Talk:Anti-vaccination movement

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

This denialism 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.

Goldenbrain.png

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

Contents

[edit] Where an I add this comic?

Anti-vax comic.png
ClickerClock (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Your own user page would be the best place since it looks like crap (poor drawing, poor lettering). Bongolian (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
HA, ha, very funny. I can do better:
Cell+soft.png
ClickerClock (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
So redo the comic in this quality and then talk about putting it on the page. Hertzy (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Or don't. What are you trying to say with the comic that isn't already better explained in the article text? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
You got a point. ClickerClock (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Freeloaders

Vaccine refusers depend on a free ride, counting on herd immunity to keep them (or their children) free of the diseases they refuse to immunize against. There is fodder for a campaign of shame and blame there. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would this freeloading be something bad that carries blame and shame? How can the vaccinated possibly be at a disadvantage here?145.64.134.241 (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Because the anti-vaxxers profit form something they spout bullshit about.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The point of herd immunity is to have the unimmunized profitting from it. Shouldn't we all be glad they do?145.64.134.241 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The point of vaccination is to protect individuals, and to form herd immunity. There are valid medical reasons not to vaccinate some individuals, such as babies under a certain age, or people (e.g. transplant recipients) with compromised immune systems. Diluting the herd immunity for specious non-medical reasons puts those vulnerable individuals at risk, for no fault of their own. That is blameworthy and shameful. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Then I take it that all vax-pushers religiously take their adult vaccinations and booster shots (here's the checklist) so as "not to dilute herd immunity", otherwise they'd be endangering vulnerable individuals just as blamefully and shamefully as anti-vaxers are. Ready to put arms and buttocks where your mouths are?145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"vax-pushers"? Nice try. How about "responsible adults" instead? I don't know about "all" of us, but when my primary doc recommends it, I take the shot without complaint. The most recent one was about a year ago. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Good boy. Now a responsible adult seeks protection from both illness and injury, including vaccine injury. Health can be helped in a variety of ways than by vaccination alone, but there's only one way to prevent vaccine injury and that's avoiding vaccines.145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Vehicular safety can be helped in a variety of ways than by seatbelts alone, but there's only one way to prevent injuries due to seatbelts and that's avoiding wearing seatbelts". Wow, what logic. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The usual moron bringing up seatbelts was sorely missing. If a seat belt could cause autism, learning disabilities, allergies, asthma and a long list of autoimmune diseases and death without mediation of a traffic accident, then the comparison would be less unfortunate. Next!82.161.30.183 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Which vaccines don't cause either, so fuck off.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Look! another moron that has never read an insert! Here ... Tripedia: Diphtheria and Tetanus DTaP Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine, page 11.195.40.6.43 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Emphasis mine: "In the German case-control study and US open-label safety study in which 14,971 infants received Tripedia vaccine, 13 deaths in Tripedia vaccine recipients were reported. Causes of deaths included seven SIDS, and one of each...: enteritis, [genetically inherited] Leigh Syndrome, [genetically inherited] adrenogenital syndrome, cardiac arrest, motor vehicle accident, and accidental drowning... [the rate of SIDS in the vaccine study was] 0.8/1,000 vaccinated infants and the reported rate of SIDS [in the U.S. general population at the time was] 1.5/1,000 live births [which is higher than reported in the study]... [Reports of autism, neuropathy, etc.] were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because [these reports] are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship." It even says right there that a connection cannot be proven based solely on those reports (and as we've seen from other studies, they aren't), and they're just listing at least some of them because those conditions are serious regardless of the cause. As for the intestinal infection and heart attack, 1 out of 15,000 isn't exactly significant enough to be proof of a causal relationship (unless you think vaccines cause car crashes too?) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I tend to take medical advice from fully trained medical personnel. If they recommend that a vaccine is necessary then I take it without question. Others, it seems, take their medical advice from quacks and woo pushers on the internet. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
How is a doctor or pediatrician "fully trained" in the area of vaccines? Please post a link to a university textbook teaching aspiring practitioners how to assess the risk and of vaccine injury and, once perpetrated, how to recognise it.145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a series of courses in clinical epidemiology, which all physicians are required to take, and textbooks vary according to the school. What is your training and education that makes your ideas superior to a decade of medical education, internship, residency, and (sometimes) fellowship status? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
In Britain it's not even the GP who makes the decision - it's the NHS who, in turn, rely on those who really do know. And if you're going to say that they're all in the pay of big pharma then I'd be careful of whom you insult. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
At least you admit doctors are as clueless as the patients they recommend vaccines to. When vaccine injury materializes he remains as clueless as he was. You can then contact the "big minds" in the NHS... good luck!145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I never for one moment suggested that the GP was "clueless" - talk about putting words in other peoples mouths. I'm saying that the safety and efficacy of vaccines is determined by appropriate - and independent - bodies. The GP hasn't got the resources to conduct 15 year double blind studies; other have. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for others but uhhh... yes? They're few and far between, and my insurance through work pays for vaccines so it's just a matter of dropping by. Got my flu shot last week at Walgreens, Tdap was in 2012 IIRC, meningococcal, MMR booster, and HPV was 2008ish 'cause of college stuff, and I don't need the others as I don't fall into those risk groups. The next non-Flu shot I need is almost a decade away, as I recall. Really, it's not like people are stabbing you with needles each month. (Oh and even if I didn't, Tu quoque. It's a nice read.) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Tu quoque may be fallacious as an argument, but it's legitimate regarding the hypocrisy of the opponent, which was my point.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so you were just mudslinging. Gotcha. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
First notice that vaccine injury is of "specious" and "non medical" nature. I'm learning a lot with you guys (about your religious mindset).145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've challenged you link vaccine-related material that's used during their alleged training, but you couldn't. Therefore you're clueless about practicioners being clueless. The picture gets even worse.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that old chestnut. Just because I can't provide details of GP's training you jump to "they must be clueless." Tell me, what training have you had - full links please. And if you can't provide conclusive proof then you must be "clueless" and can be discounted. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I read more clinical trials in one day than your average vaccine-wielding GP has read in his lifetime (do a whois on my IP). Time will eventially teach you... or get you killed.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Except the name of the course, and texts, has been provided and you are too fucking lazy to look it up. Here's a link to one of the texts I have seen used. GJ on not seeing that and being lazy. What is your education and training...not just reading and trials. You asked for the GPs so man up! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You're too fucking lazy to even read the TOC. It's generic and there are no specifics about vaccine injury, the part the should have patients more concerned and that "fully trained" doctors should master how to prevent and diagnose.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
here's what is used in the UK All medical personell MUST have read it and have access to it. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and check out Chapter 8. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I did and this is how the matter of "vaccine injury" is presented to GPs: "Almost all individuals can be safely vaccinated with all vaccines"... "(reactions) most are mild and resolve quickly"... "When an AEFI is coincidental, the event would have occurred even if the individual had not been immunised.". It looks as if GPs are trained to minimize and brush off ãny adverse events. I feel safer now!145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
