Talk:Anti-vaccination movement/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

New refs etc. 2011[edit]

There have been several books and articles published in 2011 that are worth mentioning. They include:

--Penglish (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ideological objections[edit]

Shouldn't there be something in here about the (generally) right-wing ideological objections to vaccines? You know, resisting any attempt by the state to do anything that might resemble "socialised medecine", liberal nannying, or reducing one's personal freedom to chose not to vaccinate. And also the specific objections around the social impacts of vaccination, such as one cervical cancer one Schlafly objected to because it would discourage abstinence among teenage girls. And then further, that when the objections are raised, they are most likely to be raised as pseudo-scientific ones rather than the actual objections themselves. I don't know enough about it to write anything, so over to somebody who does if it has any merit. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but can't think of how to make it a section. Will mention it somewhere. Scarlet A.pngsshole 09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a start, but I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject, so it needs improving. Sorry if I came across as a bit harsh in the libertarian bit, but I just get really frustrated with some libertarians' inability to grasp the concept that one's personal decisions do affect other people, so I take every opportunity possible to tell them to go fuck themselves. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 10:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but I removed that little bit just because it doesn't fit with the "Gold" label of the article. Otherwise, exactly what I thought it should say. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, if it didn't fit, it didn't fit. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal irony[edit]

As an aside, I find it ironic that the night I almost threw my TV out the window because of a Jenny McCarthy anti-vaccine propaganda film on the "Documentary Channel" that I watched about 5 minutes of before I was too pissed off at her, I should come here and see heavy amounts of attention given to this article. That is all. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 10:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Since they are no longer CRTs, throwing TVs out of windows is a lot less satisfying. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
But throwing and embedding remote controls into them have become far easier. CRTs are quite robust. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

This title is a "legacy title" from the early days of RW when we were constructing "essays" as much as "articles" and didn't have 7+ years experience in article creation and conventions. This is a solid article that has failed to really raise in prominence at the same rate of its cohorts and I think a big part of that is its title. Its an obscure term for what the article is about. I think it should be renamed to something like "anti-vaccination" or "anti-vaccination movement." Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The latter IMHO. Тyrant 19:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"Movement" is too wikipedia. I was about to suggest "anti-vaccination debate" but it's not a debate so much as bunch of idiots on youtube and daytime tv regurgitating disparate anecdotes and semi-research. Anyone have a betterer idea? Sophiebecause liberals 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Vaccine denialism? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"Ignorant knobheads"? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Too general. "Vaccine denialism" is becomeing standard these days - knobheads are everywhere. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Like WIGO:CP? /Rimshot Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
So... ТySerious Business Guy 17:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bump again, thinking Anti-Vaccine or Anti-Vaccine Movement. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the current title charming... what about just creating redirects for those? If a name change is warranted, I'd cast my vote for Vaccine denialism. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The issue is that we are the only ones that refer to it as vaccine hysteria, therefor this article, one of our better ones, languishes in obscurity that it doesn't deserve. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"Vaccine denialism" is really the only title that works given RW. "Vaccine controversy" and "anti-vaccination movement" and that ilk are, as said, too much like Wikipedia for us, while truncating it to "anti-vaccination" or "anti-vaccine" isn't really a title that makes much sense. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Just saying, by using titles like this we greatly restrict the chances of our article ever being discovered by someone who doesn't all ready agree with it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that point, but what is the most appropriate direction? Odds are that even if someone didn't agree with it, they wouldn't be swayed. We have a toss up between preaching to the converted and preaching to the unconvertable. Scarlet A.pngbomination 01:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I like vaccine hysteria better, because vaccine denialism to me is still too neutral. Vaccine denialism ain't bad, but hysteria implies that anti-vaxers are deluded and histrionic. Which they are. And that's a description I can get behind for these numbnuts. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Same. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I still say the title should be what people search for when looking for info on the topic. Vaccine denialism and Vaccine hysteria are both bad titles based on this criteria. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 01:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"Hysteria" comes from the Greek word for uterus, and historically was used to dismiss the antics of women. That's why we have "hysteria" and "hysterical" referring to craziness, because everyone knows that those insane shrill women just have alien uterus disease that makes them crazy.
In any event I don't favor "vaccine hysteria". "Vaccine denialism" works, but I think it's best to follow Tmtoulouse's advice and be a bit more mainstream with, say, "Anti-vaccine movement". Blue (pester) 01:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In the news recently[edit]

I saw this[1] article on Forbes and thought it should go in. I'm no expert on this subject so I thought I'd bring it up and let wiser editors then myself handle it. — Unsigned, by: Hamilton / talk / contribs

It may have been mentioned already, I'll check and find a spot for it. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hehehe... one of the comments says "here are some links to studies that PROVE the vaccine makes things worse" - ooh, a study in the Lancet? PNAS? The BMJ? No, www.facebook.com/WhoopingCoughVaccineIsMakingMattersWorse. Herp derp derp herp herp derp. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 10:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
That facebook page links to at least one real study regarding parapertussis herp derp derp. Anyway I heard that something like 90% of people coming down with pertussis had been vaccinated and I personally know someone who was vaccinated 1.5 years ago and still got it. From what I've gathered, it sounds like the acellular pertussis vaccine (e.g. DTaP) may be much less effective than the (destroyed) whole virus vaccine, i.e. DTwP. Also, I heard that the US government bought buttloads of DTaP and is trying to push it to save face. I don't believe in woo woo; but it is an awful lot to ask the average person to sort all this stuff out or to trust in government bureaucrats and researchers to be unbiased and not succumb to politics, the influence of money, and groupthink. At least some of the people who are turning down vaccines are probably making rational decisions based on their limited time, cognitive abilities, access to data, and level of trust in various organizations. I have ideas on how to improve the situation but I'm sure they'd be rudely attacked here.Abraxas (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If you mean to trust in anecdotal evidence and "I heard" then, yes, you probably would be rudely attacked here. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Resistance to compulsory vaccination among healthcare workers is often reported. These are the very people at the heart of healthcare, which raises doubts about the quality of the evidence and the consensus <ref>Vaccine required, workers resist story in new News8 2012, Nov 30</ref>. This was edited out of the article... uncomfortable huh?--Brasov (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not terribly impressive. It's people being paranoid - and "heart of healthcare" doesn't really say anything. These are assistants and nurses, not people qualified to assess medical risks. If you bother to read the article, the main thrust of the argument is this: "Because it's a violation of my rights and i [sic] don't believe any employer should force, coerce or threaten any employee to receive a vaccination they're opposed to just to keep their job,". The article then goes on to mention wariness of "formaldehyde, mercury, and illuminum". Two of those aren't actually in vaccines, and one of those things doesn't exist. As a quality of source, and quality of argument, that is genuinely laughable. Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 12:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, clinicians who inform patients about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, who are in a privileged position to observe their adverse effects on others first-hand, refuse to be vaccinated themselves. It must be paranoia. These people are just irrational and uneducated about the vaccines they recommend. Alrighty, nothing to see here, move on...--Brasov (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Au contraire, clinicians who inform patients about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, who are in a privileged position to observe their adverse effects on others first-hand, are taking the annual flue vaccine in droves in the UK. When you look at the stories you link to the two examples given are a nurse's assistant and a housekeeper. Not exactly Health Care experts, for all that they do a fine job in their fields. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Largest National Nurses Union Opposes Mandatory Flu Vaccination as Condition of Employment We got the vaccine zealots here downplaying the refusal by health professionals of "safe, life saving vaccination" that's happening all over the place. There only seems to be a problem when a vaccine is made mandatory for them, but not as a condition for admission of kids in school. But you swear they're innocuous, they save patient's lives, so just f--ing take the vaccine!--Brasov (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Compare and contrast with UNISON - one of the UK unions representing nurses -
“”UNISON is urging all nurses and midwives working in health services to get their seasonal flu vaccination.

Gail Adams, UNISON Head of Nursing, said:

More and more nurses, midwives and healthcare workers recognise the need to have the vaccine, because flu can kill, which is why having the flu jab will help to protect staff, their patients and families.
This is the nurse's union - nothing to go with government or big pharma. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and from the link you posted
“”Despite that, the BCNU and other health-care organizations continue to recommend immunization to their members. It’s the best we’ve got, Ms. McPherson said. But it has to be a matter of choice.
So they're not against the vaccine, they're against it being mandatory. This is hardly "refusing to be vaccinated", it's "refusing to be mandated to be vaccinated" - that's a very different thing. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thimerosal[edit]

