anti-vaccination movement

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Vaccine denialism)
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon vax.svg

This Anti-vaccination movement related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>


[edit] WHO Fraud

Now we're getting to the gist of the matter. The whole vaccine thing is a massive fraud run by the WHO. Of course. How dumb of us not to see that. How could we be so naive to believe otherwise. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If restricting the diagnostic criteria in the middle of a vaccination campaing is not fraud, then it must be "vaccine science". Anyway you want to call it the result is the same. (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If pointing out that there were 200,000-400,000 cases of what was assumed to be polio each year in India, and that following the polio vaccination, that number SIGNIFICANTLY dropped to 16,000-60,000 found over a span of 4+ years (since your so bad at math, that's at most 15,000 cases each year)... then no, it's not fraud. It just turned out that in the end, while polio was certainly the BIGGEST threat there, there were other virus' hiding in its shadow that mimic polio's symptoms but were in the end unaffected by the vaccine. That's not fraud since the polio was eradicated there, just as they said. Nergali (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
When you draw a conclusion by comparing assumed figures to actual figures, your conclussion is usually wrong. Plesase do yourself a favour and go back to evening school. (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Or I could use actual sources, unlike you. Sources like: , which is from before the mass polio vaccination. Of course you'll probably pull something else out of your ass in order to claim how this "doesn't count". Nergali (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
""before the mass polio vaccination"" - Nergali
When diagnosis was "clinical only - unconfirmed" and therefore overblown by any cause of AFP. Then you compare it to today's figures that are "lab confirmed" and draw that conclussion that ... never mind, same moron, different time of the day. (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
So now you're in denial. You claim there was hardly any polio (if at all, you said at one point). If that were the case, then please explain why the number of polio/polio-like (aka paralysis) cases has dropped so significantly following the mass vaccination. I mean if we went by your bizarre logic that that polio was nonexistent (or just about) in India, then shouldn't the mass polio vaccination have done nothing whatsoever, instead of what we actually see? Nergali (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
How can rejecting an unproven claim be "denial"? Of all the "polio" diagnoses before the mass polio vaccination none has ever been lab confirmed. It could be any form of AFP including poliovirus, of course. You pretend the majority was poliovirus which is a claim with no proof and a denial of dozens of causes for AFP. (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yet if the numbers significantly decreased down from 200,000-400,000 cases to just 40,000 following the polio vaccinations... what exactly do you think happened? What else could the vaccinations have targeted if not the polio virus? Nergali (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
""the number of polio/polio-like (aka paralysis) cases has dropped so significantly following the mass vaccination"" - Nergali
I see.. so an excess 40,000 cases of AFP in "polio free" India is a decrease. The moron again... (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well seeing as 40,000 is significantly less than 200,000-400,000 cases per year... Yes, that would be considered a markable decrease. I understand that you're bad at math but come on, even that should be simple enough for someone like you. Nergali (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Source: "In 2011, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralysed in the year, over and above the standard 2/100,000 non-polio AFP that is generally accepted as the norm ... this large excess in the incidence of paralysis was not investigated as a possible signal, nor was any effort made to try and study the mechanism for this spurt in non-polio AFP" (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
2/100,000... wow, that's sure is smaller compared to the old 20-40/100,000 they used to have. So yes, once again we see a marked decrease compared to what as had before the vaccinations. We also reconfirm that you're not so good at math. Nergali (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
""2/100,000... wow, that's sure is smaller compared to the old 20-40/100,000 they used to have"" - Nergali
Dipshit, 2/100,000 is what's considered a normal incidence, but the article says OVER AND ABOVE the standard 2/100,000. You're seriously autistic. (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Awww, now your resulting to insults based on a mental illness, isn't that cute. Also nice of you to completely dodge the fact that incident rate of viral-based paralysis used to be 20-40 per 100,000 before the vaccinations. Perhaps your reading comprehension is also as bad as your math skills Nergali (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
What's 47,500 excess in child paralysis? The WHO won't give a flying fuck if it's not "their polio". Before mass vaccination all AFP cases could be hyped as "poliovirus" to sell the WHO's "vaccine solution". Now that the old horse is sold the excess AFP can be ignored. (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If only they provided evidence, then they'd be somewhere... or if that article you just linked didn't claim that one of the major threats India faces now is that since wild polio is gone, future generations will be at risk from, amongst other sources, what essentially equates to terrorists synthesizing and releasing polio into the county. And one wonders why that article has so few links outside of anti-vaccination websites. Nergali (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
""wild polio is gone"" - Nergali
Before claiming "being gone" you must prove it was there in the first place. Since no lab-confirmations were performed before the vaccination campaign, the evidence of mass poliovirus is zero. All that can be said based on the cases is there was a massive AFP problem. This is exactly the same problem India is facing today. A problem made worse by the vax campaing. Thanks to the WHO fior their massive misdiagnosis and the bogus vaccine "solution" that diverted billions fron the real issue: AFP. (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey buddy, don't quote mine, it was your source that says that wild polio gone, so in other words even the people of India agree that polio was present. And how was it a misdiagnosis if the rate went down from 20-40 per 100,000 to 1-2 per 100,000 following vaccinations? You've yet to provide an actual explanation for that.Nergali (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"the rate went down from 20-40 per 100,000 to 1-2 per 100,000 following vaccinations" - Nergali
That's your autistic misinterpretation I had addressed before. The paper doesn't say that and you know it. You're so obviously shilling. (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Citing what a paper actually states = autistic misinterpretation. Also, you never actually addressed it. You stated that it doesn't count because those cases weren't lab confirmed for polio and could have had any number of causes of AFP. Yet that still ignores the fact that before the vaccinations, the rate was 20-40 per 100,000 and that afterwards it was 1-2 per 100,000. That's still a SIGNIFICANT drop in cases, with the only logical explanation that the majority of those cases were polio, otherwise the vaccination would have had no affect whatsoever on those numbers. The fact that you continue to ignore this and go into little hissy fits is rather damning of your argument. And really, calling me a shill for not blindly agreeing with you? Are you really going to sink that low to claim that anyone points out how you're wrong "must be working for BIG PHARMA"? Do you even realize how much of a conspiracy nut that makes you sound like? Nergali (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Question - to what extent is it the human body 'reacting in a similar way to different diseases' (ie '*any* infection to part x causes reaction y')? (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccinosis

If there's no entry for "vaccinosis" in the databases of the WHO and the CDC (which are NOT scientific institutions), then the following paper might provide a solid base for one:

Evidence that Food Proteins in Vaccines Cause the Development of Food Allergies and Its Implications for Vaccine Policy

"..Nobel Laureate Charles Richet demonstrated over a hundred years ago that injecting a protein into animals or humans causes immune system sensitization to that protein. Subsequent exposure to the protein can result in allergic reactions or anaphylaxis. This fact has since been demonstrated over and over again in humans and animal models. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) confirmed that food proteins in vaccines cause food allergy, in its 2011 report on vaccine adverse events. The IOM’s confirmation is the latest and most authoritative since Dr. Richet’s discovery. Many vaccines and injections contain food proteins. Many studies since 1940 have demonstrated that food proteins in vaccines cause sensitization in humans. Allergens in vaccines are not fully disclosed. No safe dosage level for injected allergens has been established." (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a 'for-pay' junk journal [1]. It makes its money charging authors to publish, and doesn't care about paper quality or peer review. The company also runs scam conferences. The only people who might want their papers to appear in that journal are cranks who want a veneer of legitimacy without pesky peer review. Given that Vinu Arumugham doesn't seem to have a web presence beyond this highly questionable paper and comments on woo sites and no publication history, she's probably one of those cranks. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to spoil your "lack of authority" fallacy, the paper has been admitted for publication at the National Cancer Institute (see page 12) Frontiers in Basic Immunology 2015145.64.134.245 (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a poster, not publication, you fuckwit. It goes through no peer review, and is often used by students as a way to get their work noticed before it's ready for publication. What you have there, is someone without research qualifications (note the 'Mr'.), who paid a vanity scam journal to publish a single-author crank paper and finagled one poster slot out of 50 at a minor conference. We don't even know if they turned up to display the poster, let alone whether anyone thought what it contained was nonsense or not! A little research using the yahoo address listed shows us that field, if any, is computing, not medicine. Standard Salem hypothesis crank, then. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice load of self-serving justifications for lacking the guts and educational background for reading a paper good enough to get the National Cancer Institute interested. No balls no game! What have you ever "postered", dimwit? (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you even understand the concept of peer-review?--Petey Plane (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
We're up against "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You're asking us to accept a highly controversial paper on the strength of one vanity journal and one posting. And then, when we fail to be suckered convinced you go to personal abuse. Who the hell do you think you're going to convince with arguments like that? Oh, and I did "have the guts" to read the paper - it's very lacking in any actual data. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
By dismissing the fact that parenterally administered proteins induce immune responses you're dismissing the working principle of vaccines. You threw out the baby with the bathwater, moron. (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The NCI wasn't interested, you dumbfuck. An organising committee for one conference sponsored by the NCI felt that the poster, sight unseen, met the minimum standards to get up on a wall alongside 50 other posters. The reality doesn't sound so impressive, does it? I read the paper, you numbskull. I'm not wasting my time to see if it fairly represents the other papers it cites because it's bloody obvious that the totality is a pile of hogwash. Has it not occurred to you that you might be trying to argue with academics who can see right through the the tissue of faux-legitimacy that's suckered you in? Queexchthonic murmurings 17:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Literal citation from the NCI comference pamphlet: "I would like to acknowledge informative discussions with Dr. Polly Matzinger, National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Dr. Calman Prussin, NIH/NIAID". That's a lot more attention from 3 different heath institutes than a rationalwiki conservative herd-head can digest without blowing up. (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
? All that says it that he corresponded with them. For all we know, they dismissed his claims and told him to stop bothering them. A crank would claim that kind of interaction as 'informative discussions'. Assuming, of course, that he contacted them at all, which we don't know, because the 'paper' was published in a vanity journal with no peer-review. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The citation is literal from page 12 of this NIC publication, retardo. Now care to share the link to your "they dismissed his claims and told him to stop bothering them" addition that so strongly smells like pulledoutofyerass. (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The referenced abstract reads not as any kind of experimental evidence, but as an editorial or an extremely non-systematic review. It's evidentiary value, if any, would come from its sources and not from the poster itself.
I have, in fact, "postered" in similar NIH-sponsored conferences. I've been one of the poster reviewers, too. For many conferences, the criteria is relatively low since this category often represents junior investigators, early findings, or things not good enough to actually get published as a full scientific article. The poster serves two purposes in my academic world: 1) an extra entry showing evidence of academic productivity (i.e. CV fodder) and 2) foreshadowing of a possibly legitimate paper that may eventually undergo a real peer review. MarmotHead (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems pretty standard for vaccine deniers. 1 single poster applied for a spot in a single spot anyone can pay for with zero evidence, experimental studies, peer review, or even scientific knowledge by the person who made it and they feel like their pet idea is right. Thousands of accredited papers, research studies, presentations (more than posters) at national/international conferences, by legitimate researchers with actual education/experience/data over decades (and a centuries for smallpox) are suddenly wrong. Confirmation bias and stupidity to the extreme. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] deleted new section