One book in a series dude (plus you missed chapter 8 as Doxy pointed out), plus a course and practical training. This has been stated several times. Now what's your training and experience. 6th time asking. WHAT IS YOUR TRAINING AND EDUCATION? To be sure you see it this time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
What is yours? You don't stop pontification about vaccines, herd immunity, the polio vaccination campaing and what not. Where should I send you my used mirror?145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You first since you have criticized physician training as inadequate since you know more and have been asked 8 times now why yours should be taken as better and absolutely refuse. I am happy to do so if you lead the way. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I never asked anyone to take my opinion as "better". Red herring there. I have an opinion that was made by studying 1000 x more material (primary sources) than is included in those infantile, 3rd hand indoctrination textbooks. My personal collection of primary scientific papers on vaccines is above 500, and that is what I sifted, many times that I left out.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So no education, training, or knowledge in this besides reading a number of studies that cannot possibly exist or be read in a human lifetime. That one text I linked has 50 I can see which would put your number at 50,000. You make me disappointed in you, and your ideas, as well as making you are a terrible liar. Thank you for providing this in your own words. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"besides reading a number of studies that cannot possibly exist or be read in a human lifetime" - EmeraldCityWanderer It's papers, not books. They're a mere 5 pages on average. If you can't read 500 x 5 = 2,500 pages in your lifetime then you're bottom of the barrel in education. With your moronic remark this thread has reached the maximumn level of retadation. 82.161.30.183 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I would say it would take much longer if people like you read simple things 50,000 as 500 (which is just a couple sentences above), that was an example of a single group of sources from a single book (as stated), plus that's a pretty short example for publication in consumer magazines like Nature. Thank you for the demonstration on the ignorance of those who protest vaccines. That was more valuable than anything else that came out of this discussion. I really appreciate it. Please respond again so more fails can be written into record. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You assume that all GPs have read the 50 papers cited in their indoctrination textbooks, I don't simply because it's not necessary to pass the exams. I generously concede that 1 in 100 GBs might have actually read them out of genuine interest, which amounts to reading 0.5 papers per GB. You're a moron making ungranted ass-uptions.82.161.30.183 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"I have an opinion that was made by studying 1000 x more material (primary sources) than is included in those infantile, 3rd hand indoctrination textbooks." - - 145.64.134.241 One textbook has 50 sources, 50*1,000 = 50,000 for one source. *DERP* 3rd repeat on pointing this out. I can't believe this is real anymore, this is gone beyond stupid. I think you are just trolling anti-vaxxers. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The difference between "sources cited" and sources actually studied and read is too much for your undersized intellect to comprehend.195.40.6.43 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Even if true (which isn't), the vaccinated shouldn't care because they believe vaccines are protecting them. Since they also believe vaccines poses no significant risk, the rap about "free ride" is just as bogus. They didn't give up anyting by taking the vaccine, it's the opposite, they believe they've gained. Now they suddenly they feign concern for the unvaccinated, how sweet of them.82.161.30.183 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Even if true (which isn't)," Oh, care to demonstrate this now? You've failed to do so elsewhere so far. "the vaccinated shouldn't care because they believe vaccines are protecting them." Or they're normal human beings and care about preventing human suffering and death. Or about those infected infecting others who might not have taken the vaccine yet, have compromised immune systems, etc... you know, like any decent human being should? "Since they also believe vaccines poses no significant risk," Which anti-vacinations groups continue to fail to show any significant risks other than imaginary ones. "the rap about "free ride" is just as bogus." So reality and science is a "rap" now? Are you even paying attention to what exactly it is you're saying? "They didn't give up anyting by taking the vaccine," Besides the risk of infection to themselves and others, of course... and death... and anything else that comes with said infection, simply because they refused to get vaccinated. "it's the opposite, they believe they've gained." What exactly have people who don't take vaccinations gained? You're... you're not gonna tell us, are you? "Now they suddenly they feign concern for the unvaccinated, how sweet of them." Ya, how dare those people who take vaccinations feel empathy for others, for trying to prevent needless suffering, death, etc... by attempting to prevent outbreaks of disease (like what happened to that Amish community). What complete monsters they are. Nergali (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
All my comments you highlight in bold were directed to the vaccinated and their belief system. You got is backasswards as it's usual in you. You're fooling yourself, not the intelligent readers. Nergali, are you autistic? 82.161.30.183 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the vaccinated's belief system. That science works and blathering nonsense like yours is exactly that. If there is a belief system given by a jab of the needle it's the best one to get. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Because vaccine "science" has "proven" that the vaccinated have everyting to gain from vaccines at no cost of risk, accusing the unvaccinated of freeloading is woo. The accusation denotes internal "religious" doubts about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. It denotes feelings of being in danger in spite of vaccination and having taken a risk with the vaccines that other refused to take. This is so obviously contrary to the claim of vaccine "science" of vaccines being "safe and effectve", therefore laughable emotional woo.82.161.30.183 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So now he's comparing vaccination to religion and that it's woo to follow what the scientific majority has demonstrable demonstrated to be true. Yep, I think we might have broke him a bit. At this rate I expect him to start ranting about conspiracies and such to keep the "anti-vaccination groups down". Nergali (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Well no. Actually he acknowledges vaccines as "safe and effective" and therefore the accussation of "freeloading" is based on the irrational fear that their vaccines would fail or would have caused them harm, which is ridiculous.145.64.134.241 (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it just looks like he doesn't understand everything in quotes. Like "proven" doesn't mean clinical trials, safety trials, follow up studies... you know science instead of a pastor just thinking of stuff over a glass of wine. It's a sign of a mental disability to conflate wildly disparate things as the same because the person doesn't understand either. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Like "proven" doesn't mean clinical trials, safety trials, follow up studies..." - EmeraldCityWanderer Actually, the term "proven" also (usually) means studies like these: "the review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies...", Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jul 7. You're strangely prone to overlook this interesting facet of "scientific" vaccine research.145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, which was a warning about industry studies versus independent public studies in an earlier review in 2007 (~7 years ago). Please read what you cite as it also says: The harms evidence base is limited. and Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. that directly contradict what you have said. If you are going to quote mine find source material that doesn't contradict you. This is also for the flu, which mutates fast, and not for more serious diseases like Polio and Measles. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Cochrane's review was not about mutating viruses, but rather about the "mutating" conclussions that usually go unnoticed and eventually end up making mandatory vaccine policy. Trust the "experts" at your own risk. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So you just cherry picked the sentence you liked and ignored the rest. That's not how anything works. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So I "cherry picked"? Then please explain the context I left out and turns widespread manipulation of conclusions into something praiseworthy and acceptable to you.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That's what that is, picking one sentence out of a study and ignoring the rest. Like the 2 selections you think aren't important and debunk what you have said. Please inform me the training and experience you have in this? This is the 7th time I have asked for this information yet you dodge every time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I was ready to accept your accusation if you could correct me, which you can't. Therefore you agree with the meaning of widespread manipulation of conclusions in the context of the abstract as I posted. If not, come back with a correction, not another hysterical fit. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] to the vaccinated and their belief system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0 And I feel that this link covers my opinion of what he said. Nergali (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Herd immunity denial