Serious damage to astrocites exposed to Thimerosal concentrations 8.5 times lower than the one found in a flu vaccine vial have been documented in <ref>Sharpe MA, Livingston AD, Baskin DS. Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes Journal of toxicology. 2012;2012:373678. Epub 2012 Jun 28.</ref>. Astrocytes are altered in the frontal cortex of autistic subjects, which may contribute to the pathogenesis of autism <ref>A.M. Sheikh1, W. Guang, F. Cao, A. Yin, M. Malik, W.T. Brown and X. Li Alteration of Astrocyte in the Frontal Cortex of Autistic Subjects International Society for Autism Research. 2012 May 17</ref>. This was edited out of the article too... uncomfortable! --Brasov (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You know thimerosal is more or less phased out now, right? Get with the times. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 12:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I live in the present, pal. Do you? Thimerosal is the flu vaccine that's been peddled ad nauseam in the media as we speak, so it's indeed used and promoted in a massive scale. Also, phasing out a toxic substance is no excuse to lie about its safety. You get the fallacy, don't you?--Brasov (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thimerosal was phased out, as a purely precautionary measure to placate morons like you in 2005. Come out from under your tin foil hat and meet the real world. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
In medicine, precautionary measures taken against plausible dangers, silly, not against beliefs. Otherwise medical consensus wouldn't be evidence based, which is not what you want to imply, do you? The decision to remove it was a made to decrease overall exposure to mercury among young infants. Now, you're in denial of the two papers from 2012 connecting Thimerosal, astrocites and autism. Pants down!--Brasov (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
In immunology it's important to reach herd immunity and, with arseholes like you around, you have to work around the latest scare stories in an attempt to keep the levels high enough. Oh, and I don't think those papers say what you want them to say. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The H.I. fallacy is so easily debunked. Vaccine-induced antibodies have waned by 10-20 years. Most wane as early as 2-3 years. This means that people vaccinated as children remain susceptible during at least 3/4ths of their adult lives. So we've always been living well below 50% immunization coverage for any "vaccine preventable" disease, including polio, whereas the Herd Immunity threshold is above 95%. Why aren't the streets littered with corpses? Shouldn't we all by dying of "vaccine preventable" diseases? --Brasov (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think those papers say what you want them to say. You've got to read them first, then debunk. Not the other way around, moron! You're proving to be a ball of assumptions and beliefs.--Brasov (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You don't get to just pick a random, unreplicated in vivo study and claim it trumps the multitude of large scale, replicated studies that have shown no serious adverse effects from the use of thimerosal in vaccines. You also fail to understand our positions, we are stating that there is no evidence for thimerosal causing problems not that it does not. If evidence emerges it will change our minds and we go from there. But small scale, single studies do not serious evidence make. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
When the study focus on an aspect never looked at before, which is the case of Thimerosal and astrocites, previous evidence is irrelevant. In previous studies this kind of toxicity was simply assumed not to be there, and therefore, the associated symptoms would have been discarded as "unrelated". You may also understand that the weight of evidence is different for a passive subject, the researcher, than for a person actively undergoing the medical procedure. For the latter, the plausibility of a serious adverse outcome is enough of a deterrent. The plausibility is there and more data keeps surfacing.--Brasov (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The nice thing about epidemiological studies is that a specific causative factor is not needed. You can look directly at a treatment and it's effects and everything in between is a black box. Thimerosal containing vaccines underwent multiple large scale epidemiology studies that show no significant health defects, and most defiantly no relationship with autism diagnosis. Another point to make is that neither you, nor I, are toxicologist or have the expertise to fully vet the kind of studies you just linked to. We have to rely on the community of experts in that field and that involves replication and extension and metareviews none of which has happened yet for your "new data." One lesson I have learned in science is that the vast, vast, vast majority of "significant" results published in only a single study go absolutely no where. There is sooo much research being published right now that it is easy to find something that says anything you want. So far what you have cited doesn't even have other citing to it yet, let alone any sort of vetting by the wider community. And speaking of the expert community the strong consensus based on all the evidence that neither of us has the time nor expertise to go through is that there is no problem with Thimerosal in vaccines. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The nice thing about epidemiological studies is that a specific causative factor is not needed. If it were so, Cohort studies would not rank 4th in the Hierarchy of Evidence. This means they're still plagued by biases, including diagnostic bias, if the diagnosis depends on the knowledge of the exposure status. If no exposure of astrocites is suspected - lack of knowledge - then diagnostics can oversee it. Your argument that epidemiological studies are robust to detect interactions not considered in the model, is weak.--Brasov (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Where epidemiological studies excel is in linking treatments to overt symptoms and particularly other diagnoses. If thimerosal exposure increased the likelihood that someone would be diagnosed with autism the epidemiological study would find that link. It would also find that link to any noticeable and reportable symptom associated with the treatment. Your right that epidemiological studies are not very good at detecting extremely rare adverse effects or symptoms that go unnoticed by patient or researchers. But this was not your initial claim. If you want to back track and say that thimerosal might cause changes to the body that don't cause major overt symptoms and are not easily detectable, that is very different than saying look it causes autism. The ladder is directly addressed by the epidemiological data, the former can not be addressed by epidemiological data. Going back directly to the linked study, lets reverse this in a thought experiment. If I came to you and said that I have a single study that discovered that when I put cancer cells and healthy cells in a petridish administration of a miracle drug only killed the cancer cells, would you advocate approval of that drug immediately for treatment of cancer? Would the fact that no one has yet to replicate it, or even cite to the research bother you? How far up the evidential ladder would you have to go till you got interested in the drug? Same idea applies here. It doesn't become interesting until there are multiple independent replications of the data. About the time the first major meta-reviews are being published that's when I am interested, but still convincing evidence will require looking at in the "wild." Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
How far up the evidential ladder would you have to go till you got interested in the drug?. For a patient in perfect health, as is the case with vaccines? Infinity and beyond. You can't apply the same reasoning to a healthy individual and a terminal cancer patient. You're losing sight of the context and have drifted far out. --Brasov (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow you completely missed my point, and agreed with it at the same time. You don't make decisions about safety and efficacy based on a single study, specially not one of the quality you have linked to. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yet another miss. You do make decisions about safety and efficacy based on a single study if you're a healthy person proposed for treatment of a perceived risk. You do even with less, if the product is a strong neurotoxic of no therapeutic value. You treat people, not risks, and the effect of a mixture of both intended an uninteded antigens on a given indivudual is Russian Roulette.--Brasov (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is supposed to say. It seems like pigeon chess - all you've done is say "nu-uuuh!!!!!!" and that's it. What is your point? You present one, single, small-scale study, are told by a statistics expert that this is not a significant trump card to play against larger and more useful evidence, and then what? Just reply "no", and that's it. Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 23:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
My point has been spelled out in very clear wording before replies started to drift after red herrings: "When a study focues on an aspect never looked at before....". The red herrings mean you guys struck bedrock. Replies have entered a loop, uninteresting. --Brasov (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That didn't very clearly explain anything. That's why I'm curious as to why you think this single study trumps a lot of other evidence. Besides, you're still discussing a chemical that's phased out of vaccines, and using it as a case against all vaccination - even still a compound for which there is no epidemiological link to neurotoxity stemming from exposure in vaccines. Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
you're still discussing a chemical that's phased out of vaccines. Look, you're repeating. I already said Thimerosal is used massively, in spite of your "phase-out" allegation, in flu vaccines. When I'm forced to make such obvious points, it means I'm being challenged by people that know zilch about the subject.--Brasov (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
there is no epidemiological link to neurotoxity stemming from exposure in vaccines. I've already addressed that too. Go back to my: "Cohort studies rank 4th in the Hierarchy of Evidence. This means they're still plagued by biases, including diagnostic bias...". Being asked the same questions over and over again shows your lack of arguments against the points made.--Brasov (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The page states that no new vaccines contain thimerosal. That is phasing out. It also states the CDC has no evidence that it's harmful. Now, when you state "cohort studies rank 4th" that means this: NOTHING. Studies look at evidence in different ways, and some allow us to see subtle effects more easily. But that doesn't mean one type of test will show one answer and something else might show a different one. Vaccines have been used for so long as studied so extensively that these studies will have shown a link - regardless of this arbitrary ranking. You don't understand how testing and epidemiology work if you're making this assertion. Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 11:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
That is phasing out. Red herring. The product is used massively as we speak and the intention of phasing it out has no bearing on the toxicity of the product, other than precautionary measures amount to an acknowledgement of risks.--Brasov (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Vaccines have been used for so long as studied so extensively these studies will have shown a link.(1) regarding use, claims of autism are abundantly filed by users and denied. (2) Regarding "studies will have shown a link", this is Inductive reasoning, which is subjective and does not necessary follow.--Brasov (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
when you state "cohort studies rank 4th" that means this: NOTHING. When you dismiss with You present one, single, small-scale study, it also means NOTHING. Debunking a study without opening its text and reading it is an exercise in stupidity, I won't play. Still you claim that epidemiological studies where this type of toxicity wasn't even contemplated in the design, because it was unknwon, imply the study on astrocites is flawed. It actually implies the studies are irrelevant for the topic at hand. --Brasov (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Another point to make is that neither you, nor I, are toxicologist. Thare are many situations in which an "appeal to authority" is fallacious. For example, a toxicologist publishes a concentration of Thimerosal that is highly toxic in-vitro to astrocites: concentration A. Another toxicologist publishes the concentration of Thimerosal in the Flu vaccine: concentration B. What level of expertise is needed to conclude: B > A? I'll tell you: not even basic arithmetic or the four rules. Then you can go to great lengths to explain how the highly toxic vial concentration is supposed to diffuse from the injection site into the bloodstream without exposing your astrocites to a toxic concentration in the process.--Brasov (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
But that is just it your leaping way ahead of yourself. Your not comparing apples to apples, your comparing a single, non-replicated, uncited, small scale, in vivo study to 20 years worth of research spanning many forms of data collection and analysis. You have a single data point, the field has a preponderance of evidence. The appeal to authority comes not in examining a single study but rather the experts who have reviewed the extremely voluminous amounts of published studies and tell us that their is no evidence of an increase in risk associated with its use. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You're diverting, not addressing my objections. I'm not "jumping ahead of myself", as the concentration A is given in the study I cited above, and B is given in any flu vaccine insert. Go look them up. Then tell anyone that isn't illiterate that's fine and dandy to have such a vial injected. An please, stop hiding behind "voluminous" amount of volumes you've never read and neither have most of the "voluminous" amount of "experts" that subscribed you pretended consensus.--Brasov (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but when I was at the annual meeting of the Royal Statistical Society which was held, that year, in honour of a medical statistician, I brought up the subject of vaccine hysteria. These guys have read the volumous amount of volumes - they wrote most of them. They also know, as statisticians, how to handle data, what is significant and what is not. Call it an appeal to authority but whose opinion would you take, a collection of the top medical statisticians in the UK or some internet nutter? Just saying. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
or some internet nutter?. Someone like you? Going back to the "volumous amount of volumes" argument... The volumes of knowledge Evolution has written in our genes vastly overweight anything your petty Society members can possibly achieve. Vaccines do not make a healthy human, neither do meds. Our genome has defined, by Natural Selection, what's good for our health: proper nutrition, proper elimination, physical activity, rest... just use the evolutionary knowledge instead of reinventing the wheel.--Brasov (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're looking for Vaccine Hysteria you need go no further than the WHO: WHO - State of the World's Vaccines and Immunization "Foreword - Imagine a world without vaccines. Life-threatening diseases would present a daily risk. We would live in fear of deadly strains of diphtheria, tetanus and measles; polio would be a constant danger and in a matter of hours could paralyze a child, and smallpox would continue to scar and kill. All these diseases would claim the lives of our children in vast numbers, families watching helplessly. Lives would be cut short and people’s movement severely restricted. Cities would be places to flee at the first rumour of infection rather than magnets for culture, commerce and learning. It is hard to imagine the loss in lives, creativity, productivity, potential and well-being.".--Brasov (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You can not compare a very small scale in vitro study, with zero replication and say that its results through some magical crank transitive property are perfectly applicable to exposure in people through vaccines. Your missing a lot of middle and that is why your jumping ahead of yourself. Regardless, I am not in the mood for internet argument, I am not an expert nor are you. I assume your point in all of this is you want to include new material in the article. I am telling you that at the very least you would have to cite evidence that has been independently replicated. Until then there is no point including something that is likely to go nowhere. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
What Trent said. Otherwise this is argumentum ad tedium. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 17:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
"8.5 times lower than the one found in a flu vaccine vial" A flu vaccine dose is 0.5 ml. The human body has about 5000 mililiters of blood. The vaccine is injected into the veins, not the carotid artery. Don't worry, it's still safe! Hipocrite (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
A highly toxic vial with "safety factor": the subject itself. It's like: "Hey, this junk is deadly to astrocites and you'll make it safe, not us. No worries!". The subject is expected to function as waste filter, diluting the toxic concentrate with its blood and swearing by Glaxo that no toxic level can ever reach the brain in the process. Mindless and reckless. Not with me, not with my child!--Putin2.jpg Brasov 00:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
And what exactly puts you in possession of information that medical science does not have about the toxicity of vaccines and/or thimerosal? And do try to come up with something better than cui bono. EVDebs (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Medical science is the source of the data I share. You must be mistaking science with textbooks, package inserts of CDC fliers. Go to the primary sources and look at the data, then instead of buying the author's interpretation, question it. Find the flaws, reconnect the dots. Brains have a function, don't take inductive shortcuts like "lots of people can't be wrong". They can because they also took the same shorcut. --Putin2.jpg Brasov 02:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, the Eric S. Raymond error cascade. Because science never uses multiple lines of evidence to prove things. EVDebs (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Science this, science that... Appeal to an abstraction. Science can't be assimilated to scientists, which are people presumed to produce science. When the founders of Evidence Based Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration were forced to conclude: "...The review [ of industry funded studies ] showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies..." you know something is very, very rotten in Danemark. Your appeal to trust (the mental shortcut again) has to be backed by evidence of the safeguard mechanisms of Science actually being observed by the people doing vaccines. But the evidence points to the exact opposite.--Putin2.jpg Brasov 10:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Public Health Association[edit]

Article on how to evaluate reliability of info on the net. [2] Focuses on vaccination info, but is obviously more broadly applicable. Pashley (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Now they're blaming peanut allergies on vaccines[edit]

It was only a matter of time before food allergies joined the list of evils purportedly spread by vaccines.

I just found this article on a website called "The Doctor Within". In it, the rise in serum vaccinations is correlated with the rise in peanut allergies. Coincidence? Or ... conspiracy!