I deleted the new section ("Bullshit that anti-vaxxers use to justify their beliefs") not because it was wrong, but it didn't quite work. Ordinarily, I'd leave rough stuff in for someone to polish, but, for this cover story article, I think new material has to be better to stick around. Also, some of the new section's material was covered elsewhere either in the "Premise" section or in various other more specific examples. Feel free to polish it up elsewhere and talk here or try it again. MarmotHead (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Do videos "In a Nutshell" and a flood of text make this a good article?

Compared to how it looked a year ago, this article has since then grown FAT. Now, I'm not saying that anything added since then has been false or wrong, I'm just saying that this article is starting to have the same problem that the Gamergate article had. It's too long to be comfortably read in one go. This is not an unknown issue; Wikipedia has an entire section on how tl;dr can ruin articles. I especially think it's a mistake to slap multiple videos in the article. At best, we should add links to videos at the very end of the article. Embedding multiple videos everywhere in the article is silly as who has time to watch them, when we're already having trouble to read the article itself? It's also ridiculous that the very first section begins with a MASSIVE quote; couldn't this be instead incorporated into the article itself? In fact, I'd say that our article already says pretty much the same. It's starting to look like we're trying to advertise as many youtube channels as we can; when we should instead try to present this wiki's words on the matter.

One year ago, this article deserved the golden brainstar. I can't say the same about the current version. Typhoon (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you raise an important point here (aside from the fact that the article does not start with a massive quote, but a tiny quote. The next segment has a moderately sized quote that sums up the issue perfecly, as is relevant to that section). The article is certainly better than it was a year ago, and I'm very much generally in favor of "In a nutshell" video segments from trustworthy channels (I only add from high quality sceptical sources - to any article where such segments have been included - such as KurzGesagt, inFact, SciShow, CrashCourse, Veritasium, It's OK To Be Smart, QualiaSoup and HealthCare Triage). That being said - while encouraging a discussion prior to editing - I think the current implementation in this particular article is imperfect, and you raise a proper issue. I certainly don't think the gold star is at risk, so we're at 1-1 in regards to that. But again, your concerns are valid - in my view - and we should figure out ways that preserve the additional content (and indeed, open for yet more additions) but without resulting in article bloat. My two cents, like yours. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with embedding multiple videos, and telling our readers to watch them if they want to understand our article. As I said before, videos should be only added at an "External links" section at the bottom of the article. Making it appear like our readers have to interrupt their reading at multiple points to watch a video is absurd. It's certainly not how Wikipedia does it, and their article on this subject is much, much better[wp], especially from a stylistic point of view. If these videos bring any new facts that our article doesn't, then it should be included in text form. If these videos explain the same thing as our article in a better way, then that's just a challenge for us to do better. Typhoon (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, the massive quote I was referring to was the one you call "moderately sized". It's big enough to be its own section. Typhoon (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the videos to the bottom of the article. That way anyone who's interested can find them there and watch them, while at the same time we preserve the flow of the article. Also, please don't add Maddox aka "I punch kids in the face". Someone so incredibly polarizing and who's also a person with no background in science or medicine will NOT change anyone's mind. Typhoon (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What I said above still applies. Typhoon (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
You say all sorts of things. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Maddox quote