Immunity of a herd requires over 95% of the cattle being immune. Since vaccine antibodies wane in anything between 4-10 years, most adults have lost the "protection" of their childhood vaccines by the time they reach their 30's. This leaves the vast majority of the population "exposed". Herd immunity is herefore a myth. Where are the dead bodies littering the streets the vaccine pushers predicted for such a situation?145.64.134.241 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"the dead bodies littering the streets the vaccine pushers predicted" Congratulations, that's the most hyperbolic straw man I've seen this week. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If herd immunity went away like this then we would have seen additional cases 4-10 years after the first immunizations started a number of decades ago. Not now that immunization rates are dropping. Misunderstanding biology FTW. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Ad Consequentiam. You falsely assume the spread of infectious diseases it's only prevented by vaccines, then you refuse to admit the lack of herd immunity because it would destroy your belief. However, the diphteria vaccine, for example, does not claim to prevent transmission or infection, only claims prevent the individual to show symptoms. The lifetime of these antibodies is 10 years, according to the CDC, which makes herd immunity impossible unless there's massive boosting of the population every 10 years, which is not the case. This means we have no frigging idea of how many adult carriers are walking around, yet the obvious lack of "herd immunity" does not translate in epidemics, contrary to the predictions of the vaccine pushers.145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Then what actually prevents the spread of disease that every doctor, health organization, and scientists does not actually see? Don't play coy and point it out. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The same factors that were causing a steady decline in incidence and mortality before the vaccines: " "Better economic conditions felt in fewer deaths (Berkeley Daily Gazette - Dec 27, 1935); "America sets up a new health record in 1930" (The Deseret News - Feb 27, 1931). I't not my fault if doctors chose to ignore history and let the industry re-write it for them instead.145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you even read the sources from the 1930's? They say it fell this year to ~5 deaths per hundred in the early season for the year...which even they say just happens. Compared to vaccines rates of adverse effects of 1 in 10,000 (not fatal). Even if they were dropping slightly taking a vaccine drops the rate from 5% of fatal events to .01% of usually getting the sniffles or muscle aches. If anyone chooses the likelihood of dying at 5% over getting a usually mild reaction 1 in 10,000 times...they should get a mental eval if they choose the first. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It's ~5 deaths per hundred cases, not per 100 inhabitants. The per-capita rate is much lower because it's that figure divided by the incidence. In contrast, the adverse effects of mass vaccination apply to the population at large. The vaccine rate of 1:10,000 "mild" reaction (everything vaccine is always deemed "mild") has been pulled pout of you arse. In one single year, the mortality rate of whooping cough dropped by 26% without vaccines, measles saw a decline in 81% mortality of measles since 1911 without vaccines ... scarlet fever, where did this childhood illness go? wherever it went vaccines were never involved. And so on and so forth. The benefits of vaccines haven been overrated from the fact that they've been "piggybacking" all the major improvements in the quality of life, whicah are the real reason for the eradication of diseases.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Never said "inhabitants" don't just make shit up. Secondly, the rate of adverse effects in on the CDC website that is free for all to see, not all of them are mild, and not my butt like your "inhabitants". Scarlet fever is a different it just gets treated with antibiotics which prevents the spread, since it's a combo of strep and a bacteriophage it's harder to transfer if one is not present. You don't know what you are talking about again since modern medicine was involved. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Neither I said you said inhabitants. I pointed out you were comparing a figure that does not apply to the whole ppopualtion (death rate of the diseases) to a figure that does apply to the whole population (adverse events in mass vaccination), thereby exposing your fallacy and your illiteracy in matters of epidemiology. Regarding the CDC, no link means bullshit. The only program to track vaccination adverse events is VAERS and it's not actively enforced, it relies on the victims figuring out their illnees is caused by a vaccine and report it. The underestimation is therefore GROSS and built into the system. In such conditions of bias and institutional disinterest it's fallacious to claim a positive benefit/risk ratio for vaccines.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, I never stated inhabitants...but it was my fallacy and illiteracy in the statement? That's some real world class nonsense there that I am wrong because of something I never said. Which normally one would call a big old fib. As well as declaring yourself the winner by being too lazy to go to the CDC and looking it up. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If you vaccinate your chances of injury are 1:10,000 (as per your ass-drawn figures) but if you don't vaccinate your chances of dying are not 5:100 UNLES you get the disease (you need to multiply 5:100 by the small odds of getting the disease). Your fallacy is comparing apples with pears, proving you are statistically impaired and prone to drawing nonsensical conclussions as a result.82.161.30.183 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for joining us mikemikev. If a lunatic troll with a decade of being pwned comes out in support of the anti-vaccine movement...I think that qualifies as a good gauge how correct the anti-vaccine movement is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
How'd you know, it's mikemikev? Isn't racism his shtick rather than anti-vaxx?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"Ad Consequentiam. You falsely assume the spread of infectious diseases it's only prevented by vaccines, No one here said that. then you refuse to admit the lack of herd immunity because it would destroy your belief." What belief? That vaccines work and are one of the most effective ways to prevent disease? I'm fairly sure that's been shown to be demonstrably true. "However, the diphteria vaccine, for example, does not claim to prevent transmission or infection, only claims prevent the individual to show symptoms." You mean the symptoms that include paralysis, heart problems, trouble breathing, and even death? I'm fairly sure preventing those symptoms is a good thing. Also you forget that since it's first use, new diphtheria cases have gone down by over 90%. "The lifetime of these antibodies is 10 years, according to the CDC, which makes herd immunity impossible unless there's massive boosting of the population every 10 years, which is not the case." You mean like giving them to children, the ones most likely to contract and then spread it? Or people going abroad? Or people helping those infected? "This means we have no frigging idea of how many adult carriers are walking around, yet the obvious lack of "herd immunity" does not translate in epidemics, contrary to the predictions of the vaccine pushers." Or it might mean your just an uneducated dumbass who knows next to nothing about vaccination, which in all likelihood is the more probable answer, especially since you don't seem to have done any research on it whatsoever. Nergali (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that critical thinking isn't your strong suit, and that you aren't one for doing much research, but you do realize that when it comes to vaccinations, one often takes it multiple times throughout their life, right? Let's take polio for an example: Here in the USA, where polio has "essentially" been eradicated, we only vaccinate our children 3-4 times when they're still very young, since that is when they're most vulnerable due to their young immune system. Following this, they are mostly fine, since the likelihood of them getting infected in the USA from a native source is very low, which in turn is what herd immunity represents, more or less. However, should they grow up and one day decide to visit some foreign country, it is highly recommended, if not an outright necessity, that they receive a new vaccination shot so that they don't contract the disease while abroad. If they should not, then there is a good chance that they can get infected, not even know about it, and bring it back. Should an outbreak occur, then vaccinations would be provided to older people, those who will treat infected, etc... in order to improve immunity overall and eventually halt the outbreak. To further this point, a similar event occurred involving measles simply because an Amish missionary went to another country, was misdiagnosed with a different disease while abroad, and when he eventually came home, he spread it throughout his community, who at the time had avoided vaccination out of misguided fear. So ya, this is a thing, and this is why we vaccinate. Nergali (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The US has a number of "tourists" in central Asia right now. Fortunately, one of the perks of military service is immunization from the diseases one is likely to meet at any new station. As an army brat, I had a shot record that had to be kept up to date, especially before overseas tours. Booster shots were included, for the times when the effectiveness of any particular immunization might be fading. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Shhhhh! Stop using evidence, you know this guy doesn't like that. Nergali (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Herd immunity part 2

I presume the 'not too many vaccinations in a short space of time' position would be considered reasonable ('they might overload your immune system'/'the vaccines if attenuated viruses might interbreed')

A slightly different (and from 'a point of reasonablness') version of the question - how big a 'fire break' does vaccination have to create before 'the disease causing viruses' die out of their own accord? (From what I understand this was part of the process of 'eliminating smallpox in the wild' - rather than the probably impossible goal of immunizing everybody, only doing those within a reasonable distance of those who actually caught the disease.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a question that cannot be answered in one blanket statement for all diseases. It depends on how effective the vaccine is, what are its hosts, the mutation rate of the disease, and the dedication of trying to eradicate it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Emerald's right, it does depend on the vaccinations and diseases in question. However, as for the "too many vaccinations in a short space of time", the current implementation of vaccination scheduling is perfectly fine, despite what anti-vaccinations groups might say. Delaying only increases the chance someone has to catch a disease they haven't vaccinated for, most of which tend to strike at a young age (when people have "underdeveloped" immune systems) and as such pose the most risk. In fact, from what I understand, delaying also leads to a person having to take more vaccination shots overall. Nergali (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I found this link that might be able to answer the question better for you. I hope it helps (https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nine-questions-nine-answers/) Nergali (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Assuming the vaccine actually targets the real cause and not a bogus cause, in which case no amount of vaccination can ever erradicate the disease. Think measles, mumps, the flu ... Funny that most people firmly believe smallpox disappeared thanks to a vaccine at a time when the vaccination rates were ridiculously low and far from universal. By those standards there should be no "vaccine preventable" diseases today after decades of >90% vaccination coverage. The story of smallpox doesn't make any sense.195.40.6.43 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Assuming the vaccine actually targets the real cause and not a bogus cause, in which case no amount of vaccination can ever erradicate the disease." That's kinda irrelevant, though, seeing as we're discussing about when the vaccine is "suited" for the disease.
"Think measles, mumps, the flu ..." Think what about them? Our current vaccination system is highly effective against them, it's just that in cases for diseases like the flu, the virus itself has many strains, typically with a certain one becoming more common than all the the rest of its "kin" (selected for, in a way, not unlike with evolution) and thus becomes the main target during the flu season .
"Funny that most people firmly believe smallpox disappeared thanks to a vaccine at a time when the vaccination rates were ridiculously low and far from universal." What is your source for this statement, since from what I recall there was a global effort to get rid of this disease, because of how deadly it was. Where exactly do you think it went then after all the vaccinations?
"By those standards there should be no "vaccine preventable" diseases today after decades of >90% vaccination coverage." Says who? You do realize that not every disease is the same, that virus' mutate, and that if populations don't get vaccinated or are under-vaccinated, then the disease can continue to thrive... right?
"The story of smallpox doesn't make any sense." Perhaps if you haven't done any research, it doesn't, but it's eradication is fairly well documented. Nergali (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"eradication is fairly well documented" - Nergali
It happened by decree. In 1972 the WHO disauthorised the smallpox diagnoses made by more than 100 doctors in India, dismissed the positive lab-confirmations of the local laboratories, took over the right to confirm or deny in its own, WHO-controlled labs, and declared it all to be "chickenpox". The fraud is documented in its finest details in this WHO report: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/SE_WP_72.17.pdf195.40.6.43 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"that virus' mutate, and that if populations don't get vaccinated or are under-vaccinated, then the disease can continue to thrive" - Nergali
All of it is applicable to the smallpox virus, especially the undervaccination part. Therefore there's no way vaccination could have erradicated it. Thanks for proving my point.195.40.6.43 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"It happened by decree. In 1972 the WHO disauthorised the smallpox diagnoses made by more than 100 doctors in India, dismissed the positive lab-confirmations of the local laboratories, took over the right to confirm or deny in its own, WHO-controlled labs, and declared it all to be "chickenpox". The fraud is documented in its finest details in this WHO report: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/SE_WP_72.17.pdf" You might want to read that document a bit closer. It performed tests that showed not only was it the chickenpox virus (a sever case, but it nonetheless), but that no smallpox virus was found in any of the samples... which it also states will continue to be tested if smallpox could not be ruled out until 1972, which even by then no more samples were found, even in the ones you listed. Since you seem to have difficulty distinguishing smallpox from chickenpox, this handy little page should make it easier for you: https://www.iaff.org/ET/Smallpox/How_does_it_differ_from_chickenpox.htm
"All of it is applicable to the smallpox virus, especially the "under-vaccination" part. Therefore there's no way vaccination could have erradicated it. Thanks for proving my point." Except not all virus' mutate at the same rate, or are as easily infectious as the flu is. Smallpox was eradicated due to a global effort. Present actual, supported evidence that it wasn't (and not just off some anti-vaccination website) and then you'll at least have a foot to stand on. Something such as... oh I dunno, a sample of the smallpox virus? Nergali (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"Except not all virus' mutate at the same rate" This is a classical "ad hoc" conjecture or "escape clause". Vaccines can't fail, it's the virus' fault that "mutates". We all know virus mutate, people mutate, the world mutates... anther name is "non explanation".195.40.6.43 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"It performed tests that showed not only was it the chickenpox virus" ... those were the tests done by the WHO in their own labs (conflict of interests). The tests previously done in India's labs gave positive for smallpox ("It is to be noted that at the time, many cases had been confirmed by laboratory testings."). A clear abuse of authority with the WHO being both an interested party and the judge.195.40.6.43 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"you seem to have difficulty distinguishing smallpox from chickenpox" The difficulty is mine? Let's see... Indian doctors at the time were routinely confronted with smallpox. They dagnosed smallpox. The labs confirmed smallpox. READ THE FUCKING WHO PAPER. Get the picture? Now here comes the WHO and denies it all (quote): "A positive laboratory confirmation cannot alone be relied upon as a conclusive evidence of smallpox infection…" .. then who the fuck has the capacity to tell smallpox from other "pustular" diseases? The WHO simpoly closed all avenues of diagnosis except its own. The WHO "erradicated" it by making diagnosis impossible.195.40.6.43 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"This is a classical "ad hoc" conjecture or "escape clause"." How is stating that virus' mutate moving the goal post?
"Vaccines can't fail, it's the virus' fault that "mutates"." Are you saying that virus' don't mutate?
"We all know virus mutate, people mutate, the world mutates... anther name is "non explanation"." Er the world doesn't mutate, seeing as it is not composed of DNA/RNA which would be capable of doing so. The world (otherwise known as Earth) is just a planet.
" ... those were the tests done by the WHO in their own labs (conflict of interests)." Only if you demonstrate that it was smallpox and not chickenpox, which so far you've failed to do.
"The tests previously done in India's labs gave positive for smallpox ("It is to be noted that at the time, many cases had been confirmed by laboratory testings.")." And let me guess, you just forgot your official source for this claim, didn't you? But nonetheless, if this were true, then you should be able to present a modern sample of smallpox and thus expose WHO as lying.
READ THE FUCKING WHO REPORT, dude.195.40.6.43 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"A clear abuse of authority with the WHO being both an interested party and the judge." Which once again you've failed to demonstrate outside of conspiracy-laden ramblings bereft of any clear-cut evidence. Nergali (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
AGAIN, READ THE FUCKING WHO REPORT, dude. Tehre's no "clear cut" evidence because the WHO monopolizes it all at its own convenience. Use your brain and join the dots.195.40.6.43 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've read it, and it doesn't agree with what you claim. And I repeat, if smallpox is still existing, then you should quite easily be able to get a sample of it and demonstrate to the world it's continued existence. However, if you keep relying on claiming that WHO is "hiding the evidence", then yes, all you've done so far is ramble on about conspiracies. Nergali (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"get a sample of it and demonstrate to the world it's continued existence". The WHO refuses any kind of evidence (I quote the WHO report): "A positive laboratory confirmation cannot alone be relied upon as a conclusive evidence of smallpox infection…". , The WHO refused the multiple instances of lab-confirmed evidence fomr India and will refuse mine. The WHO has the last word and it is "there's no more smallpox. Full stop" and denies evidence from anybody else. In Africa it's still so rampant it can't be denied, so the WHO just added a surname to smallpox and called it "monkeypox". It's been reported in the US too. Not gone by far, just denied and renamed! Just like "polio" that is now called AFP. 195.40.6.43 (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"The WHO refuses any kind of evidence (I quote the WHO report):" And why should that matter? There are other groups, and if the evidence is absolute then there would be no questioning.
"A positive laboratory confirmation cannot alone be relied upon as a conclusive evidence of smallpox infection…" Quote mining already? You seem to have forgot the part where it says that if that occurs, it may be a false positive, and that the sample should be tested at two separate labs to confirm the diagnosis. So far this hasn't happened.
"The WHO refused the multiple instances of lab-confirmed evidence fomr India and will refuse mine." You mean the evidence you've failed to provide or even source so far? Or are you referring to the samples that turned out to be chickenpox?
"The WHO has the last word and it is "there's no more smallpox. Full stop" and "denies evidence from anybody else" So in other words, a conspiracy theory? And you wonder why no one here takes you seriously and even refer to you as a troll.
"In Africa it's still so rampant it can't be denied, so the WHO just added a surname to smallpox and called it "monkeypox"." Monkeypox is a different species of poxvirus, just like cowpox is... or are you going to claim that is smallpox also? The fact that you didn't know that shows just how ignorant you are in regards to actual science. But ignoring that, let me continue: monkeypox has been known since the early 1960's (as in 10 years before smallpox was eradicated) and it's known that it's primary host/vector are rodents. It has only begun to infect humans rather recently, most likely because bushmeat is so common in Africa (and is likely the source of several other diseases jumping the species barrier). Thankfully, somewhat, monkeypox is milder than smallpox, though has proven more difficult to treat.
"Not gone by far, just denied and renamed! Just like "polio" that is now called AFP." AFP... you mean the Coxsackia-B that turned out to be the cause of those paralysis cases. Also polio was never declared eradicated, it's just been in decline ever since vaccination programs have been implemented. Of course your argument here falls apart even more since Coxsackie-B isn't affected by the polio vaccine... since it's not the same species, though it's "family" of virus' has been known since the early 1950's and in fact was discovered during the research to create the polio vaccine. Nergali (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Monkeypox is a different species of poxvirus. You don't seem aware of the fact that virological techniques were not available before the 60's. Smallpox on the other hand has a long history. How can we know that most of the "smallpox" in history wasn't actually "monkeypox"? It's impossible, since all diagnoses throughout the bulk of its history were based on clinical symptoms alone. As as we see in the WHO report even experienced doctors could easily mistake smallpox (monkeypox?) and chuckenpox. It's always been a diagnosis chaos and later made even worse by virological chaos. The concept of "pustular disease" did not exist before virology, it was always "smallpox". Virology reclassified that clinical smallpox based on the premise that certain DNA was the cause, a DNA that only showed in a minority of cases with clinilcal "smallpox" (what prompted for "erradication" on paper). You call this "science"?145.64.134.241 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"You don't seem aware of the fact that virological techniques were not available before the 60's." Um... they were available since the 1950's, actually. That's how we discovered rhinoviruses and such. Did you seriously not know that?
"Smallpox on the other hand has a long history." Thank you for stating the obvious.
'"How can we know that most of the "smallpox" in history wasn't actually "monkeypox"?" Because the evidence doesn't support this? Also, you're making a claim here, so you need actual evidence to actually provide to support it.
:"It's impossible, since all diagnoses throughout the bulk of its history were based on "clinical symptoms alone" Well thank goodness we aren't just relying on just "the bulk of history" and instead include the breakthroughs in virology since the very early 20th century.
"As as we see in the WHO report even experienced doctors could easily mistake smallpox (monkeypox?) and chickenpox." You mean the cases you've failed so far to actually show to be smallpox? But, then again, by this very statement your also claiming that those Indian doctors could very well be mistaken... which the facts seem to support. Also it's chickenpox, not chuckenpox.
"It's always been a diagnosis chaos and later made even worse by virological chaos." Well for uneducated sorts like yourself it has, but thank goodness we actually rely on experts instead of you.
"The concept of "pustular disease" did not exist before virology, it was always "smallpox"." And this claim immediately falls apart once someone does just a little bit of research and realize that not only that not all "pustular diseases" the same, but that people have been differentiating them based on symptoms, severity, etc... for centuries, such as with cowpox in the late 1790's.
"Virology reclassified that clinical smallpox based on the premise that certain DNA was the cause, a DNA that only showed in a minority of cases with clinilcal "smallpox" (what prompted for "erradication" on paper)." And this one falls apart when one realizes that multiple (at least two last I can recall) strains of smallpox were known, though all were susceptible to the smallpox vaccine and eradicated around the same time. And yes, DNA is how we often tell virus' apart alongside their symptoms (unless of course an RNA virus is involved).
"You call this "science"?" No, mostly because I don't think anyone with half a brain would accept that strawman your loony ramblings has come up with as "science". Perhaps in the future you should read a textbook on virology before you start displaying your stupidity. At least then people won't think you're nearly as uneducated as you appear to be. Nergali (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
people have been differentiating them based on symptoms, severity, etc... for centuries To understand the fallacy you're trapped in, look at how terribly the symptoms match the virology in the two cases we have been commenting: (1) The 61.000 cases of paralysis in India are clinically indistinguishable from poliovirus. By the diagnostic criteria "used for centuries", today's 61.000 cases would considered a polio epidemic. Concordance symptoms/lab 0% ... Is this "science"? (2) In 1975, smallpox was diagnosed in 108 Indian patients by the criteria "used for centuries". The lab tests by the WHO decided they were not smallpox, but chicken pox. Concordance symptoms/lab 0% ... now you tell me the old "polio epidemics" or "smallpox epidemics" were correctly diagnosed... BULLSHIT. No one knows what mix of similar looking illnesses they actually were if lab tests had been available. The same symptoms continue to exist today, symptoms that would be dignosed as polio and smallpox by the criteria "used for centuries" and nothing would be deemed "erradicated". The old illnesses have been re-defined away a posteriori using very restrictive lab criteria in order to make them seem gone, but they continue under new names, just revert to the criteria "used for centuries" and you'll see very little has changed.145.64.134.241 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"To understand the fallacy you're trapped in," "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
look at how terribly the symptoms match the virology in the two cases we have been commenting: (1) The 61.000 cases of paralysis in India are clinically indistinguishable from poliovirus. Concordance symptoms/lab 0% ... Is this "science"?" You do realize that there was polio there also, right? And had been known to be there for years, right? And had been shown to be there due to lab tests, right? What, did you think only one virus that causes paralysis was affecting India?
"By the diagnostic criteria "used for centuries", today's 61.000 cases would considered a polio epidemic." Well thank goodness we don't use just those, seeing as you attempted to quote mine me there, but we also utilize more advanced techniques. Just because you live in the past in regards to technology doesn't mean everyone else does.
"(2) In 1975, smallpox was diagnosed in 108 Indian patients by the criteria "used for centuries". The lab tests by the WHO decided they were not smallpox, but chicken pox. Concordance symptoms/lab 0% ..." Wow, what a dumbass you are. Did it ever occur to you that both smallpox AND chickenpox are (or were, in regards to the first one) global diseases? And weren't you the one who brought up the fact that the doctors could be wrong. But once again, if you're claiming it's smallpox, then you should be able to present a sample of it.
"now you tell me the old "polio epidemics" or "smallpox epidemics" were correctly diagnosed... BULLSHIT." Well seeing as you have no actual evidence, I would say yes.
"No one knows what mix of similar looking illnesses they actually were if lab tests had been available." But apparently you do, despite the fact I sincerely doubt you've even gone to college, and despite the fact that they did have lab tests.
"The same symptoms continue to exist today, symptoms that would be dignosed as polio and smallpox by the criteria "used for centuries" and nothing would be deemed "erradicated". The old illnesses have been re-defined away "a posteriori" using very restrictive lab criteria in order to make them seem gone, but they continue under new names, "just revert to the criteria "used for centuries" and you'll see very little has changed" Um, this might surprise you given your lack of education, but polio still exists, it was never declared eradicated. Also we already know you reject DNA testing for virus', and that for some reason you think chickenpox, cowpox, squirrelpox, smallpox, and monkeypox are all the same thing. Hell, by your logic, dodo's aren't extinct, they've just been renamed chickens and turkeys; after all, they're all flightless birds. (thank you Mark Crislip). Nergali (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"Well thank goodness we don't use just those" - Nergali
STFU hypocrite, you use them all the time. When you vax-pushers claim vaccines have reduced the incidence of "old" diseases you're comparing old data obtained with the old clincal criteria (clinical overestimates) with modern data that are lab-confirmed. You then call it "evidence" and "science". Fuck you!82.161.30.183 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwIFMCKlVK8 .Nergali (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"but polio still exists" - Nergali
If by "old polio" we understand the illness(es) as it was diagnosed in the 50's, then "old polio" still exists and is as rampant as it was in the 50's. Think about it. Think how lab-confirmation tests redefined the illness and reduced the apparent incidence by transferring the bulk of the cases towards AFP. You're too dumb to GET it.82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"If by "old polio" we understand the illness(es) as it was diagnosed in the 50's, then "old polio" still exists and is as rampant as it was in the 50's." And by rampant, you mean decreased by 99%, seeing as today only a few countries in the Middle East actual suffer epidemics nowadays.
"Think about it." And by that you mean think like you do, and ignore the evidence, the experts, the science, etc...
"Think how lab-confirmation tests redefined the illness and reduced the apparent incidence by transferring the bulk of the cases towards AFP." Except they didn't, as numerous cases ended following the vaccinations, and those that remained were found to be caused by the other virus'. Then again, these virus' were already known to be found there, but weren't the target at the time because polio was deemed the greater threat as well as the one more easily taken care of.
" You're too dumb to GET it." Ironic coming from the person with no background in medicine, virology, or even science. Nergali (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"today only a few countries in the Middle East actual suffer epidemics nowadays" - Nergali