Were the Vaccine Denialism article an ordinary article, I'd have added an entry about this topic immediately. But since it's a GOLD-quality article, I'd want someone else's take on the subject (preferably someone who's more knowledgeable about the subject matter in the linked website) before I add anything to the article.

--Tracer (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinions of autistic individual[edit]

I've been scouring the web to attempt to find an opinion from somebody who actually has autism on this whole thing. Surprise surprise, I find nothing from any sites promoting denialism. Unfortunately (but not unexpected) I also didn't find much from any organizations dedicated to autism. I've read some autistic individuals who have written how they find it all very insulting, especially because it seems to be a bunch of parents, some of them with autistic children themselves, saying essentially, "Now that I personally believe that vaccines caused my child to get autism, if I could go back in time I would have not vaccinated and let them risk serious illness and death rather than have had them come out this way." I was wondering if anyone had a good source for something like this, since it's a gold standard article and I didn't want to just throw the claim out there that "Some autistic individuals feel..." --ShadowofLords (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Autism Speaks actually is in the anti-vexer crowd. Zero (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Is that really relevant though? POV is great and all but is it really needed on such an article? Firemylasers (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's definitely relevant. (Though I'm autistic myself, so perhaps there's a bit of a conflict of interest.) We want to show that the belief is not only untrue, but that it's ridiculous. The underlying premise is "I'd prefer my child to have polio over autism", which is an awful thing for any parent to think about their child. The angle should probably be less "this is offensive to autistic people" and more "they haven't thought of the implications of their belief". Kimberly (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not really a conflict of interest, more an inside view. If you want to add a comment saying what you just said here then go ahead. It needs saying. SophieWilderModerator 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Relevant?[edit]

Found this on Reddit. Claims the anti-vax movement has over 1,100 victims. It blames them all on Jenny McCarthy though. But still, seemed relevant.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be relevant, but I don't think that's the right figure to use. The people that died of those "vaccine preventable" diseases might have actually gotten the vaccine (they're not always effective), they might not have been able to take the vaccine for health reasons, they might be opposed to vaccination for a religious reason even though they don't deny vaccines' effectiveness, etc. Kimberly (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Vaccine safety concerns are to be separated from vaccine denialism[edit]

CAUTION Wiki newbie ...

I think it is important to point out that there are two issues. 1) Vaccines vs. no vaccines debate. 2) Unsafe vaccines vs. safe vaccines debate.

I am talking about unsafe vaccines vs. safe vaccines.

I have references to peer reviewed published scientific papers showing relation between vaccines/injections/tick bites and food allergies below.

https://sites.google.com/site/vaccineinducedfoodallergy/

I think denying such evidence would not be in line with rationalwiki's mission as I understand it.

Vinucube (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I could swear this article used to be called vaccine hysteria--"Shut up, Brx." 05:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This subject has been discussed in detail here:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78023-direct-evidence-from-the-cdc-that-vaccines-cause-food-allergies/ Vinucube (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
And you got woodshedded to hell and back by a bunch of people who were clearly bored with your PRATTfall. EVDebs (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please provide evidence. Vinucube (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to Science Forums. I knew you were talking total bollocks and it was nice to see everything you said so completely debunked in one thread.
People like you have blood on your hands. Measles was all but dead - and now it's babies that are dead due to unfounded panics spread by morons. Vaccination works and the minuscule risks are far, far outweighed by the benefits but now we're having the old bogeymen resurrected with measles outbreaks clearly associated with panicmongers like you. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope I made myself clear. I am not anti-vaccine. I am pro-safe vaccines. Since the gap appears large between our positions, lets try smaller steps ...
Red meat allergy caused by tick bites
Tick bites result in the injection of a protein called alpha-gal (which is present in red meat) into the blood stream causing red meat allergy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057034/
Food allergies caused by proton pump inhibitors (PPI)
When acidity in the stomach is reduced by acid reducing medications, food proteins are not broken down. They travel to the intestine intact and get absorbed into the blood stream causing food allergies. http://www.immuneweb.com/wenzhai/pdf/010301.pdf
Gelatin allergy caused by gelatin in the DTaP vaccine
Gelatin in the vaccine injected into the blood stream causes gelatin allergy. Nakayama T, Aizawa C, Kuno-Sakai H. A clinical analysis of gelatin allergy and determination of its causal relationship to the previous administration of gelatin-containing acellular pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:321--5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9949325
If you disagree with the above, counter-evidence of comparable quality will be greatly appreciated.
Vinucube (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Usually, people who are anti-vaccine try to disguise their qualms with some JAQing off over safety. The rub is that "safe" is such a relative term and prone to misuse. Questions over allergies and adverse reactions aren't denied by the pro-vaccine 'side', but they are significantly overblown and misrepresented by the anti-vax movement. Trying to say that "safety concerns" are legitimate is to give a lot of false legitimacy to the anti-vax movement by claiming the pro-vaccine crowd ignore them. This is patently false. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
All medical treatments carry a risk. Putting on a sticky plaster (Band Aid) carries a risk - there are a number who are allergic to the glue. However we still use sticky plasters because the benefits outweigh the risks by several orders of magnitude. Similarly with a treatment like the MMR, one of the anti-vax bogey men, there is an associated risk. A risk that is well known, well understood and well documented. However, when this risk is measured against the risk to the health of children from these diseases then the benefits outweigh the risk by several orders of magnitude.
But scaremongers like Vinucube, for whatever reason, are putting populations at risk. People die because of anti vax scares. Distorting the facts by wildly exaggerating the risks is plain evil. Am I being harsh? Ask the family of Gareth Colfer-Williams. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, we are discussing vaccines/injections causing life-threatening food allergies. Vaccines/injections causing anaphylaxis is a secondary concern.
As far as I know, vaccine inserts and CDC documentation do NOT list the development of food allergies as a possible side effect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495022 is an example where food allergy is induced in mice. Mice are injected with food proteins along with alum as an adjuvant and the mice develop food allergies.
Food proteins are injected into humans via vaccines/injections and they too can contain alum as an adjuvant. All the evidence above from varied and independent sources demonstrate in both humans and animals, Charles Richet's Nobel Prize winning discovery that proteins injected into the blood stream, causes the organism to develop an allergy to the protein.
Nakayama et al., reads "In the preliminary
results investigating the immunogenicity of gelatin in
DTaP, a trace amount of gelatin in DTaP was immunogenic.
We examined 165 paired sera obtained before the
first dose of DTaP and 1 month after the third dose of
DTaP. Of 165 paired sera, 62 were obtained from the
recipients of gelatin-free DTaP, and IgE antibodies to
gelatin developed in none. In 103 recipients of gelatincontaining
DTaP, IgE antibodies to gelatin developed in 2
recipients."
So 2% of gelatin containing DTaP recipients developed allergy to gelatin. Food proteins levels vary widely in vaccines as shown here:
http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/gelatin-allergies.html
MMR has 10000x more gelatin than DTaP.
"In the gastrointestinal tract of babies born by c-section, there is a pattern of "at risk" microorganisms that may cause them to be more vulnerable to developing the antibody Immunoglobulin E, or IgE, when in contact with allergens" - Christine Cole Johnson, Ph.D., MPH, chair of Henry Ford Department of Health Sciences.
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(12)03130-2/fulltext
Nakayama et al. looked at the effect of only one vaccine. Vaccines are given in multiple doses with each dose increasing the percentage of population that develops immunity. One can expect the same result for food allergy development. Today not only are kids receiving 20-30 or more shots, they also receive as many as 5 shots in one sitting. That's 5 times the amount food proteins and adjuvants at one time.
Number of C section deliveries have been going up.
Number of vaccines shots have been going up.
Number of simultaneous shots per sitting have gone up to 5
Number of Americans with food allergies have gone up to 15 million.
Given all the evidence I cited, what are the odds that all of the above is a mere coincidence?
Regarding benefits vs. cost, we are talking about the cost of developing vaccines free of food proteins vs. the benefit of saving the lives of children lost to life-threatening food allergies.
To clarify again, my goals are as follows:
Intermediate goal:No more than one vaccine a month to reduce risk of developing food allergies.
Final goal: Eliminate food proteins from vaccines/injections.
BTW:Nakayama et al., I cited is reference 78 in CDC's own document called "Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)".http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6002a1.htm
Vinucube (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14624794 Vinucube (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Vinucube you have a point that there appears to be a correlation (and potential mechanism seen in the sources you've provided) that merits further study. There are so many factors at play though, I would suggest at MOST a brief mention that there is no literature available that proves or disproves the possibility of vaccine-acquired immunogenicity to common food allergens. Then again, that's more fuel for the Jenny McCarthy's of the world to use in their quest to spread preventable childhood disease and hysteria, so it would most likely be best to wait until a study is released to make any claims. Does anyone know of any current studies of a bonafide link? For all we know this "increase" in allergies really could just be genetics, non-clinical misdiagnosis, or overly protective parents who keep their kids "safe" from immunity-building encounters with said allergens. Beatgroover (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why was this moved from vaccine hysteria?[edit]

A minor quibble, surely, but I think categorically vaccine hysteria would be the better title for the article. Denial doesn't really fit all the stuff the page discusses. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_hysteria&action=history ADK moved it at some point,] but I don't know why.

I support making it hysteria again.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a fair consensus, lead by Trent if I remember rightly, that nowhere else refers to the anti-vaccine movement as "vaccine hysteria". There were a few alternatives given, but "denialism" stuck because of its relative relation to most other denialism topics. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 11:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading it, it appears consensus that both titles were a bit shitty. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Worth a look & a link: The Facts In The Case Of Dr. Andrew Wakefield Pashley (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How about people claiming vaccines simply don't work?[edit]

This page does a good job of debunking the "vaccines do harm" theories, but how about the (related) claim that vaccines don't work and/or don't have anything to do with reduction in disease rates? I'm talking about stuff like this: http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/do-vaccines-save-lives-what-infectious-disease-mortality-graphs-show/ where the claim is that disease rates were declining before the introduction of vaccines. Joakim Ziegler (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This should be discussed too.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rename? (again?)[edit]

OK, we've had this debate before, but what is really the harm in renaming this to "anti-vaccination movement?" Most people who are searching for this topic are going to search for it under that title, and it is the title that would, in all probability, get the most hit from google, yahoo, etc. Vaccine denialism, while a classic RW-esque title, isn't likely to bring the internet searches for this topic here. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I support a rename. I like vaccine hysteria, but RNS' is okay too--"Shut up, Brx." 12:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Anybody else? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Denialism is better IMO but I would never get in the way of some good SEO. Can this be done with redirects, or does this not work? (I was not born with the ability to understand the magics of the internet) Tielec01 (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
By default, MediaWiki will leave redirects unless the person moving it turns the option off. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No Known Cause for Autism is a totally false statement.[edit]

The statement there is no known cause for autism is totally wrong. There are MANY known causes of autism. Probably dozens. A bunch of genetic defects, prenatal conditions, etcetera. There are many large scale studies showing on the average vaccines do not cause autism and may even be a little bit neuroprotective - not surprising considering we've got vaccines for some types of meningitis, a known cause of brain problems, whooping cough, ditto for that, etcetera.

But there are MANY known causes for autism.— Unsigned, by: 75.61.129.92 / talk / contribs 02:45, 9 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Known side effects - flawed risk analysis[edit]

The article says:

"complications are more likely to arise from illness than from vaccination."

and cites as evidence:

"The current impact of vaccines on health is very simply stated here. Children who get measles have a 1 in 20 chance of developing a serious complication; however, serious complications from the vaccine number 1 or 2 per million"

Those of us who have studied probability can quickly spot the fallacy here:

1. The 1:1,000,000 of getting a complication from a vaccine applies to all vaccinees.
2. In contrast, the 1:20 probability of a measles complication doesn't apply to all non-vaccinated persons, but only to a percent of them that contracts measles, which is ...?