It's a bit rubbish because the '99%' part implies that in the absence of a reason why 99% don't develop autism, then no link can be shown. This is inaccurate. You can have a causative link with low penetrance. I get what he's trying to say, but he's fucked up what he was trying to get across. We can do better than quotes where someone has fucked up what they were trying to say. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, to read that quote in the way you describe here requires a significant degree of anal retentiveness. First of all, he literally says "you know that some kids who've been vaccinated develop autism". That's a clear admission, via the quantifier some, of the existence of a minute percentile that actually has the disease, per science. So he's clearly not saying that a large number has to be involved for correlation to also be causatively linked — which absolves him of your low penetrance criticism. Furthermore, he's also clearly pointing out that you haven't controlled for all the other variables, such as diet, genetics, environment, chance mutations, related disabilites or simply the higher diagnosis rate due to greater awareness. Notice the quantifiers such as and or — these show definitively that he's not making his statement in exclusion of what you claim. It's not until these very overt premises are given that he tosses in the obviously true statement, plus "you can't explain why the 99% of people who have been vaccinated didn't develop autism", which marks the giving of a separate hypothesis and is not itself a pillar of the prior comments on the original hypothesis, that "kids who are vaccinated do develop autism". All in all, it's a great quote. Relevant and snarky. And there's tons of sections that could use more quotes of this quality, so if your point is that other quotes should be included, please add such where sourced and reliable in addition to this one. There really is no problem here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It's inaccurate because Maddox has no background in science or medicine. He's an internet loudmouth who boasted about how he wants to punch kinds in the face. It's hypocritical for us to denounce anti-vaxxers for getting their info from uneducated simpletons, and then do the same to support a pro-vaccine position. Typhoon (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Another thing is that the number one issue that anti-vaxx parents fear about the well-being of their children. Maddox, is NOT someone you use for that. His hatred of kids is infamous and absolutely no parent will listen to him. In fact, his inclusion in this article will be used by anti-vaxxers as proof that we source our claims from child-hating assholes. Typhoon (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Your first statement is quite literally:
It's inaccurate because Maddox has no background in science or medicine. He's an internet loudmouth who boasted about how he wants to punch kinds in the face. It's hypocritical for us to denounce anti-vaxxers for getting their info from uneducated simpletons, and then do the same to support a pro-vaccine position.
Your second statement isn't much better:
Another thing is that the number one issue that anti-vaxx parents fear about the well-being of their children. Maddox, is NOT someone you use for that. His hatred of kids is infamous and absolutely no parent will listen to him. In fact, his inclusion in this article will be used by anti-vaxxers as proof that we source our claims from child-hating assholes.
You could be quoted for a few mainspace articles yourself, you know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
He's setting up 'what anti-vaxxers would do if they actually tried science', distinct from and more reasonable than what they often argue (Autism pandemic!!!!one). He brings up valid confounding concerns for the first version, which is great. Then he throws in a criticism that's only valid for the second version, but it's placement and lack of qualifiers suggest that it's also valid for the first. For those of us who know the field well, it's obvious that it's not meant in that way. In my experience, people who aren't statisticians or medicos can easily be tripped up by that sort of thing and come away with a false impression. It's a very small science communication cock-up, but it's less than stellar for what's ostensibly a science communication article for non-experts. The quote is overlong anyway, for the section it's placed in. It can be fixed by slinging some ellipses in there. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. And actually, I think you might be on to something here, buddy. While I would contend that what you call "him setting up what anti-vaxxers would do if they actually tried science" is, in fact, a completely apt description of the exact "methodology" of the anti-vaxxers — and thus highly relevant to the article — it's fair enough that the quote can be, as you put it, fixed by slinging some ellipses in there. (Perhaps the quote could also be moved in full to a segment on how the Anti-vaxxers think, rather than standing under "scientific reasons"?)
Anyway, I'd love to see you put those ellipses you suggested where you think they would best elucidate the quote, in light of these points you've made here. Do that and put the doctored quote back in the article so we can consider what that looks like! Maybe it'll be perfect? Also, you suggesting we do so, and me supporting you doing it makes two editors. They'd need atleast two editors in opposition to stop us from testing this. So give it your best shot, Queex. Th hug.gif Worst case, the quote just belongs in another article, e.g. on skepticism or methodology. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools