Talk:Anti-vaccination movement/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 26 April 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>

, (new)(back)

A few more "concerns"

• Diabetes [1]
• Aluminum causes Alzheimer's [2]
• Misc concerns, heavy metals, drug companies are evil [3]

Maybe i'll save some of these for another article?--PalMD^{-yada yada} 14:58, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

My memory's a bit fuzzy (ha!), but wasn't there serious study at one point on aluminium and Alzheimer's? If that's the case, it's more a case of the public perception being outdated than anything. Makes me wonder if the current research into Omega-3's impact on dementia doesn't pan out in the end, we'll be talking about it in the same way in a decade's time. --Kels 15:21, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Such is the way of medicine. We were sure vitamin E was good, but it actually increases mortality once we studied it. That is why it is unwise to draw conclusions without data. Perhaps aluminum was found in Alzheimers plaques, but that says nothing about exogenous alum. intake. Medicine is full of examples of decisions being made because they "made sense" but later turned out to be wrong when subjected to the harsh scrutiny of statistics.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:26, 22 June 2007 (CDT) 15:23, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

True, but it was a valid line of inquiry, even if it panned out. Calling it a "concern" seems a bit misplaced, since it seems more a case of the public awareness catching up with the research more than something groundless. --Kels 16:07, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Shaping up well

This is shaping up well, I think we should work in the autism omnibus trial thats happening, do you want me to work on that? Tmtoulouse 14:19, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

That'd be great, thanks.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 14:21, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Cool, my ability to work on it today will be sporadic but I will get it done. Tmtoulouse 14:23, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I would actually love help from someone on the thimerosal section, perhaps one of our chemists?--PalMD^{-yada yada} 14:32, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm really not in agreement. This article lacks most of the appropriate citations it should present, has a huge POV bias, and just generally is written in an opinionated tone unworthy of the gravity of the subject. I specifically nixed a couple lines in the "conclusions" section that were pure opinion and thus unsupportable, and added "citation needed" tags where appropriate. 24.29.11.58 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

Im debating finding a place for abandoned unsafe vaccines, like rotavirus, and for HPV vaccine controversy.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 12:38, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

The CDC is quite frank about side effects of these (small pox photos are scary). You won't find such photos for required vaccines, though, because the CDC's purpose is to control disease (read: propagandize), not provide the pros and real cons of vaccines, which would freighten some. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:44, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Getting rid of polio and smallpox seems like pretty big 'pro's to me. What have you got for 'con's? --Gulik 20:14, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

You won't find a lot of those other photos because they don't exist. Smallpox has well-recognized risks which are proven. The other vaccines do not. No great pics to show off.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 21:43, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

The photos I was referring to were photos of adverse reactions due to the smallpox vaccine (read: cowpox infection). The CDC is forthright on adverse reactions when they are not tasked with propaganizing for the vaccine. You won't find many photos at CDC on adverse reactions due to other vaccines, but if you want, I can send you one of my neice's reaction to measles vaccine. I'll even arrange to give permission to the CDC to display the photo to educate taxpaying citizens about the risks of measles vaccines, so that members of the "herd" can make informed decisions. But the CDC is not about educating, they are about propagandizing to further their reason for existence: Control disease at a population level, loosers of the vacination lottery be damned. (Well, there is an "insurance program" to pay money to the loosers, but they are still loosers.)

Arguably, the rate of Polio outbreaks went down as much due to education and chlorinated pools as to the vaccine, or so I have heard it argued convincingly, from my recollection.

The last 5 cases of Polio in my state occurred not long ago, and based on the information I have from the health department (very reliable source), it was due to a child being immunized in another country with live vaccine, having a suppressed immune system, and spreading it to four other unvaccinated Mennonites in my state after the child traveled here.

Which should be another article...the use of live vaccine in Africa by Bill Gates' foundation as a part of a (kinder, gentler, and economical philanthropic) strategy to immunize more children...

It backfires, because every time a child in some village gets polio after getting vaccinated, the mother stands outside the missionary (secular humanism) polio clinic warning other parents about the vaccine. Whether or not the child got polio from the live vaccine is beside the point; it is reasonable for an uneducated African mother to believe a fellow African mother caring for a polio victim over some white dudes and dudettes on a mission. You would do the same if you were in that position (uneducated, poor, neighbor's child suffering in front of your own eyes).

Try as they might, the white missionaries for secular humanism just can't make headway with "Who are you going to believe, your lieing eyes or my scientific studies" arguments.

The backfire: Fewer children are getting vaccinated. It would have been better to buy the safer vaccine. And more economical, in the end. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:04, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Your niece's case, while important to her and her family, is not all that relevant as a single case report. Your "recollection" that chlorinating pools made a bigger difference than vaccines with polio is also not particularly relevant.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 08:06, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Mennonite polio

Rather than the state department of health, it turns out the mennonite story was picked up by the New York Times. Should be sufficient to confirm to many RWs that it actually occured (either the New York Times published prematurely, or they don't have all of the facts that I have, or the Department of Health's understanding has become less firm since the last time I spoke with the epidemiologist familar with the case). 5 Cases of Polio in Amish Group Raise New Fears. I especially like the non-hysterical quote in this story by the "Amish" man, explaining his decision to get some vaccinations:

“”We'll get vaccinated if we feel it's necessary," he said. "But our definition of necessary may be very different from yours.

Amish definitions of lots of things are different...very different. Also, polio enters the sewerage and potentially water supplies, so lack of vaccination in anyone puts everyone at risk. As shown in the Cincinatti study, sometimes a high level of disease exposure can overwhelm normally-effective vaccines. I see what you mean about hysteria, and obviously not all opposition is hysterical, but the general feeling against vaccines is hysteria in the sense of being irrational (even if well-reasoned).162.82.215.199 15:28, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I did not recall any studies questiong the effectivness of the Polio vaccine (the Cincinatti study dealt with a different vaccine). But in general, some vaccines are less effective than others. Is polio not effective? (The context of this for others is that vaccines specifically or medicinces in general should be safe and effective, "safe" meaning in the case of vaccines causing more good than harm I think.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:51, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I suppose I've lost track of your point. The entire NYT article basically pointed out how important it is to keep up with vaccination rates, even after a disease is believed to have been eradicated. Maybe you could clarify your point for me.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:29, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

"The last 5 cases of Polio in my state occurred not long ago, and based on the information I have from the health department (very reliable source), it was due to a child being immunized in another country with live vaccine, having a suppressed immune system, and spreading it to four other unvaccinated Mennonites in my state after the child traveled here."-->1. If the child had not been vaccinated, 0 children instead of 5 would have gotten Polio. 2. Live vaccine has consequences, and should be scraped. Heart♥Gold ^tx 17:41, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Live vaccine has good and bad consequences, especially in this country, where so many people are immunosuppressed from chemo therapy etc, and OPV is not used in the US anymore. --PalMD^{-yada yada} 17:53, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

First, I would note that the cases were among Amish, not Mennonites. Secondly, note in the article the fact that Amish Church elders did not discourage vaccination. There's a lot of mis-information out there to the effect that Amish discourage vaccination, that's not true. Nor is it true at all that Mennonites discourage vaccination. There have been sporadic cases of many diseases for which vaccinations are available due to a particular person's decision not to get vaccinated, or also of vaccine failure. ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.62.72.173 / talk / contribs}

As I understand it, the Amish do not speak with one voice, but self-govern at a very local level. I'm not sure how this applies to the Amish stance on vaccination, though. human 00:37, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Vaccination rates for polio are down

This post-gazette story confirms the outcome, just not the method I argued. It also has another interesting "factoid" that tends to mitigate accusations of "hysteria."

“”Even before the latest military invasions, suspicion was high because of what happened after the U.S. drug manufacturer Pfizer treated 100 children in Kano for free in 1996 with the experimental antibiotic trovafloxicin, or Trovan, during an outbreak of bacterial meningitis. According to a lawsuit still pending in U.S. District Court in New York, up to 11 children died and others experienced disabilities. The suit claimed the company never received proper consent to test the drug. Pfizer, in a statement, denies any wrongdoing, noting that the disease kills four out of every 10 people infected, and that the trial, in fact, saved lives.

I have no idea what this quote is supposed to show. I did have experience with the whole Trovan thing, but it doesn't relate to vaccination.162.82.215.199 15:29, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

NPR Story on parental fears

I think this is the story I was basing some of my arguments on, though it is about Indonisia and Africa. Hope this helps in the cite department. (Also, PalMD, I hope my hostility toward your sentiment doesn't get confused with hostility toward you personally...Sometimes I feel the need to defend the underdog, especially when I think they are being characterized unfairly). Heart♥Gold ^tx 09:47, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

By the way, I think PalMD can confirm from the description of "drops" and other clues, the vaccine in question is likely if not definitately live vaccine. He can probably also confirm that live vaccine, whild effective, is less safe than the more expensive vaccines we ususally use in the United States. Heart♥Gold ^tx 09:57, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

You are correct, the "drops" are OPV (oral polio vaccine). They are cheaper, easier to administer and distribute, and can provide passive immunization by being passed from a vaccinated person into the sewerage and water supply. In areas with endemic polio, this can help foster immunity. The story shows how lack of proper public health education can help foster disease.162.82.215.199 15:32, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

And the "underdogs" are those denied vaccines because of superstition, hysteria, lack of education, government malfeasance, etc. 162.82.215.199 15:33, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Sleep apnea