So the author is not being honest here by comparing apples and pears. This risk analysis is totally bogus. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty clear. Somebody is more likely to contract a serious problem from measles than vaccines. How is that hard to discern? Zero (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You have no idea of probability calculus. You need to know the percent of non-vaccinated persons that get measles before you can discern. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
That being said you have no idea about calculus either since this isn't even calculus! But maybe this will satisfy your curiosity: "Nearly Universal." Zero (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If by "this" isn't calculus then let's remove the bogus probability comparison from the page and the corresponding bogus conclussion.
Your CDC link does not address the missing data of what percent of non-vaccinated people get measles, so it adds nothing to the debate. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Fuck it. Seriously. If I show you the CDC saying "Nearly Universal" and that's not good enough for you then I'm not wasting my time satisfying a BoN. Zero (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Infection with measles virus was nearly universal" does not imply clinical measles was universal. It is clinical measles that has complications, obviously, while infection can go subclinical. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, lets try this - and I've biased the figures as far as possible against vaccination.
  • Pre vaccine prevelence of measles was 'near universal' - let's call that 80% to be on the safe side - and ALL measles is clinical.
  • Of that 80% 5% get serious complications - so that's 4% of the population get serious complications
  • Even in a measles outbreak the risk of vaccinated children getting measles is <5% (If there weren't vax deniers then there would be no measles but that's another story)
  • Of those 5% 5% get serious complications - that's 0.25%
  • Plus, of course the 2 per million from vaccination complcations - so we've got to raise that to 0.2502%
  • So, by vaccinating your child you reduce the risk of serious complications by a factor of 16.
  • So anyone who doesn't vaccinate their child is putting him or her at a stupid and uneccessary risk - not to mention the whole herd immunity thing. We no longer need to vaccinate for smallpox because we vaccinated it out of existence.
Placeholder (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You say: "Pre vaccine prevelence of measles was 'near universal'", but the CDC say: "infection with measles virus was nearly universal", which includes subclinical. Then you claim "ALL measles is clinical", but the CDC is talking about infection with measles virus which can be subclinical:
Seroconversions in unvaccinated infants: further evidence for subclinical measles from vaccine trials in Niakhar, Senegal.
"...One-fifth (n = 53) of the placebo controls seroconverted..."
You're shifting goals and trying obfuscation. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You say "Of that 80% 5% get serious complications " but the CDC says: "Acute encephalitis occurs in approximately 0.1%" an this is the most serious complication mentioned by the CDC.
Regarding the vaccine, the CDC says "...one additional febrile seizure occurred 5–12 days after vaccination per 2,300–2,600 children who had received the first dose of MMRV vaccine". So we have a vaccine complication akin to encephalitis in 0.04% of vacciness. That's a lot more then the pretended 1 in 2,000,000.
The whole risk/benefit analysis of vaccines is a chimp's tea party where vaccine dangers are downplayed and measles complications exaggerated. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Good to know that you are here to restore objectivity. Your hostile certitude inspires confidence. I'd point out that in the linked CDC article "Nearly Universal" seizures occur as a complication of measles in .6%-.7% of cases, or about 1 in 167 infected. If you want to count febrile seizures as a serious complication on par with death, we can do so, but it would probably not be favorable to your position. Note that encephalitis occurs ten times as often among the infected as compared with the vaccinated, .1%. Yes, a complete analysis in terms of mathematical probability needs to recognize that not all people who go unvaccinated contract the disease, but infection rates vary depending on the population that you live in. In the pre-vaccine world measles was nearly universal, though, and not at all close to 1 in 10.
And looking at your actual quote on febrile seizures, it looks like you may be failing to comprehend. Here's the full quote:

Two postlicensure studies indicated that among children 12–23 months of age, one additional febrile seizure occurred 5–12 days after vaccination per 2,300–2,600 children who had received the first dose of MMRV vaccine compared with children who had received the first dose of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine administered as separate injections at the same visit. Data from postlicensure studies do not suggest that children 4–6 years of age who received the second dose of MMRV vaccine had an increased risk for febrile seizures after vaccination compared with children the same age who received MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine administered as separate injections at the same visit.

Emphasis is of course mine. What is your actual argument? If you are talking about why we should or shouldn't avoid vaccinating for measles, which is what I thought we were talking about at this point, then this information doesn't do much to advance your position. It merely points out that there are problems with a particular strategy for vaccinating for both measles and chickenpox in one visit to the doctor. Both groups in this comparison were immunized against measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox. Some receiving the combined vaccine had an unexpected worrisome outcome in comparison to the long-standing, more conservative immunization strategy, and this is a relatively worrisome thing about the new-fangled MMRV vaccine. Shirtsleeves (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

MMR South Wales Backlack[edit]

Is this worth mentioning in the article? http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323300004578555453881252798 Hobby (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this include morality of not innoculation, if we pretend a link between autism and vaccines did exist?[edit]

Basically, autism is generally better than dying a slow, painful, agonizing death. So, even if they did cause autism, it's the more moral option to risk autism than to risk torture and murder of a child. Hppavilion1 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with Asperger's Disorder, I agree. The "vaccines cause autism and ought to be BANNED" scare is almost a tacit admission that the proponents think we'd be better off dead (of easily prevented diseases, no less), and frankly, does nothing for my state of mind except make me angry at such glaring (and frankly, insulting) irrationality. Least that's how I see it <_<.Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinions on inclusion of article suggesting MMR vaccine has reduced one cause of autism[edit]

There is a study that I want opinions on before incorporating into the article-it actually flips things around on the anti-MMR vaccine people specifically. It is a medscape article based on epidemiological rates of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) and its relationship to autism spectrum cases. CRS is a known contributor to cases of severe autism among other horrible things. The logic of the article seems good and Medscape is typically a good scholarly source, but I am a bit iffy on the methodology. Arachne1988 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't get to your linked article. Was it based on the Berger paper inBMC Public Health? MarmotHead (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is that one. I am surprised you couldn't get to it-Medscape is free to access online, more so than most academic journals. Arachne1988 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It wanted me to login and I just didn't wanna.
The article was interesting. Methodologically, it's based on mathematical models which work differently from traditional statistical studies. This version is a kind of simulation study where the authors make a few assumptions, based on the literature, and compute the results under several scenarios. It's a kind of what-if, rather than what-did-we-observe. It doesn't seem wrong, but something based on original data collection and a hypothesis is often considered higher quality. FWIW, I've been published using both this method and statistical analyses so ... MarmotHead (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay so I guess I will incorporate it with some qualifiers. Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't sure how sound the methodology was due to the lack of original data.Arachne1988 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a link to the study the medscape article references for the connection between Autism and CRS[[3]]. 10 out of 243 CRS children had full blown autism and eight partial autism, compared to one or two out of a thousand in the rest of the population. Hertzy (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"Partial autism"? I wasn't aware people used that terminology. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's from 1971. "Partial syndrome of autism" was apparently a diagnosis back then. Hertzy (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
D'oh, I put in the wrong prevalence number, it's one in a thousand worldwide, 1.5% in the developed world.
So the vaxxers have actually made their offspring more succeptible to severe autism by increasing the odds for congenital rubella syndrome? Yikes, talk about irony. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

How the hell is there even a debate on this?[edit]

It's utterly baffling to me that so many people don't understand the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an accredited journal, and something some crackpot posted on their blog which "sounds" true.

There is literally zero debate on this "issue" from within knowledgeable scientific circles in the scientific community. The facts (and they are facts) have been analyzed and examined by qualified professionals from a plethora of various medical fields, and the results are in: autism is not linked to vaccines.

It really is as simple as that, but it's not even open to debate, as the people willing to debate this have no credible evidence and are unable to cite literally one single valid piece of evidence from any legitimate scientific journal that suggests otherwise.

It's as simple as an "I'm right, you're wrong" kind of issue. For more information on why you need to shut the fuck up about vaccines being harmful, here is a list of just a FRACTION of the studies that have concluded in no uncertain terms that vaccination is safe: http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf Parogar (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You're talking as if everybody is in the habit of reading peer-reviewed accredited scientific journals. Most people actually aren't. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Scandinavian Narcolepsy cases[edit]

I'd like to point out a stopped clock case. In Sweden and Finland, the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix was linked with an increase in the risk of narcolepsy in the 4-19 year age group, around 9-fold in Finland (http://www.thl.fi/en_US/web/en/pressrelease?id=24103) and 4-fold in Sweden (http://www.lakemedelsverket.se/english/All-news/NYHETER-2011/A-Swedish-registry-based-cohort-study-provides-strengthened-evidence-of-an-association-between-vaccination-with-Pandemrix-and-narcolepsy-in-children-and-adolescents-/). The risk wasn't all that big to begin with, so this was 60 cases out of the 70 percent of the age group vaccinated in Finland, and around 4 out of 100 000 vaccinated in Sweden, and something like 600 total in Europe. Hertzy (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless somebody objects, I'll go ahead and add this in the "In the news today" section, with the references and other markup properly done:
Scandinavia
In August 2010, Finnish National Institute of Health and Welfare recommended that Pandemrix vaccinations be discontinued, pending investigation into 15 cases of narcolepsy in recently vaccinated children and adolescents in the previous year[4]. At the same time, the European Medicines Agency and the Swedish Medical Products agency launched their own investigations to the vaccination. Far from being quashed by Big Pharma, these studies were completed in early 2011, and concluded that there was indeed an increased Relative risk of developing narcolepsy in children and adolescents vaccinated with Pandemrix. A number of follow-up studies have given various relative risks, ranging from around threefold risk [5] to as much as 7.5 [6]. Because narcolepsy is so rare to begin with, relative risks are hard to estimate, and the confidence intervals mentioned in the studies reflect this, generally giving a range of half to one and a half times the cited risk.
As is usual with Stopped clock cases, these findings did not result in widespread adoption of vaccine denialist notions in mainstream medicine. Instead, the scientific method carried on and, two years later, produced a model that explains these findings. As might be expected, the cause was not any of the vaccine additives anti-vaxers malign, but the fact that a certain surface proteins of the H1N1 virus resemble hypocretin, a neurotransmitter that transmits the "wake up" signal. [7]
I'd feel better if there were peer reviewed refs to this. Also, this narcolepsy relationship seems to also occur in actual cases of swine flu. Is it higher/lower in the vaccine than in the disease? Also, with the base rate so small, it's hard to get precise measurements of the actual relative risk, hence the big range of reported values. Even the 3-9 CI is pretty wide. I'd prefer a statement that takes the most conservative estimate (I saw one as low as 2) and describes it as "2 or more" or some similar construction. In short, could you increase the science depth and/or present the uncertainty? Early/casual results are fine as long as their early/casualness are clear. MarmotHead (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As for peer reviewed studies, here's a few links: British Medical Journal, plosone.org, and Journal of internal medicine, vaccine, giving various relative risks and confidence intervals for slightly different age groups. I got the three from Journal of internal medicine and the nine from the Finnish press release. Also, here's the study referenced in the New Scientist link: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/216/216ra176. Hertzy (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I did a rewrite, how does it look now? Also, is there an article on this wiki I could link to that explains the concept of confidence interval. Hertzy (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Better. There's no CI article but there's a small bit in Statistical significance that may or may not be relevant. FYI, it's bad ratwiki form to alter talk pages for more than typos. The fossil record shows everything but it's hard to see the conversation as a whole. MarmotHead (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I'll wait a bit more for any more comments before I go and add the section. Hertzy (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The article you are referring to (http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/216/216ra176) is invalid: "This article has been retracted". I live in Sweden and have followed the Pandemrix/narcolepsy debate closely, and have not heard about this hypothesis at all. I wish you'd rewrite this section and omit the part that starts with "As is usual". /Anna Toss-Finnsio, Swedish wikipedian 80.216.233.9 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor correction[edit]

Under "Specific concerns", "SIDS" I think "DPA/DPaT" should read "DPA/DTaP" (DTaP for "Diptheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis"). --Lifeformnoho (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Disneyland measles outbreak content question[edit]

A couple of editorial questions (since this is a cover story):

  1. Should the Disneyland outbreak be a section (or sub-section) of this article and
  2. If it should, should I post the final version of the thing about it that I am writing on this talkpage first, so that it can be picked over before I add it?