You totally miss the point... once again. You're thick! In those Middle East countries, the "old polio" is rampant (as diagnosed in the 50's = AFP), while the "new polio" (new rules - virologically confirmed) is not. Since it's not known how much of the "old polio" would have been virological confirmed in the 50's, we cannot speak of a "decrease", only of a restriction in the diagnosis of "polio" and as consequence, a corresponding increase in the diagnosis of AFP. The total incidence of paralysis remains the same. Chew it slowly145.64.134.241 (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"You totally miss the point... once again. You're thick!" You keep saying that but so far you've failed to demonstrate this.
"In those Middle East countries, the "old polio" is rampant (as diagnosed in the 50's = AFP), while the "new polio" (new rules - virologically confirmed) is not." Oh good, then you can demonstrate that the two cases are different. So far this is something else you've failed to do so far... cause so far it seems you've only moved the goalpost by claiming "different" polios.
"Since it's not known how much of the "old polio" would have been virological confirmed in the 50's, we cannot speak of a "decrease", only of a "restriction" in the diagnosis of "polio" and as consequence, a corresponding increase in the diagnosis of AFP." Sure we can, just look at developed countries and their current extreme lack of polio... which followed vaccinations.
"The total incidence of paralysis remains the same. Chew it slowly" Actually no, overall paralysis cases have actually gone down throughout most of the modern world. Nergali (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"numerous cases ended following the vaccinations" - Nergali
What vaccination did was change the diagnostic criteria from "clinical only" to a more restrictive "lab confirmed". The unconfirmed cases were all "polio" before vaccination but were called AFP afterwards. That's why AFP in India has grown dramatically after tha vax campaign, a reclassification occured. If the same restrictive diagnostic had been applied from the beginning there would have been no change. The shift in the diagnosis is an enormous confounding factor that you refuse, stubbornly, to take into account.145.64.134.241 (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"What vaccination did was change the diagnostic criteria from "clinical only" to a more restrictive "lab confirmed"." And your point? This says nothing on what they're treating. You need to actually demonstrate that they weren't treating polio, but so far the evidence seems to say that polio was a major problem amongst others, and that it was wiped out. Nergali (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"The unconfirmed cases were all "polio" before vaccination but were called AFP afterwards. That's why AFP in India has grown dramatically after tha vax campaign, a reclassification occurred." But overall the numbers of cases of paralysis went down severely... because one of the major sources, polio, was eradicated there.
"If the same restrictive diagnostic had been applied from the beginning there would have been no change." Strange, that's not what the facts say... unless you're trying to claim that the polio vaccine didn't cure AFP... which it isn't supposed to do. Nergali (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"The shift in the diagnosis is an enormous "confounding factor" that you refuse, stubbornly, to take into account." Or perhaps it is you who has refused to take into account that polio was confirmed to be in India, that the overall number of cases went down greatly following the vaccination efforts. Polio was known to be HYPERENDEMIC In India, with anywhere between 200,000 to 400,000 cases occurring ANNUALLY each year. Following mass vaccinations, however, this number nosedived significantly, and what was left (the cases that still suffered paralysis despite vaccine) was examined and found to be cases of AFP. Nergali (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
""the overall number of cases went down greatly following the vaccination efforts"" - Nergali
The cases were defined differently following the vaccination efforts, and more restrictively. Therefore, the redefinition itself accounts for the apparent reduction. You're stuck in crediting the vaccines for a reduction that was predictable in advance just by knowing that the post-vaccine diagnostic criteria would be more limiting and harder to fulfull.145.64.134.241 (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand that math must be hard for you, but a decrease in cases from 200,000-400,000 annually (as in each year, in case you didn't know) to 16,000-60,000 overall ( over 4+ years) following the polio vaccination programs would be considered a noticeable decrease. Nergali (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, your're comparing 200,000 of "broad polio - clinically defined" (includes all AFP by any cause) with 16,000 cases of "poliovirus polio - lab confirmed". It's not my fault that you are statistically impaired and compare apples to pears.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll explain it with some basic algebra (NPAFP stands for "non polio AFP"):
Before the vaccination campaing, "polio case" = "NPAFP" + "poliovirus".
After the vaccination campaing, "polio case" = "poliovirus".
The null hipothesis is "the vaccine is not effective" and "poliovirus" << "NPAFP" (there was barely any poliovirus). In this hypothesis we can expect that, after the vaccination campaign, "NPAFP" + "poliovirus" would remain the same. This is what happened in India, where "poliovirus" went from tens of thousands to zero while AFP went from zero to thousands, the sum being the same (actually it's larger today making the problem worse). The zero hypothesis is, therefore, most plausible that the vaccine having any effect other than increasing AFP.145.64.134.241 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, we can now confirm that you are a stubborn dumbass. If the number of cases was between 200,000 and 400,000 each year, and following the vaccinations, it went down till only 16,000 to 60,000 were found OVER A SPAN OF 4+ years... What exactly are you not comprehending. Yes, it was assumed that it was all polio at first, and guess what, it turned out to be true for the most part, so your claim that there was barely any poliovirus IS UTTER BULLSHIT. Nergali (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
When you restrict the dignostic criteria, anything can "go down" without any miraculous vaccines. Too hard for you to comprehend?145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"it turned out to be true for the most part" - Nergali
That would be credible if the AFP cases had stayed at the same levels, but since it increased dramatically in tandem with the vaccine, it indicates the initial "clinical-only" diagonses was massively wrong and it was mostly non-polio AFP.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well we've confirmed you can't do fractions or even basic math. Not really a surprise at this point, given the fact you don't deny not having any background in the fields of medicine, virology, immunology, etc... Seriously, you're just repeating yourself at this point with points that have already been debunked. Nergali (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. Capitulation accepted. Bye.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I honestly didn't think you'd surrender... I don't know how to feel about this. You've clearly shown a lack of education, a willful disregard of science, etc... but usually you sort tend to not give up so easily. Nergali (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

One can be in favour of vaccination but, if there is no great immediate risk of 'catching various diseases in the near future'/'being in relatively high risk contexts' (eg archaeologists investigating a burial ground) opting for a longer timeframe than the minimum recommended may be a fairly rational position.

For the smallpox story I quoted - see [1] episode 23.

And to some extent it can make sense to 'initially over diagnose the disease, isolate the disease and then analyse. (From what I understand this (apart from the last part) is how leprosy was eliminated from Europe.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but if you attribute the logical drop between inital overestimation and final data to the miraculous action of a "remedy" that you've been using in-between, then you're commiting fraud. This is what the WHO has done repeatedly.145.64.134.241 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Other IP please clarify which comment(s) you are responding to - #I# am not committing any fraud: and there can be several components to a drop in the figures, none of which involves fraud (or even incompetence).
An overestimated figure drops by itself with no medical intervention once the true values are know. The WHO uses overestimates (clinical criteria) to call for intervention, then applies an intervention (vaccine), then it publishes the true values (lab confirmed criteria) which, as expected, can only be lower due the initial overestimation. Next they claim their intervention (vaccine) is what caused the drop, when in fact it was due to the correction of the initial overestimate. This is the fraud the poster was talking about and it's how the WHO presents useless remedies (vaccines) as incredibly effective.82.161.30.183 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Conflating different diseases which produce similar symptoms has a long history (see the Bills of Mortality - sample descriptions include 'ague and feaver', 'cold and cough', 'rising of the lights', 'plannet' 'sores, ulcers, broken limbs', and 'stopping of the stomach.'

What chances would there be of 'attenuated viruses' used as vaccinations engaging in gene swapping? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nine-questions-nine-answers/ May you be educated and prosper, my anonymous unknown one. Nergali (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You got your "education" from blogs? everyone has a blog and an asshole. Thanks but I can write my own.145.64.134.241 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that the author is a doctor, right? And that he's answering the questions the "supposedly impossible" questions the anti-vaccination asked, right? And that he links and sources his answers, which the sight shows, right? I"m sorry but I don't think anyone will take anything you say seriously, especially when it has been known that you lie, quote mine, and do all sorts of deprivable acts when it comes do discussions. Nergali (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The answers must be found in the primary sources themselves (if they exist), and not in the interpretation a "doctor" may have made of such sources incase he ever found them and read them himself. Nothing unexpected from a proven moron, anyway.145.64.134.241 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Which, as I already pointed out, his provides links for..... but you didn't actually read this, did you? Oh, and I see you're attacking doctors for surprisingly not agreeing with you, and claiming conspiracy as the excuse for their data existing. Wow, to think you'd sink so low. Nergali (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What conspiracy, bimbo? If you can't argue with the scientific sources in your hand and rely on a doctor's interpretation then you're practising "personality cult".145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
This conspiracy you claimed, dumbass - " interpretation a "doctor" may have made of such sources incase he ever found them and read them himself.", based on an article you didn't even read, written by a known doctor who cited his sources. Ya, you're a conspiracy nut. Nergali (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Idiocy extreme... when person A reads paper B and talks anout it, person A is making his personal interpretation of paper B. That's why in science we distinguish between primary sources (original work) and secondary sources (an individual's understanding or someone else's work). Calling this a "conspiracy" denotes your gaping lack of scientific education.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out that you claimed he made up his own sources (you state "if they exist") despite him linking to them, makes it not only clear that you never read what he wrote, but you also seem to fail to comprehend that he was answering questions your group asked... you know, the questions you guys claimed couldn't be answered? Now I understand that you deal in conspiracy, and that education wise, your rather lacking, but lying at this point isn't really helping you. Nergali (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You're quote mining like a mandman, huh? Good.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you claim I quote mine, please go ahead and show it. Show what context was removed. Nergali (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Original quote: "The answers must be found in the primary sources themselves (if they exist)"
Your tergiversation: "you claimed he made up his own sources (you state "if they exist")"
The original context is a general advice on what kind of sources must be sought (if they exist) in order to get answers. I never said nor impied that your beloved doctor has cited sources that don't exist. I hope there's a cure for autism one day.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"you claimed he made up his own sources (you state "if they exist")" is only said by you. A CRTL-F on the page can show that really quickly. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"The original context is a general advice on what kind of sources must be sought (if they exist) in order to get answers." Except you questioned them by saying (if they exist), which shows you didn't even read what he wrote. Then again, you also questioned the fact that he was a doctor, so there's that as well.
"I never said nor impied that your beloved doctor has cited sources that don't exist." I'm fairly sure I just demonstrated that you did. And that you questioned his credentials, there's that as well.
"I hope there's a cure for autism one day." I'm fairly certain you'll need it. You are an anti-vaxxer after all. Nergali (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(reset) As most of us don't wish to read the virus/vaccination equivalent of the 'don't drop it on your toes pharmacopeia' we have to rely on those who do, using our 'common sense' to distinguish between the reasonable and those who can 'enlighten our known areas of ignorance' and 'those with a particular axe to grind.'

Going for 'slightly longer gaps, if possible, between inoculations rather than the minimum' is an understandable position.

Assuming 'being a slight sceptic' that WHO and other organizations plan for a 'worst case scenario'/find it convenient to treat all possible cases in order to prevent 'serious or persisting outbreaks and pandemics and then deal with the lesser illnesses' (to avoid the Great Fire of London scenario as well as to justify the bodies' existences) is reasonable. (As is wanting the RW spell check to accept BritEnglish spellings.)

Assuming bad faith, the making of unsubstantiated statements and similar by others/third parties is likely to weaken any statement. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

[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.145.64.134.241 (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.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Or I could use actual sources, unlike you. Sources like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6740090 , 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.145.64.134.241 (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.145.64.134.241 (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...145.64.134.241 (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" http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065 145.64.134.241 (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.82.161.30.183 (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.82.161.30.183 (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.195.40.6.43 (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.82.161.30.183 (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')? 82.44.143.26 (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."

145.64.134.245 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a 'for-pay' junk journal [2]. 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 vinucube@yahoo.com 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? 145.64.134.245 (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.145.64.134.245 (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.145.64.134.245 (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.145.64.134.245 (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)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support