I have seen studies that indicate what the image to the right indicate, namely, that sleep apnea is correlated to DPaT vaccination. Now, I do understand that the rate of SIDS does seem to be independant of DPaT, but failing to mention the initial (and maybe confirmed) findings that DPaT does seem to have an affect regarding sleep apnea will not convince anybody capable of read an article with big words in it. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:56, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

That graph is, first, of one child. now, I hate to sound like a vaccine apologist, but some changes are to be expected after the introduction of a vaccine into the body. After all, the immune system is being triggered, and is developing defenses (antibodies) against whatever the vaccine is intended to protect against. human^{be in} 21:06, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I have to add to the chorus. A bar graph on the sleeping habits of a single child, measured god-knows-how, might as well not exist, it is such weak evidence.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 21:08, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I will look for a study. I have it in my notes somewhere...have to search through a lot of files. Regarding criticism of this graph--that is why it is in the talk page and not the article. Also, I think the official argument is that while there may be a relationship to apnea and some vaccines, there is no such relationship for vaccines and SIDS (and there are some good studies on this second point, according to my recollection--if I remember correctly, all of Japan stopped the DPT or DPaT vaccine, and the SIDS rate was not affected. Regarding apnea, devices exist to measure it, I think they have even been approved by the FDA.Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:34, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Copied from user talk:HeartOfGold#Vaccine hysteria

In this article, you refer to a study that showed a connect between the DPT vaccination and sleep apnea in infants. It's now got a {{fact}} tag on it that I'd like to get rid of. Was there a particular study that you had in mind. I can't seem to find one, though I admit I haven't been too dogged about it. Help? -Smyth 14:19, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I believe HOG left an image on the site somewhere showing a graph of one child's apnea events over a few weeks, where they go up a lot after vaccination. Hopefully he mentions the source. It might very well be in Vh talk or an archive. human^{be in} 14:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

You're right, I found it in Vh talk. He mentions looking for a study after the criticism (that he understood) about the evidence being anecdotal, considering it's of, as you say, one child. I'm wondering if it maybe should be removed pending a reference? I don't really have any vested interest except for cleaning up the unreferenced articles list. -Smyth 15:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I just posted some information that has been released over the last couple of years relating SIDS with families that have a history of genetic psycologicaly depressive traits.--TimS 15:06, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Very interesting. It doesn't really address the apnea issue though, right? Or am I missunderstanding something? -Smyth 15:14, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

As far as that "one child study", on the one hand, it could be included and mocked, but on the other hand, that's data mining/strawmanning. I would simply remove it. And copy this convo to talk:Vh. human^{be in} 15:18, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

neologism?

"If anti-vaccine ideas are to impact macro vaccination policy"

What is "macro vaccination" and where did the phrase come from? human^{be in} 20:57, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

The point is, policy is done by analyzing populations. The wording may be ackward, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact the policy for vaccination is a lot like deciding whether or not to drop a nuclear bomb: well, if we don't, X million will die, if we do, only Y hundred thousand will die. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:01, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, samples are studied, and then conclusions are extrapolated to populations. Individuals really can't be studied, although and RCT with N=1 would be ideal, it is impossible.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 21:09, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Since it is a made up phrase I am going to remove the word "macro". human^{be in} 21:18, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

nevermind, HG beat me to it. Oh, and with vaccination, the "gains" are better than the 10:1 in the comment above. human^{be in} 21:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't want to open up the debate, but I do not dispute that vaccination programs make sense at a macro level. And since I am taking advantage of the "herd" being vaccinated, I am not really desiring to propagandize for my personal beliefs. However, I will critique this article if you want it to be more effective at convincing others that vaccines are perfectly safe. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:38, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I appreciated it, but let's keep it to the talk page and try to develop stuff to move over.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:39, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Some interesting studies to look for

Just found some notes...

• D. C. Christie, et al., "The 1993 Epidemic of Pertussis in Cincinnati: Resurgence of Disease in a Highly Immunized Population of Children," New England Journal of Medicine (July 7, 1994), pp. 16-20.

• Analysis of the study shows ineffective vaccine was probably not the largest part of the story. Even small reductions in herd immunity can contribute to outbreak. Letter was published Nov 24, 1994, NEJM.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:52, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't suppose they offer free trial memberships at the NEJM? Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:59, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

• M. E. Pichichero, et al., "Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus Vaccine: Reactogenicity of Commercial Products," Pediatrics (Feb. 1979), pp. 256-260.
• Dr. Viera Scheibner and Leif Karlsson, "Association Between Non-Specific Stress Syndrome, DPT Injections, and Cot Death," (2nd Immunization Conference, Canberra, Australia, May 27-29, 1991).
• W. C. Torch, "Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: A potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)," (Amer. Academy of Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, Apr 25 - May 1, 1982), Neurology 32(4), pt. 2.

In 1993, during a pertussis outbreak, 82 percent of children stricken with the disease had received regular doses of the vaccine.

Susceptibility to pertussis 12 years after full vaccination may be as high as 95 percent.

One study has shown a strong correlation between the DPT vaccination and a dramatic increase in apnea and hypopnea episodes.

Another study noted a bimodal increase in the occurrence of SIDS at two and four months of age, when the DPT shots are usually administered.

Raising eyebrows: While correlation does not in itself establish causation, it neither disestablishes causation.

That's all for now. Gotta go camp with the children in the yard. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:50, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Don't forget to use DEET.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:53, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

We have a tent:) Young children, just camping in the yard...after watching a recording of America's funniest videos. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:54, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

If you have an email, ill try to send you the text.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:59, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

My email is on my account page, or if you want to send non asci, you can try EHeartOfGold@yahoo.com Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:50, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Sorry

But this is the whole problem with the anti-vaccine movement. "They" do not cite sources, they do rely on anecdotal info, and they do tend to say "even if science proves it, no one will get it" (education anyone???). Any rational defense of anti-vaccine ideas must include facts, not opinions. I honestly cannot debate anyone who just gives opinions and case studies of N=1.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 08:29, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

PalMD a few point that hopefully will clear things up. If you don't want to debate, that is fine. Really, I am offering what I see as large hurdles you need to overcome to write a convincing article:

Regarding the African mothers

• It is *rational* for African mothers in the situation I describe to be highly skeptical to the point of refusal. I think that if you try to empathetically put yourself in their shoes, you will admit that you can see how such situations arise. It is not hysteria. I do not say that the mothers are right, or that they have science on their side, but given that frame of reference, their beahavior is highly rational, and not fairly called hysteria. It is a real problem that needs to be dealt with. (BTW, if you haven't heard of such things, I will try to find the NPR program I heard it discussed).

Regarding the polio case:

• If you doubt that this Mennonites case occurred, I can give you a contact at the department of health. If you do not dispute that it occurred, but only its relevance, we don't have to waste time. I did not draw the rational conclusion from the Mennonite perspective, but to them it must seem to be confirmation (based on their experience) that Polio vaccines are bad.

Regarding anecdotal information:

• The adverse reaction of my niece is anecdotal. However, science is not about filtering such information. In the case of the taxpayer funded CDC, the CDC *appears* to not be forthright in providing a complete education on vaccines that are "required." This cdc (smallpox adverse reactions cdc) image search on google shows a link to the CDC within the first 3 hits. However, this (measles adverse reactions cdc) image search on google does not turn up anything from the CDC on the first three *pages*.

The reason I am debating is because this article is portraying anti-vaccination sentiment as "hysteria." It is not pure baseless hysteria. At worst, it is rational hysteria and at best just rational.

What you call annecdotal I contend can be referred to as a counter example (something that is sometimes useful in the realm of falsifiability). Regarding citing sources, I provided what I thought were some very high quality sources. The other stuff is public knowledge and or obvious opinion, but let me know which items you want references for.

Now, if you just don't want to expend energy debating whether or not the anti-vaccine movement is hysterical, how you decide to spend your time is up to you. But if you want to consider alternative perspectives, I am offering mine, on the talk page, per request (with some cites). Heart♥Gold ^tx 09:13, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Pardon me fer butting in but,

I don't think you (plural) are so far apart.

It looks as if you're both acknowledging the same things.

I think the question comes down to:" Can vaccination programs be injurious to single persons but still be of benefit to society at-large?"

This then begs the question: "How many 'isolated' (anecdotal) people have to suffer before we reassess each program?"

I see Doc's position as "There always going to be some risk, but it's better for society that we all share that risk equally and take the vaccinations to ensure that all have a level of protection people in the past prayed to have."

I see Heart's position as :"I see that there are protections for society but what about the people who face the burdens for losing that lottery that the vaccinations are proving to be?"

If I am in error and this, in no way, is either of the views, simply move on and delete this if you so desire. ~~ CЯacke® 10:02, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

To this I would add that I contend that citizens in the developing world should have access to the best Polio vaccine available, instead of the less expensive live vaccine, or vaccination programs in those countries are not going to be as effective as one would hope (unless freedom of speech can be suprressed instead, something I do not advocate).) Heart♥Gold ^tx 10:16, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Rob, but one of the larger points is that there is little proven harm even to individuals. As cited in the article, statistics bear out that the risk to individuals, not just populations, is greater unvaccinated then vaccinated. You can either buy that data or not. If an individual is harmed, statistically speaking, they were at higher risk of being harmed by not being vaccinated.

As to the developing world, there are tons of anecdotes, but the solution is education, not depriving people of vaccines. As an example, my pathology professor's friend raised money to buy measles vaccines, showed up in an African health minister's office with them, and said, "I hold the lives of a million children in my hands". The minister reportedly said, "Did you bring food to feed them, too?"75.62.26.189 10:17, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

BTW, the oral vaccine is very effective,and also allows for passive immunization, and less expensive oral administration, but as stated, it has problems.75.62.26.189 10:18, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Effective is one thing, safe and effective is another, and safe is a third. Some nutrional suppliments are safe but not effective...and so on...anyway, what you call "passive immunization" would be called "terroristic biological attack" if committed by Arabs...not saying a conviction would result, but propaganda would. Heart♥Gold ^tx 17:43, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

It is no more a terrorist attack than fluoridating water...or does that sap our precious bodily fluids? (movie ref).--PalMD^{-yada yada} 17:54, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

It's an unfair trade practice aimed at destroying the livelihood of dentists. What are you, some kind of Commie? --jtl^talk 18:26, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Older doctors and dentists still attempt to prescribe flouride from time to time (to my children because we bought bottled spring water for some years), but dentists fresh out of dental school are being educated that ingesting flouride pills might prevent cavities in your stomach, but really doesn't help teeth.

At least according to my friend's wife who recently graudated from dental school, and our new pediatric dentist. Can you cite the study, PalMD, that showed flouride pills are a safe and effective means of preventing cavities? As far as I know, there are none. Yet MDs are still prescribing flouride pills as if it actually does something. (I have challanged two MDs, one dentist, and one pharmacist to cite such a study in real life. Not one of them returned my call, even though they initially said it would not be a problem.)

The comment about sapping our precious bodily fluids is a good example of the caricature used to promote pseudoscience (e.g., that flouride pills should be prescribed for children who do not drink flouradated water. As for flouridated water, I have read conflicting studies, but yet we continue to do it without conclusive proof.).

Regarding flouridated water, there are rational reasons to be skeptical. First, municipalities, usually required by state governments, most often buy the least expensive flouride compound available, said compound being the recycled industrial waste product from the manufacture of Aluminum and fertilizers.

And propagandizers for flouridated water cite annecdotal evidence to support their case.

Psuedoscience if you ask me. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:13, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I have never heard of fluoride pills...ever. Topical fluoride treatments are usually given at dentist offices. And, truthfully, anyone who still doubts fluoridated water goes into my (ad hominem) book as a crank. Sorry.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 21:16, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Call a pharmacist, or talk to an old pediatrician (who probably still prescribes them to patients who have private wells).

Calling me a crank sounds like more pseudoscience. Show me the science.

And, even if flouridating water worked, so what. Forced medication of a population via the municiple water supply doesn't sound exactly wholesome. What's next, studies show that potassium nitrate reduce libido, rape, and birth rates. The world is over populated. So lets add potassium nitrate to the water supply.

Crank. Ad hominem--not science. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:26, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

It's called "public health" (sewers, vaccines, etc) and it has saved more lives then any doctors. Deal with it or move out to Idaho with the wackos. I'm tired.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 21:27, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't think anybody drinks from the sewers, vaccines are not really required (contentions of propagandists notwithstanding), and I don't know what you mean by etc. I did not bring up flouride, you did, and you did it without even knowing that MDs still prescribe flouride pills to prevent tooth decay (without any studies to show that it is a safe and effective preventative measure). The man of science is resorting to name calling, refusing to cite scientific studies...I understand it is frustrating for somebody like you to deal with somebody like me (who holds a different world view), but really, if science is on your side on flouride, let me know. If you don't have the time or interest, simply say you disbelieve most of my assertions, regret bringing up flouride in the first place, and don't have the time or inclination to carry on a discussion on flouride. I can respect that. But understand, you're the one who is using ad hominems (precious bodily fluids, crank, move to idaho with the wackos...). I am simply pointing out how "men of science" are widely (especially older doctors) still prescribing pills to children while declining to cite studies to show that flouride pills are a safe and effective means of preventing tooth decay. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:35, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Im just saying, im a very well-trained physician, and ive never even heard of giving fluoride pills...it's not mainstream medicine. And yes, people do drink from sewers, or the effectively did before people were required, often against their will, to start using sewerage and septic systems and stop drawing water from wells and rivers contaminated with sewer water. Famous London typhoid history, the folks there hated it. The Chicago river actually had its flow reversed to prevent disease. So you see, I feel like I am debating with a well-meaning, intelligent person who really has no idea what he's talking about. That's why i feel it's futile.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 21:40, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

It is not anymore (at least it is not universially recommended). But, as I have said, I have had two MDs (pediatricians) and one dentist give me perscriptions for fluoride pills (for my children, actually). I assure you it does occur. And there is controversy over how it works, with the recommendation now being that children be instructed to chew the tablets (because evidence suggests that is where the benefit is, in a topical application). BTW, I buy fluoridated toothpaste for my children, and instruct them not to swallow it, and to rinse well after brushing. I have of course refused to fill the three prescriptions, but I did talk to the pharmacist on the third--as I said, none of the MDs, dentist, and pharmacist would come back to me after they assured me that the drug was approved by the FDA as a safe and effective treatmen, and would be able to provide data on the submitted study (this was the specific question I asked...vis-a-vis the FDA requirements that a drug have a study that it is safe and effective). As far as I know, fluoride pills were grandfathered in, and the FDA never required a study to show that they were safe and effective. Other studies have shown a benefit, but it appears that it is topical (which, it sounds like, you agree). If you do agree, why fluoridate the water? If you don't agree or disagree, just have doubts, fine. But it is rational to think that fluoride in toothpaste (not intended to be swallowed) and flouride in topical dentist office treatments (again, not intended to be swallowed) probably works, but it is equally rational to be highly skeptical about *ingesting* flouride pills, especially since one recent Harvard study has detected a link (requiring further study) between flouride and one form of bone cancer. Crank, not, rational and skeptical, yes. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:00, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Unseasonal rise in measles

There's been an unusual rise in measles in the UK following a triple vaccine scare over the past few years. Apparently there's usually a decrease in the summer school holidays but not this year. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 00:33, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, interesting. Do we have a link? News or Science journalism, either would be a good start. human^{be in} 01:23, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

bbc story if you knew the aggro it taketh me to find things like this on this bloody pda.Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 01:38, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

reflist | 2

Didn't seem to change anything? Were "we" shooting for the small font reflist? Or something else? Bohdan7 01:22, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

It works for me, ref list 2 puts references in 2 columns instead of just 1. Bohdan43 01:26, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Well well well, one of you is a moron. But which one... Bohdan64 01:28, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

You are, non-prime infiltrator! Bohdan53 01:31, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Dunno hoo did wot but cud thei undone it - reflist begins @ #33 on mine now - help. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 01:44, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Mercury - autism disproven

Another nail. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080107/sc_nm/autism_vaccinations_dc_1 Someone with more medical knowledge or who actually gets the journals in question could probably say more on the subject. --Shagie 18:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Added to refs.--PalMD^{-Mmmm...Brains!} 19:05, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Yet another nail. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN30505454 says "The mercury in a vaccine preservative is pumped out of a baby's body too quickly for it to do any damage, researchers reported on Wednesday in a study they say should further absolve shots of causing autism." Again, if someone with more medical knowledge... --Shagie 14:53, 31 January 2008 (EST)

They claim a shorter *blood* half-life of ethylmercury than methylmercury, which no one disputes. They also claim that it is rapidly excreted from the body through feces, which their data does not support. Yes it is rapidly eliminated from blood compared to methylmercury, but it isn't rapidly eliminated from the body! By using Pinchichero's own measurements for ethylmercury excretion, 23-141 nanograms of mercury per gram of stool (dry weight), to eliminate the average ethylmercury dose for infants by 6-months in the 1990s (187.5 mcg) for infants in 50th percentile for weight progression (3.5-8kg) with averaged stool weights of 6-18 grams (dry weight) per day is shown below.

	Stool Hg concentration (ng/g)	Daily Hg excretion (mcg/day)	Days to excrete 187.5 mcg
Minimum	23	0.14-0.41	457-1,339
Maximum	140	0.84-2.52	74-223

Even the best case of 74 days is still a rather long time. The study indicates that blood half-life is comparatively low, but elimination from the body is not fast at all. Hence the logical conclusion is that deposition in tissue is highly likely.

If you want more evidence linking mercury and autism you can easily look beyond vaccines. One study shows a strong correlation between mercury pollution (from power plants, etc.) and autism rates. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338635. So yeah, hardly a nail in the coffin, if anything corroborating evidence. Information (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Also should mention that there are studies showing that autistic children have significantly lower rates of mercury excretion than neurotypical individuals http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322 - their inability to excrete mercury would make them far more susceptible to mercury-induced neurotoxicity, and their baby teeth indicate a higher deposition of mercury to tissue during development http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17497416. Here's a review showing the parallels between mercury intoxication and ASD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810216

For people who call themselves rational, you guys obviously don't do much investigating of your own, otherwise you'd already be aware of this information. Information (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

........

Your blog is interesting!

Keep up the good work! ^{— Unsigned, by: bunchanumbers / talk / contribs}

Measles outbreak among home schoolers

[4] Czolgolz 23:20, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Alleged Baxter flu vaccine contamination

Not sure if anyone's watching this talk page, but I was curious if there's anything to this story:

http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html

I saw it under the following tagline: "Baxter International, the same company that is rapidly working on a vaccination for the swine flu, has admitted to accidentally shipping the live avian flu virus in vaccine packaging to 18 different countries. "

As with just about every medical scare, Google searches turn up thousands of "medical news" hits, but zilch from major news sources. Anyone know anything about this one?

Junggai 11:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's as big an issue or as dangerous as the headlines may suggest so it's probably not "major" news. ^sshole 14:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems to fall under "vaccine hysteria" though. Not sure if it's worth adding as an example, but if someone wants to try... ħuman 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem, and the reason I posted it, is because I was unable to find any information from a source I recognized that either confirmed or debunked the wild assertions of the linked article. I found dozens of articles from shady-looking "medical sites" and from blogs that repeat the same story. Usually an accusation this widespread and serious has some diligent fact-checkers on it. And since the incident allegedly happened a couple of years ago, I would think that it should have been examined already. Junggai 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. If it was a "real" occurrence that mattered at all, it would have at least been in some major "papers of record", and they're all on-line these days. Who knows, it might be a complete fabrication or twisting - of course, in that case, we'd still have a reason to write about it. If we could find any "real" facts... ħuman 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

There seems to be a recent trend towards the paranoid fringe including vaccination in to their new world order conspiracy theories, mostly around reducing the population. I'm sure we ought to have something about that, but I'm not sure it really fits in to the theme of this article. Should this article be limited to real (if wrong) health concerns over vaccines, or can it be expanded to cover total lunatics too? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd put the conspiracies in a entirely separate article. The hysteria tends to be either A) overreaction to real events or B) misunderstanding the idea of vaccines. Conspiracy theories are a different, but still relevant, animal, I think. ^sshole 12:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)How about a separate Vaccination conspiracy theories or something? I have read about how if you don't take your government mandate swine flu shot you will get set to FEMA camps, from a Canadian. - π 12:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The flu (regular and H1N1) vaccine will have nanobots that take over your brain and bring about the swine zombie apocalypse. ^sshole 14:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover story

As this is a well sourced, well illustrated, concise, relevant and important article, I'd like to nominate for cover status. It'll probably need a few passes for quality, but in general, I think it's nearly there. ^sshole 14:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree.RaoulDuke 14:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's definitely worth showcasing. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the mild cleanup I just did to the lead, it could probably use a good proofreading. Not that I'm disagreeing with cover storying it, at all. ħuman 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick sweep through the article, but it's late at night and I may have missed some bits. Thanks for mentioning that Human. I had a read earlier, but didn't notice those little quirks. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that our very first link (is salon.com famous?) should be to an article which says the exact opposite of our article though.--Bob^{Not Jim} 22:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, although it's kind of difficult to avoid linking to something that doesn't say the opposite of what the article says. Perhaps we need to find a place to cover Salon's foundation of their story, which is based on Verstraeten's findings which were hyped beyond all sense of reality? The Autism omnibus trial could help. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I clarified it. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is famous, and a nutter anti-vaxer, sadly. ħuman 22:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also by the way, I think Nx came up with a nifty way to allow the image at the top to show up on the main page without mucking it up. Something involving the height tag, I think. We should check how he did it on another CS and do it here. ħuman 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was by doing a noinclude and includeonly trick inside the image tag itself (shortening or removing the caption for instance, and reducing its size as the "thumb" option may mess up when people have it too large). I'll dick about with the lead section to do it. ^sshole 16:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Meningitis C in UK

I just ran across an interesting vaccine statistic that someone might want to tuck into the article: in November 1999, the United Kingdom started vaccinating for Meningitis C - and was the first country to do so. The results? Pretty damn awesome. In 1998/99, there were 955 laboratory confirmed cases. In 2000-2001, that had dropped to 412 - more than halved in two years. The next year, it was almost halved again - down to 211. Then again down to 121, and again down to 64. In 2008-2009, it was 13. The death rate dropped off too: from 212 in 1998-99 to 61 in 2007-2008. I made a nice little graph here. –Tom Morris (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The only hysteria here is typical liberal self aggrandisment

Your arrogance is transparent.

Your ridicule hides your inner shame.

Accusing those wary of our children being controlled by liberal 'health experts' as evil is an evil act.