I should add that I have a good bit about it that I am currently writing in Microsoft Word. Once I am done getting it ready to go, I will post the final version here for picking over. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be. Put Disneyland under "In the News" under "USA". Just put it into the article, don't worry about cover story status. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Creative trolling of the anti-vaxxer movement[edit]

So, somebody pointed me to this interesting page Facebook, where you donate money to UNICEF's vaccine program, and dedicate your donation in the name of prominent anti-vaxxers. Thought I'd share it, since it's one of the most creative trolling campaigns I've seen. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

could vaccines contain undetected, un-destroyed prions?[edit]

"134 °C (274 °F) for 18 minutes in a pressurized steam autoclave may not be enough to deactivate the agent of disease." w:Prion Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 00:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

All the equipment for shots is prepackaged and disposible. This would affect reusable medical devices like sugery equipment. I know people have claimed it, but have they never had a shot in the last 10 years? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about the serum: say, 1 million shots from 1 million disposable needles but from the same vat.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 00:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Where would it come from? It would need to get into the vat in the first place. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a bit out of my league, but I have this idea that vaccines are likely created—let's say brewed—in a vat, or vats. The serum might have prions that we've yet to detect—there needn't be a conspiracy to infect, it's simply an error—but it's there, undetected, and undestroyed, because if I understand correctly, prions are pretty tough. Heat and the like that kills ordinary viruses might not kill these prions. They multiply, and infest the serum. Then the serum is injected into the masses, and they get sick. It might be in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, or 2 decades. That's what I'm wondering.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 01:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Prion disorders that can be transmitted come from certain diseases (also in the link on prions) and don't normally just happen without genetic causes. They are hard to get even when exposed. When infected and in the full blown disorder it can be seen on an EEG and is usually fatal in 10 years after infection. Since there are people who have autism over 15 I would say it's a pretty bunk idea. You can test it and see if it is discounted...but experiance with those disorders would say it's a fishing expidition. Without testing it is easy to punch holes into. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Every instrument had a detection limit and no substance is 100% all the same species. But it's not clear at all what this has to do with vaccines. Heck, something in your refrigerator could have small amounts of prions in it. Sterile (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's not injected. Good points both of you. I'll give them due consideration and be back in a while.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 01:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Also in the WP article: prions may be denatured with a pretreatment of lye or chlorine bleach ("NaOH or sodium hypochlorite") followed by autoclaving. "Where would it come from?" is the right question to ask. Not all proteins are subject to the kind of misfolding that makes prion proteins dangerous. Out of my league too, but it is a safe bet that better minds than mine have considered vaccine ingredients pretty scrupulously. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The minute detail is a bit out of mine, but I know people who deal with it fairly (given the rarity) often. An animal needs to get infected (currently only common sources are humans/cows/sheep), then generate enough prions to cause an issue, then have their neuro tissue contaminate an injestable source, and then someone needs to do so and have the ability not to correct the prions. Prions occur normally but our bodies can do something about a reasonable concentration of them, and there are those with genetic disorders that cannot do so (~15% of prion cases).
Even then...it is a fatal disorder, it is fairly obvious to tests once someone is sick enough, and can be confused for alzhemiers/dementia in early stages. SPECTs/PETs can differentiate those. Autism is not fatal in itself and presents in a very different way.
Without a Rue Goldberg machine of errors in every vaccine ever made the only way I could think it could happen is intentional contamination requiring the help of the pharma company, FDA, maybe the doctors who provide the shot (contamination can or cannot be obvious), and every doctor that provides care for these kids for the rest of their short lives...for no reason. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Could "X" contain "Y"? Well, anything is possible. The question might be better "What is the probability that X contains a measurable quantity of Y?"--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible that vaccines could be contaminated with all sorts of things. Unlikely, but possible. So could literally everything else. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've yet to give the above the reading it deserves, but I'll throw in an extra thing. Could there be something—prions, whatever—that survives the process of vaccine manufacturing, yet not survive non-injected, maybe even non-inhaled, exposure, such as ingesting or contact with skin?Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What you are talking about is a completely undetectable, unobservable, and undiscovered substance that proves the link true based on nothing. Can I ask a question before we continue...are you looking for an actual cause or just fishing for anything that could link vaccines and autism? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not undetectable nor unobservable, but undetected and unobserved. I'm kinda fishing, admittedly, but no, I don't consider myself an anti-vaxer who's trying to link vaccines to autism. If there is a epidemic, the disease is quite contagious, and quite injurious, particularly if one is vulnerable (very old, very young, sick) then get a vaccine. But I have my suspicions and I'm uncomfortable with a somewhat strident and even unthinking element on the other side. I oppose the mandatory aspect. If vaccines are so good, why worry about someone who might be carrying the disease? Your immune system will kill it. Also, while the probability of something being in the serum there is small, the consequences of inadvertently infecting millions, even if it only manifest in a small minority of the inoculated could be quite bad. Again, I should do some reading before I get into the argument heavily.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this...read some more on the topic and read the parts above. Give them the proper reading they need and come back. These new topics are addressed in a number of news articles recently about the complications about the disease versus the vaccine, and herd immunity. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a very good idea.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if the connection between thiomersal and autism were true …[edit]

… it's possibly worth noting that thiomersal was eliminated from most if not all vaccines (in the United States at least) in the early 2000's. So "concerns" about the effects of thiomersal are no sensible basis for refusing vaccines in, say, 2015. Not that this irritating discrepancy fazes many anti-vax folks.— Unsigned, by: ‎50.186.16.45 / talk / contribs

Thanks for your contribution, but the article already directly addresses this.
In 1999, the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics requested a voluntary removal of thiomersal from vaccines and today the preservative is mainly used only in seasonal flu vaccines —Thiomersal subsection
Ikanreed (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Missed that. Well, it's important to fuck up sometimes. Reminds people that you're human. :)

Kenya tetanus[edit]

Seems a case being raised not of anti-vaccination becasue the particular vaccine does not work or is harmful per se, but substitution for something else. Should it be mentioned? — Unsigned, by: 141.244.172.63 / talk 10:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Family (genetic) vulnerability[edit]

There does seem to be one rational reason for an anti-vaccination stance. That is with a very rare adverse reaction to a vaccine or particular ingredient in a formulation. If I had that then it may be a bad idea for me to again take that formulation (for example last year I took the flu vaccine, this year taking the flu vaccine which would have a different anti-viral properties, but the same delivery mixture) . It may also be a bad idea for my genetically identical twin brother to take it. etc. How much is the risk in those cases for siblings or parent child negative reactions? Here some maths on the genetics can be useful. I have seen a case of one person who did not want any injections as a result of such a negative reaction, and there has been the pulling of medicince in the UK due to poor control in one pharma generic supplier to the National Health Service. In these very specific circumstances avoiding vaccines could be a wise strategy for some individuals. For the herd immunity and mass avoidance the first case NO (only that individual just as with peanut allergy), the second case YES (badly prepared medicince will affect a lot of people). Proper drug formulation and production procedures are not a common problem in Western modern medicine, but historically and in less well developed overseen pharma countries they may be. — Unsigned, by: 141.244.172.63 / talk / contribs

People who would react adversely to one or multiple vaccines should definitely avoid them. Such people do exist. This is something that the pro-vaccination stance does not deny. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 20:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
In fact, they're one of the biggest concerns. "Look at these douchebags choosing to spread disease to people who have no choice" Ikanreed (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes my post was not to say that they do not exist, but to contextualise the risk to those people and how vaccination policy is not a fascist policy of forcing everyone to take vaccines EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT GOOD in your particular case QED.

can someone lern me how to fix the reflist thingy in this article?[edit]

Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 16:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so some kind soul inserted the reflist template with the parameter "group=note" (and saved me much embarrassment) now. Basically those ref tags declared themselves to belong to a note group that we hadn't bothered listing, so ugly red text was shown to show us the error of our ways. PacWalker 17:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Still, I guess I have some reading to do. wp:Template:ReflistCivic CatTalk to Civic Cat 18:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
RW mostly uses 3 "kinds" of reflists. The first, {{reflist}}, displays a single column of refs at 100% size, for normal articles. The second, {{reflist|2|#}} or {{reflist|3|#}}, shows two/three columns of refs at #% size, for citation-heavy articles. The third, {{reflist|group=note}} displays a single column of references tagged "group=note"; usually these footnotes can be normal refs, but if there are a lot of them this works. Not much more to know. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. :-)
Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


Found this pile of horseshit on my Tumblr[edit]

https://40.media.tumblr.com/ec1bbeb3a53e8d35ac56ba6fc8e28d72/tumblr_n6m8j6B9dH1t63w4qo1_540.jpg

Vaccinations lead to Heroin addiction!--Pokefrazer (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[8] FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Profile of anti-vaxxers[edit]

http://sociology.about.com/od/Current-Events-in-Sociological-Context/fl/Everything-You-Need-to-Know-About-Anti-Vaxxers.htm
Should this go in the article? If so, where? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be great to figure out a way to include it, yes. Middle to upper class, white, well-educated, leading to thinking they (and their FB mommy group...) are smarter than doctors, scientists, and especially government officials? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Should there be a section on who tends to be a part of the anti-vaccination movement? It would be a linkfest to conspiracy, hard right, and very green positions. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 03:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Gold?[edit]

Really? The opening paragraph is a bit jumbly, unclear. The second is good though. The list of promoters wasn't even alphabetized. Gold/cover story implies a certain level of almost-perfection. Was it there once and suffered some bit rot? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The mess referenced one section up is my fault; I still need to clean it up. PacWalker 02:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What would you change in the opening paragraph? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The first, second, and fourth sentences at least. The fourth is the weakest, the first and second just have no punch... let's look at the first.


First, it is ridiculously repetitive, drifts into parentheses, and ends with an afterthought. It's very weak sentence to open a supposedly gold article with.

How about "The anti-vaccination movement is a loosely organized subculture which blames modern vaccines for a wide range of health problems. The movement, often led by people with no qualifications - or even stripped credentials, is based largely on alleged short and long term side effects, which are often compared to trivialized claims of the severity of what were once common illnesses."

I'd say that would be a simpler, stronger opening paragraph. My second sentence still needs more work, but you get the gist. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Added, with a few changes. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Nature woo, "soft" anti-vaxxers - do we have enough on them?[edit]

Being familiar with a debate over a Danish facebook group promoting "natural" immunity through deliberate infection with diseases, rather than vaccination, I wonder if the RW article could need such a section? These are not the U.S.-style über-conspiracists, but appears to be the nature woo "vaccinations are unnatural and healthy living, a good diet and natural infections are better"-crowd. It has generated quite a controversy in a country where vaccine denial, especially the "hard" one, tend to be given short shrift and one Danish father has apparently reported the infection facebook group to the police (with the argument that as his 3-month old child is too young for vaccination the infection group puts all such cases in potential risk). If anything concrete comes out of the report to the police, it would make an interesting addition and this vaccination debate also includes suggestions (so far rejected by the political level) that vaccinations be mandated by law (something that polls suggests that around 75% of Danes favour). ScepticWombat (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

They are part of an anti-vax movement, so they're included in this page's broad sweep, and you say they're making news, so I say a bit under purported reasons about naturalistic fallacy and/or (and) an entry under the Media stuff#Scandinavia bit would be cool. PacWalker 06:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll add something if there's some actual development in the story (i.e. on mandatory vaccination or police action against the infection group) beyond the current issues (mainly encouragement to vaccinate and public and health professionals' outrage at the infection group).
What I think the article might mention is this idea of deliberately infecting your children "naturally" and possibly highlighting different "flavours" of anti-vaxxers, for instance under the Anti-vaccination proponents section. I think I heard some years ago about a veritable cottage industry/scam selling purportedly infected items by mail catering to parents who preferred "natural" infection to vaccination. Currently, the RW article seems to drown these nature wooers in a sea of Andrew Wakefield/Jenna McCarthy/anti-government U.S. style politics with a dash of religious fundamentalism (incl. Islamists). Sure, the nature wooers are just as non-scientific as these others, but they don't fit the profile of either "hard" conspiracy theory ("It's all Big Pharma and/or Government what dunnit'!") or religious fundamentalism ("Vaccines are SATANIC!"). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think what this discussion shows, there is no movement or subculture against vaccinations. It is a collection of people who choose not to inject their bodies for a myriad of reasons. An African that can't afford a vaccination is not the same as a Boulder,CO liberal who doesn't feel he has to infect his kid with an inoculation when everyone else already has, or the same as the people who had measles as a kid and don't see what the big deal is. I think the authors are taking a complex but interesting story and making a joke out of it with the nasty smug language, "quotations", italics, and the dismissive anti-vaxxer name calling. This article is crap in my opinion. And by the way, I fully support vaccination for all.

Well shoot, let me drag out my (not green) writing pen then. PacWalker 07:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
How about a section on "reasons people are anti-vaccination"? "Reasons" could be in scare quotes or not. Is there any mention of pox parties yet? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"♫♬ We represent the Lolly Pox Guild…" Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A bunch of guys who can't distinguish "the content of a sentence" from "the wording of a sentence"[edit]

"The anti-vaccination movement is an irrational trend of mistrust of vaccination that blames vaccines (or their ingredients, dosage, or administration) for a wide range of health problems, often childhood illnesses"

You're implying the ingredients, dosage, or administration of vaccines are not responsible for any health problem? It's appalling that veterinaries are more considearate of dogs that pediatricians of kids:
Vaccination of dogs - Controversy
"...The 2010 vaccination guidelines [1] published by the WSAVA (World Small Animal Veterinary Association) reduce the number of vaccines which should be considered core for canines, as well as recommending less frequent vaccine administration..."
Being "treated like a dog" may end up as a positive connotation 145.64.134.245 (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If you get to assume we're claiming vaccines have no side effects, then do I get to assume you agree with all the claims made by anti-vaxxers? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Just make up what the other person thinks and any argument is easy :-) The only argument left for anti-vaxxers is to badly misrepresent what other people think. The side effects, and probabilities, of vaccines are well documented by actual scientific studies anti-vaxxers tend to ignore or think are conspiracies. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Is 'lesser known' quackery involving anti-vaccination bullshit allowed?[edit]

I've met some silly people that claim things like polio disappearing because people washed their hands--vaccines for it were just released at a convenient time, I've found some people who believe that the government uses vaccines to catalogue everyone's blood so they can engineer a virus (Never understood that one, since vaccines don't draw blood out.) However, there wouldn't be nearly as many sources as the rest of the article. Raxal (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have actual sources, then, yes, find a good place and add them in. However, changes to this article will get more scrutiny than the average article, so don't be surprised if you get some pushback. MarmotHead (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! and yeah, I would imagine, I'll try to compile my sources.

This is somewhat unrelated, but I'm tempted to write an article about 'scam emails' and the like, you know, things that promise INFINITE EN.ERGY. WITH .PERP.E.ETUAL MOTION or water powered cars? I know similar websites already exist for these sort of things, doesn't mean we can't have one here though. Raxal (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Rand Paul and Vaccines[edit]

It should be noted that Rand Paul, in a classic case of the ambiguity fallacy, claimed that he was just telling "stories" that he has heard but does not believe are true, and also stated that he believes in vaccines, and he and his kids are vaccinated. It would be unfair to leave the article as it is on this. [9] 76.10.176.163 (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the most stupid thing ever[edit]

You have to vaccinate. Why, why?! do we even put up with this anymore. The people who refuse to jab should be stripped of benefits in society, because they are not helping of anyone's health. XY007 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean the vaccines you got don't protect you? Do drivers who refuse wearing seatbelts endanger your life too? 195.40.6.43 (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That's only punishing poor idiots, not rich ones... CorruptUser (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Even worse. XY007 02:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Why the vaccine-injured are left to rot.[edit]

Official acknowledgements of vaccine injuries are forbidden by law.

Rules and regulations | Friday, June 1, 1984 | Vol. 49, no. 107 | Federal register
any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives.

People in the US are not entitled to be informed about any legitimate concern regarding the safety of the vaccines recommended to them. Whisleblowers are to be actively suppressed irrespective of the legitimacy of their arguments. If anything goes wrong, your reward for risking your beloved ones for the "common good" is to be abandoned to your fate. That's the best case scenario, the worst is being jailed for abusing your child (shaken baby syndrome). Wow! I'm speechless.178.224.200.11 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

if only you were speechless. BicyclewheelModerator 11:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to a website that doesn't look like it'll give me a virus? CorruptUser (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
What sets my alarm bells off is that all that can be provided is a very small snippet from a document as accessible as the Federal Register. It's not even a complete sentence. For those wishing to see the context google "federal register Vol. 49, no. 107" and download the PDF. The point the paper is making is that the trials done in 1962 for the oral polio vaccine had technical flaws. However, given the well documented effect of the polio vaccine - deaths reduced from 18,000 to 8 - and the need to ensure herd immunity - a phrase not used but implied - it is felt that the flaws in the 62 trials should not be allowed to stop immunisation. A long way from what our troll-de-jour implies. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
"it is felt that the flaws in the 62 trials should not be allowed to stop immunisation" Hell yeah, fuck Patient's Rights and Informed Consent.
"deaths reduced from 18,000 to 8" by restricting the diagnostic criteria in the middle of the game. Just like in India, just like everywhere else.195.40.6.43 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
And here I was thinking "Organic Lifestyle Magazine" had standards. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 21:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

CDC allegations[edit]

I made the following edit but it has been reverted:

In August 2014, a CDC researcher, William Thompson published a statement claiming that a 2004 article omitted information that suggested some vaccinated African-American children were at higher risk of autism.[50] A study published by Brian S Hooker claimed to show evidence of the vaccine-autism link following re-analysis of the omitted data.[51] This claim has been comprehensively refuted[52] and Hooker's paper was withdrawn from the journal Translational Neurodegeneration.

If this is in the wrong place, please move it rather than revert, or explain what's wrong with it. Thanks. Huttoldboys (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

These "Studies" have been debunked and refuted many, many, times. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The argument of "undeclared conflict of interest" used by the publisher for retracting the paper is a formal objection, not a refutation of the content. Even the maffia is more subtle when it comes to suppressing dissidence.195.40.6.43 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Straw man[edit]

"The anti-vaccination movement is a loosely organized subculture"

Certainly, especially since people wake up one day finding themselves in the anti-vaccination camp, unexpectedly caught by a bad "surprise". Every parent of a vaccine-injured child was once pro-vaccine. The ex-pro-vaccine make up the majority of the vaccine critics. Therefore there's no such "anti-vaccination movement" to speak of except as a straw man. If the vaccine pushers could successfully convince parents who see vaccine injury that it is "normal" or "coincidental" the "problem" would go away. They sure are trying.145.64.134.241 (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What the flying fuck is a "vaccine injury"?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow! Is your ignorance real or feigned? The CDC knows "vaccine injury" so well it even put the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) into place.145.64.134.241 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The things they have to do to ward off ambulance chasers, I guess.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, especially tough to ward off the chasers on wheelchairs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380487/— Unsigned, by: 145.64.134.241 / talk / contribs
There is no medical procedure without side effects. The benefits outweigh the risks.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Vaccines are medical procedures for people already in good health, therefore no benefit, only a risk of adverse events.145.64.134.241 (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
people already in good health- 145.64.134.241 ...to remain in good health.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Which is what they already have and won't lose unless there's an actual, measurable threat. So no benefit. The only threat is the medical procedure itself.145.64.134.241 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Template:Won't lose unless ... they come across an illness they're not vaccinated against, in which case they're FUCKED!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
When there are zero cases or natural polio vs. 118 of vaccine-asociated polio, chances are you'll get FUCKED by the vaccine.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Because polio got stomped out by mass vaccination. Let's do the same with all the other diseases, where there's vaccines against (according to the paper you linked, there are 6 to 13 such cases per year. Keep in mind, that coupla decades ago, polio was some real mass problem. Was!)!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Because polio got stomped out by (whatever)- Arisboch ... Irrelevant. If polio WAS it means the risk NOW is in the vaccine.145.64.134.241 (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Even though they were stomped out, it doesn't mean the diseases are gone. Measles outbreaks in areas where vaccination rates have dropped show that. Sometimes with fatal side effects. If the risks of vaccines are too high to use you better stop doing number of things...like driving, eating in public, and hiking since your chance of severe injury and death are much higher there. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
BoN 145.64 is either ignorant or disingenuous in saying "zero cases [of] natural polio" when it is still a problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Africa, it may be trickling to a halt. Still, it is too soon to call polio eradicated world-wide. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Even though they were stomped out, it doesn't mean the diseases are gone- Alec_Sanderson Certainly not, it only means the main risk is now in the vaccine.145.64.134.241 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
it is still a problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan.- Alec Sanderson Appeal to the Third World. The risk of polio in the West is given by the annual incidence in the West, which is zero. Therefore, to a Westerner, the risk of getting injured by the polio vaccine is higher than the risk of getting polio.145.64.134.241 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If there'd be no vaccination, then polio would have a comeback. And also, "Appeal to the Third World" is not a fucking fallacy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It's especially not a fallacy when one considers the simple fact that if the disease is not eradicated there, and if people stopped taking vaccinations for it in say North America or Europe, then the disease can make a comeback. Let's say it infects a tourist/doctor/missionary who is visiting to the region, and they then brings it back with them, perhaps not even knowing they have it, and a new outbreak occurs. This is something that has happened before with other diseases. Nergali (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"it only means the main risk is now in the vaccine." And the destruction of herd resistances. Your theory is only true if one lives in a closed society that does not allow persons from areas where diseases eliminated by vaccines remain common. The United States is not such a place. Therefor, you're wrong--Petey Plane (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems like a gross misrepresentation of scale. The stick from the vaccine causes a couple of cases of a year in the world, often with the most mild of effects, where the full on disease without vaccination caused close to 60,000 cases with ~3,100 dead and 22,000 with life long crippling effects in the US in 1952. This is delusional, and there are more diseases (and more common ones) we vaccinate against than just polio. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

... the destruction of herd resistances- Petey Plane The IPV only pretends to protect the individual but does not stop transmission of the virus, as per http://www.polioeradication.org therefore your appeal to "herd immunity" is another fallacy. 145.64.134.241 (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"The IPV only pretends to protect..." Oh boy, here we go.--Petey Plane (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's study the case of India: In 2004, 12,000 cases of child paralysis were reported in the country. In 2011 India was declared polio-free amidst an amazong increase to 61,000 children suffering from paralysis. the incidence of paralysis was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received (Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012). Surely it does look like the vaccine "protects".145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that's outdated, right? I understand you feel the need to exploit human tragedy for your own ends, but a just a little research would have shown you that those numbers are not only off, but the cases were in fact shown to be caused primarily by Coxsackia-B, a completely different virus than polio. Nergali (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If you claim 2012 is "outdated" then you kiss my ass.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Well it is, since it doesn't match the official findings. Also, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're not my type. If you want a guy to kiss your ass, perhaps you should hire a male hooker? Careful, though, if you want any tongue action, it'll probably cost you extra. Nergali (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
caused primarily by Coxsackia-B- Nergali When the epidemic of "polio" waas declared in India, prior to the mass vaccination WHO campaign, diagnosis was done by clinical picture rather than virological analysis. Poliovirus was only shought AFTER the vaccination campaing was in place. So we don't know how much poliovirus was there to start with. Later, when they care look they see no poliovirus while the paralysis cases rose from 12,000 to 61,000 fucking thousand. It looks like the WHO tried to curb an epidemic of Coxsackia-B using the polio vaccine... go figure. What a blunder.145.64.134.241 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Source for there never being any polio there? Cause so far it seems like you're pulling this directly out of your ass... especially if what you're saying here is true, then that source you linked is false, since it states that polio was there... unless of course you never even read the paper you were sourcing. Also, if you noticed, I said Coxsackia-B was the primary source, not the only one. Several other virus' were also found to be causing it, though polio was also known to be there, since unlike what you think, paralysis isn't the only symptom of it. Then again, you aren't exactly one for doing any research, based on the "evidence" you've provided so far. Nergali (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Source for there never being any polio there- Nergali If you can read, I'm criticizing the lack of virological data before the vaccination campaing, when every case of paralysis was automatically classified as "polio" when it coud be NPAFP. The source is the WHO itself that prescribes, in its WHO-recomended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable diseases, the following diagnostic swindle:
Poliomyelitis …Countries should use the clinical classification until their surveillance performance meets the following three criteria:
- A non-polio AFP rate of at least 1/100,000 children under 15 years of age,
- two adequate speciments collected from at least 60% of detected AFP cases
- All specimens processed in a WHO-accredited laboratory
It's obvious that NPAFP cases are counted as "polio" before the vacciantion campaign started and excluded thereafter when virological diagnosis is in place. By switching the diagnostic criteria from broad to restrictive no WHO campaign can ever fail. If you thought the 61,000 extra cases of NPAFP in India came out of the blue, you're wrong, they were counted as "polio" before the campaign and later renamed. Erradication by renaming... another great success of vaccination, hell yeah!145.64.134.241 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Except you did say it wasn't polio cause you claimed they vaccinated for the wrong virus, despite the fact that when this all started you didn't even know that Coxsackia-B was even involved. Also, if you pay attention, it states that samples must be taken and then processed. This concept might be a bit advanced for you, but this is done to confirm what virus is there... especially since polio has multiple symptoms. Also, for someone not affiliated with WHO or likely have ever been in their labs, you seem awfully sure of what went on there. Thank goodness at least that both reality and the official findings don't match anything you've claimed... probably because you've gotten those claims off anti-vaccination websites. Probably also why you couldn't provide any evidence to support your claims. Nergali (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Coxsackia is just of the multiple possible causes of AFP, which is clinically indistinguishable from "polio" AFP. What the WHO instructions linked above say (you obviously lack skills to understand them) is that, before the conditions for virological diagnoses are met (labs, etc.), the WHO classifies any clinilcal AFP case as "polio". By lumping any AFP into the "polio" grab-bag prior to the vaccinatino campaign (virological means not in place), the "polio" statistics get inflated out of proportion, creating alarm to justify the polio vaccine as the "solution". Only to find out later, when the labs are in place, that poliovirus was actually rare and that most paralyses are NPAFP. Millions in vaccine money for nothing. The problem persists (even growing) and it's just been renamed.82.161.30.183 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right and that this isn't just bullshit you've pulled out of your ass that has been debunked multiple times as a simple google search would reveal. If so, then you've already debunked your original argument, which was that the vaccine was causing the paralysis. In this new scenario, where you claim it was a different virus all along, then it was never the vaccine that failed, it was error on behalf of the people supplying the vaccine. In the end, the vaccine did its job as intended, by providing resistance to polio (of course you avoid the fact that there are multiple strains and it's clear you don't understand the WHO documentation), which in the end did not provide protection against the "true culprits". As can be clearly seen, at no point did the vaccine do anything wrong, so in other words you've yet to demonstrate a modern vaccine causing large-scale harm that outweighed the risks of catching the disease it prevents. Nergali (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Debunked? That the OPV so "generously" used in thrird world settings causes paralysis is a CDC/WHO-publiciced fact repeatedly denounced by physicians from the countries caught in the scam: the incidence of paralysis was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received (Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012). Nigeria has a good track record as well: Outbreak of Type 2 Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus in Nigeria (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). Your mindset is the consequence of a lifetime of instilled slogans that, when you look closer, can't stand in the light of the hard facts.82.161.30.183 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Permit me to quote the title of the second paper you linked: "Outbreak of Type 2 Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus in Nigeria: Emergence and Widespread Circulation in an Underimmunized Population". Underimmunized Population Underimmunized Population Underimmunized Population. Just repeating that so you might actually notice. Did you even read to the bottom of the abstract where the author's suggested fix is more immunisation? To call it an example of "denounced by physicians from the countries caught in the scam" means you're either powerfully stupid or outright dishonest. Also note the other paper you linked is... questionable. The language used in the abstract does not suggest a suitably dispassionate attitude on the part of the authors, an aspect made more troubling by the fact that the lead author is clearly writing outside his area of expertise based on his other papers. Also note its dearth of cites and low impact journal. You should probably bring your A game is you're going to try to palm off crap like this on people who deal with academic papers for a living. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Underimmunized means "vaccinated but not enough" (according to whimsical ad-hoc standards). Your non-point is an attempt to blame the victims for spreading this dangerous vaccine strain, not the vaccine manufacturers, not the "Doctors without Scrupules" that propagate the virus, but the culprit are the people that didn't get or refused the rogue vaccine. Blaming the victims shows the criminal mindset required to support the superstitious practice of vaccination. That the proposed "fix" is always "more vaccines" is not new, but a recurrent theme after vaccination falure that shows how full of themselves vaccine pushers are, stubbornly impaired to exercise even a minimum of self criticism.82.161.30.183 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Underimmunised means 'not enough of that population are vaccinated so as to control the disease' or 'fewer are vaccinated than best practise advises'. The former can be estimated using rigorous mathematical techniques (no superstition required - the SIR model is one of the simplest), the latter is a relative term based on estimates of the former. You don't even know the meanings of the terms you're trying to invoke. And you have no comment about wildly misrepresenting the conclusion of the paper? It did not support your claim of "denounced by physicians from the countries caught in the scam", so you should admit that was either a mistake or a poor attempt at rhetoric. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was debunked, seeing as the paralyzation was linked to, and in fact caused by, non-polio enteroviruses, with Coxsackia-B being the primary one. This is what the 'The Global Polio Eradication Initiative' demonstrated... as well as the fact that while polio had been a major problem in the region for years, following the vaccinations the number of cases dropped significantly, to the point where the last confirmed case happened in later 2011 (http://www.polioeradication.org/tabid/461/iid/187/Default.aspx). So yes, that source you keep putting up is wrong, especially since it contradicts other ones, and also because of the simple fact that correlation does not equal causation. Also, you might want to do a little more research on the Nigeria case, because the problem there was that the vaccination provided for was for the wrong strain of the virus (which mutates and evolves, as one would expect, at a fairly decent rate), but also because political and religious leaders urged people not to get vaccinated, which led to further polio outbreaks (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/18/anti-vaccine-movements-not-just-a-us-problem). Turns out in both cases absolutely nothing was wrong with the vaccine, so yes, you've failed to provide a modern-day example of a problem with vaccinations. Also you might want to check out the stopped clock article here, which will help prevent you from listing some more debunked claims by anti-vaccineation groups. Nergali (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
while polio had been a major problem in the region for years- EmeraldCityWanderer. You're proving thick as a brick. Virological diagnosis was not available in India before the WHO vaccination campaign. Diagnosis was by clinical criteria alone ("symptoms" fo the scientifically impared). But is so happens that poliovius and NPAFP (with a dozen of known causes) have exactly the same symptoms. Infection by poliovirus was not verified in the AFP cases before the WHO campaign. Therefore it's impossible to prove that "polio had been a major problem", only that AFP in general was a major problem ... and that it has gotten even worse, for the total cases of AFP have increased dramatically during and after the WHO campaign. It is obvious that the WHO had targetted the wrong cause by deciding all AFP was to be classified as "polio" without virological verification, thereafter pushing the wrong solution as the polio vaccine. AFP remains rampant in India, that fact does not escape the Indians themselves that rap shit about the WHO nowadays.82.161.30.183 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Except you are deliberately quoting me and to call Nergali thick as a brick dishonestly. Nice job! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that this guy doesn't read anything that isn't off an anti-vaccination website. This is why his arguments have now become solely based on conspiracy theories for which he has no substantial evidence for. Nergali (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
That would make sense why they would think we are the same person. The problem with a conspiracy mindset is that everyone who disagrees tends to become part of the same "enemy" against them. When what they are denying is reality...that list of enemies can get fairly extensive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Go figure ... I support my arguments with links to nlm.nih.gov and oxfordjournals.org (famous anti-vaccination web sites, fuck me) and you, the "leading lights" in the conversation reply by linking to usnews.com. The level of retardation is off the scale.82.161.30.183 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You mean the sources that contradicted what you claimed (the one about Nigeria) and the other that appeared to be written rather dubiously (the one on India) that others pointed out? You've also seem to have forgotten that I linked to two different source, the second of which, the news article, merely reaffirmed the source you presented... and apparently didn't read, as Emerald showed. But at least the fact that you're admitting that you're going full retard will at least let us understand how deep your crazy shenanigans will probably go. Nergali (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"Contradicted" as in a Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus magically circulating without being seeded by the tainted vaccine? You're freak show talent indeed. The paper is about OPV spreading the very disese it pretendes to prevent, and doing it so obviously and to such an extent that the authors felt obliged to propose a "solution" (in the form of more OPV!)82.161.30.183 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Tainted vaccine? Care to provide an official source showing this? And no, the first paper, as pointed out, appears to be written rather dubiously, as if the person who did is writing outside of their field, which would explain why it hasn't been peer reviewed or listed by other sources. The second paper, meanwhile, contradicts your claim outright. Seriously, you need to provide better sources that actually agree with you in the first place. Nergali (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Where do Vaccine-Derived Polioviruses come from in your little autistic world view? spontaneous generation? More proof that vaccine-pushers got stuck in the 17th century when mice were said to come from wheat grains.82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You didn't say vaccine-derived polioviruses, you stated tainted vaccines carrying it, which I asked for a source for (which you failed to provide... obviously). That would imply the vaccine is contaminated with this virus, despite the fact that if it's a polio vaccine itself, then it isn't tainted unless the strain is completely different. Please stay consistent. Now as for vaccine-derived poliovirus, lets see what the experts say: (http://www.polioeradication.org/polioandprevention/thevirus/vaccinederivedpolioviruses.aspx). Well look what we have here, it's caused by a severe lack of immunization within a population, and when it does occur (such as when certain people refuse to get vaccinated), it can be controlled far more easily than wild polio with 2-3 more rounds immunization activities. So once again the vaccine is not at fault, it's simply people not being immunized, and it's quite clear that the risks of catching the actual virus far outweigh those of getting vaccinated. Nergali (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't say vaccine-derived polioviruses, you stated tainted vaccines carrying it- Nergali Of course he said it, multiple times. It's right there in the heading of the paper, are you visually impaired? Outbreak of Type 2 Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus in Nigeria. Now where do vaccine-derived viruses come from? vaccines or the X planet? How do they get to circulate among the population? through vaccination or by spontaneous generation? When you shill for Pharma try not to look too stupid or you're working against the interests of your sponsors.145.64.134.241 (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, first post and you're already quote mining. Good to see you even stopped misquoting me mid sentence to do so even. Now since everyone else was paying attention, the post you're "quoting" was in direct response to one where he stated tainted vaccines had been used. I had questioned him on this, asking him to provide a source for this claim as neither of the ones he'd provided before mentioned a tainted vaccine anywhere. He of course jumped to the vaccine-derived polio virus, which of course, as I pointed out, wasn't the same thing.