I don't know how you sleep at night. Ha (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Takk fyrir uppbyggilegt framlag þitt.^sshole 13:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just the bog-troll. Ignore it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you calling a 'bog' troll, you racist bitch? Its ok to call the resident paddy a bogman now, is it? 86.40.105.186 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is some rational criticism of the content of the article I am sure that we would be happy to hear it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with BON removal

I don't see the point of the referenced story that was removed, reverted and I removed again. tmtoulouse 04:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at the edit itself, I agree with your removal. There is very little point to it. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 06:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bon didn't remove. That was a long standing edit as far as I can tell. ħuman 09:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be excised. I don't think "and some guy told me about it at lunch" and "some editor here was involved" count as references. And the bit itself is complete shite, just someone wingeing. Blue (is useful) 09:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Back in the day it was probably funny. Maybe not so much now? ħuman 09:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If there was an inside joke, I think it's safe to say the moment's passed. Blue (is useful) 09:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It failed to make me laugh the last sixteen times I tried, so I rolled my rollback back. I hope Nx doesn't mind. ħuman 09:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you didn't go to your talk page and give yourself an explanation of your rollrollbackback. Blue (is useful) 09:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I am so screwed now. Trent will probably fire me. And Mssr. Soros' checks will never arrive. ħuman 09:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think anecdotes are fine, even for very good or high priority articles, but they need better context and explanation than that. ^sshole 11:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RS

Seems RS is semi anti-vaccines, to the point of potentially not vaccinating his daughter in some cases. Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm stuck, who is RS? ^sshole 15:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ro... Schla... (I'm trying to avoid saying the full name as although I'm disgusted by parents who put their children at risk because of their own stupidity I'm still unsure whether there's any real reason for us to mention his vaccine views, he isn't quite Andy) Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh God

This is horrifying have anti-vaxxers have no shame? Do you think this needs some rationalwiki debunking like this? ClickerClock (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Where an I add this comic?

350px

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:

350px

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? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You got a point. ClickerClock (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 [5]. 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. Queex_{chthonic 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. Queex_{chthonic 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? Queex_{chthonic 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. Queex_{chthonic 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)

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)

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, 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)

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. Queex_{chthonic 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. Queex_{chthonic 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. 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)

LA Times: Will 2017 be the year the anti-vaccination movement goes mainstream?

Here's hoping Betteridge's law of headlines applies. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of speech. It's strength is it's own weakness. Everyone has a say, but also everyone has a say. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 22:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Any way we can embed this video?

http://imgur.com/a/8M7q8 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A technicality

Vaccination refers to anti-smallpox immunisation (using the cowpox) - which very few people get/require these days. But - there is no easy shortening of 'immunisation' to compare to vax. Anna Livia (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

CDC whistleblower manufactroversy

Is there anywhere in the wiki that covers this? There has been a commonly cited CDC manufactroversy (#CDCWhistleblower) involving William W. Thompson and Brian Hooker. I'm surprised this article doesn't even touch upon it. Snopes has discussed it, and it's covered comprehensively a ton of times in Respectful Insolence blog, and it's only a brief mention in our anti-vaxxer bingo. That our wiki doesn't seem to have this at all is a pretty major coverage gap, and it's problematic if a gold article doesn't have this content. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!

I don't see it either. It would be good to add, @LeftyGreenMario. Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian I created the article. Please improve, expand, add links, correct minor mistakes, would be appreciated. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Superb Benjamin Franklin quote

From here:

"In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation.

This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen."

More info (and a much better source) here. 217.119.171.154 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Obama's picture caption

Why is the picture of President Obama getting a vaccine captioned "A man gets his H1N1 shot..." and not "President Obama gets his H1N1 shot..."? ^{— Unsigned, by: 8.30.81.2 / talk / contribs}

Likely an attempt at achieving humor through irreverence. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 05:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

An opinion on anti-anti-vaxxer mesures

Probably the best way to counter anti-vaxxers is to let them choose whatever they want, and let them see what their choices would cause, and once this wave of anti-vaccination movement ends, the legislatures around the world should make laws criminalizing anti-vaccination speech and other similar speeches, as these kinds of speech are too dangerous to be protected under the freedom of speech, just as it is too dangerous to protect frauds under the freedom of speech.

Anti-vaxxers should clearly understand what their choices and thoughts would cause first before the legislatures make any laws regulating such speeches, otherwise it can backfire, if the government make laws before anti-vaxxers clearly understand what they have caused, they can appeal to the freedom of speech, making the public turn their focus from vaccination to freedom of speech, which could end up cancelling or slowing down any efforts to regulate vaccination denialism and other forms of harmful denialisms.

--59.115.106.139 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

While the poetic justice of it is appealing on the surface, the potential for collateral damage resulting from that idea is too great. We can't magically contain outbreaks to only affect anti-vaxxers- other populations such as infants too young to be vaccinated and people with immune system deficiencies would almost certainly be affected as well. Additionally, most anti-vaxxers will find rationalizations that allow them to pin the blame for their actions on anybody but themselves, and so they will simply refuse to understand the consequences regardless of what proof they are shown. Remember that for the most part, they assume that anything said by the government/"Big Pharma"/any doctor whose views they don't agree with is a lie told for the sole purpose of opressing them. --Logos (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)