Now as for your second point, the source I provided already answered that, and showed that it happens in populations that are and have been severely under vaccinated, but which are still significantly easier to treat than outbreaks of wild polio virus. Now please, if you're going to continue relying on conspiracy theories and potentially utilizing multiple accounts, at least try a bit harder, won't you? Nergali (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

the first paper ... appears to be written rather dubiously, as if the person who did is writing outside of their field- Nergali The authors are two pediatricians from St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi. Fron their daily activities they must have witnessed thousands of children been vaccinatred and the dire consequences of it. Funny that when pediatricians recommend vaccination you don't dis their advice as being "outside of their field", but only when they speak up against vaccination. The usual double standards of the vax-pushers surfaces again.145.64.134.241 (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oooo, I want to know more. How and why does it "pretend to protect" and please provide references to validate so we can be won over by your novel idea. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
So you admit that they're writing outside their field then, seeing as not all doctors are the same and you don't even mention their backgrounds... probably also why no other papers link to theirs, nor does it appear to have peer reviewed much, if at all. Also, this counters the earlier claim that it wasn't polio but Coxsackia-B all along... which the paper doesn't mention. Probably because that "certain user" never even knew about it until I brought it up as being shown to be the source of the paralysis, as other doctors found. Of course the major problem with your argument is when you claim that pediatricians suggesting vaccine is the same thing as them claiming it caused paralysis... especially when it turned out not to be the case. Nergali (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I know that correlation does not necessarily imply causation but US cases of paralytic polio
  • 1955 - 13,850
  • 1965 - 61
So, in a decade, cases went from tens of thousands to tens. Let's see, what happened between 1955 and 1965 that might have effected that?
Now, I'm old enough to have been around in the early sixties, I remember polio victims here in the UK, how it destroyed lives, the children's warped and twisted bodies, not to mention the 275 deaths in 1955 alone, and you say that the polio vaccine isn't worth the risk.... You really do not know what you're talking about. All figures from here Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
what happened between 1955 and 1965 that might have effected that?- Doxys Midnight Runner. What happened was a progressive switch to more restrictive redefinitions of "polio case". Until 1954, the definition of "polio case" was: “…Signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." (see page 88 of The Present Status of Polio Vaccines (a panel discussion), Illinois Medical Journal, August, 1960). This definition is based exclusively on clinical symptoms with no lab-confirmation of infection by pioliovirus (was not available yet). The level of paralysis to become a "polio case" was low and a range of various diseases (enterovirus, botulism, organophosphate poisoning, myelitis, nyositis...) also matched the definition and were wrongly classified as "polio cases". Today the polio definition of 1955 corresponds to any Acute Flaccid Paralysis which is on the rise. There are 61,000 cases of AFP in India alone, all of which would have been classified as "polio" in 1955, but today India is "polio free", so go figure! The definition was changed again: “In 1955 the criteria were changed toconform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.” (page 88 of the same paper). These are the literal words of the experts present in that panel: “Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.” (page 88) Do you get the picture? The diagnosis of "polio" was progressively restricted to make the vaccine look effective. Cases that would have met the old "polio" definition are today classified as AFP.145.64.134.242 (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Bollocks. In the early sixties seeing a child with a warped and twisted body was the norm. I was at school with one - well, until he died. I knew plenty more. Where have they all gone? Nowadays they're as rare as people with smallpox scars. OK, so that's rather anecdotal but, to address your proposition directly, the UK changed their definition in 1951 to better understand the epidemic and the figures from blighty are 1955 (after the definition change) - 6331 cases, 1965 - 91 cases. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
A child with a warped and twisted body is the norm in "polio free" India today. After 1955 the definition was further restricted, in particular, the wide availability of lab confirmation of poliovirus in the early 60's made diagnosing "polio" an almost impossible feat. The same trick is was used on India, where diagnosis was by symptoms only prior to mass vaccination by the WHO and lated was switched to lab confirmed. This administrative fact alone reduced the number of "polio cases" dramatically, at the same time AFP increased just as dramatically too.145.64.134.242 (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing you've never seen a person suffering from polio or been to India, have you? You do realize that the last case of polio there was in late 2011... in a very young child after the vaccinations, right? Or that has multiple symptoms, and that according to the WHO document the "other user" presented, those symptoms are only used to establish the presence of polio... after which samples are taken to labs in order to actually determine their presence, as well as what strain of polio it is (there's multiple) seeing as the vaccine required needs to be tuned for this. You also fail to mention that the later cases of paralysis (during which there were no reported cases of polio) which was found in those people you mentioned... turned out to be caused by non-polio enteroviruses, with Coxsackia-B being the prime one, alongside several other (still non-polio) echovirus. However, you state that there was never a lab study in India until after the vaccinations were passed out... where exactly is your official source for this? Nergali (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't understand anything of what I've written. I've already explained that "polio" in India was any form of AFP because the case definition lumped every case AFP into the "polio" grab-bag. As soon as the diagnosis included "lab confirmation"... puff! ... "polio" is gone (there hardly had been any) and AFP is shooting through the roof (it had been all AFP since the beginning). Regarding the emotional "you've never seen a person suffering from polio" I guess you've never seen a person suffering from AFP. There is no difference in the suffering, only in the name. The polio vaccine solution was a fake solution to a fake problem, the real problem was and remains AFP, not polio. Huge resources were diverted by the WHO for NOTHING, well, actually it made it all worse, cases have shot from 12,000 to 61,000 but they don' t call it "polio" anymore so the problem no loner exists for the WHO.145.64.134.242 (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"You don't understand anything of what I've written." No one else here seems to understand what you're trying to write either, mostly because you haven't been very coherent throughout this. Hell, you've been blaming both the vaccine and the Coxsackia-B as causing the paralysis, almost as if you haven't thought this out very well. "I've already explained that "polio" in India was any form of AFP because the case definition lumped every case AFP into the "polio" grab-bag." And you were asked to provide you're sources showing that this was true, which so far you've refused to do so. "As soon as the diagnosis included "lab confirmation"" Which is part of the WHO documentation... you do realize that there is more than one strain of polio, right? And that doctors need to identify what strain is involved before passing out vaccinations, right? Or is this all just a bit too complex for you? "... puff! ... "polio" is gone (there hardly had been any) " Since you refuse to provide a source for this claim, I'll assume it's case of Argumentum ex culo? "and AFP is shooting through the roof (it had been all AFP since the beginning)." So you're not even sure what you're arguing? I thought you'd at least do a little bit of research before arguing this. "Regarding the emotional "you've never seen a person suffering from polio" I guess you've never seen a person suffering from AFP." That wasn't an appeal to emotion (then again you are the person trying to use human suffering to prove their cause), that was pointing out that there are multiple symptoms for polio victims, not just paralysis. "There is no difference in the suffering, only in the name" Or there is, and this would be another reason for why you're not a scientist. "The polio vaccine solution was a fake solution to a fake problem" According to... oh wait, just you, right? " the real problem was and remains AFP, not polio." Let me guess, no source for this either other than what you've pulled out of your own ass? "Huge resources were diverted by the WHO for NOTHING," Besides effectively curing polio in the region, seeing as the last confirmed case was in 2011. "well, actually it made it all worse, cases have shot from 12,000 to 61,000 but they don' t call it "polio" anymore so the problem no loner exists for the WHO." You mean the cases that were shown to be caused by other viruses some time after the last of the polio cases? The same cases whose numbers the anti-vacinations groups can't seem to agree on? I suppose this is to be expected, seeing as you aren't exactly one to do research, or even provide sources for your conspiracy ramblings. Nergali (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No one else here seems to understand what you're trying to write either- Nergali Is the following citation too complex for you?
“Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used.”- (page 88 of The Present Status of Polio Vaccines (a panel discussion), Illinois Medical Journal, August, 1960).
Now you explain why you believe the expert that uttered the above ovservation is a conspiracy theorist. The person you're attacking says exactly the same.
“Since you refuse to provide a source for this claim, I'll assume it's case of Argumentum ex culo?- Nergali As everyone can see, the diagnostic criteria of the WHO are spelled above with the corresponding link to the WHO site: WHO-recomended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable diseases. Two different diagostic criteria are spelled there for you, but you chose not to take notice: (a) a "clinical only" criteria before the full WHO infrastructure is available, and (b) a lab-confirmed criteria afterwards. Obviously, "clinical only" cannot possibly tell "poliovirus" from "polio-like" disease (AFP), because poliovirus can only be confirmed in the lab, not by looking in the eyes of the patient. Obviously, this diagnostic malpractice overestimates the incidence of "polio" (if any) by declaring anything polio-like to be "polio" without confirmation. No one, therefore, can know how much polio (if any) was in the initial WHO estimates prior to the mass polio vaccination campaign. Once the WHO infrastructure was in place (during the campaign) the WHO switched to criteria (b) of "lab confirmed" and found almost no "polio". The explanation given is "vaccination was a success", but this cannot be asserted because the initial diagnoses were a gross overestimation, as explained before. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of "polio" cases was predetermined to decrease in India, whether or not any vaccine was used. The fact taht AFP increased dramatically from 20.000 to 61.000 cases indicates that a simple reclassification had taken place. The actual problem was AFP and the problem just got worse. Chew it slowly until reason and common sense sets in.82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
" Is the following citation too complex for you?" Oh my, quote-mining again are we? You might want to include the part where I stated that you hadn't been very coherent.
"Now you explain why you believe the expert that uttered the above ovservation is a conspiracy theorist. The person you're attacking says exactly the same." Except what he said isn't the same thing you said. If you read his article, and knew a bit more about him, he was against compulsory vaccination, instead believing in conformed consent. While there are problems with this idea, such as the fact we vaccinate all children around the same to help stop outbreaks, which is in their best interest especially if no one avoids it and thus can become a vector for disease, he is free to have his own opinion. You, however, have still been ranting like a conspiracy theorist, seeing as unlike him, you claimed the vaccine given for polio was a false one, . You also seem to have not noticed the dates he provided, 1955-1957, compared to when the vaccination in India happened... in 2011, some time after said processes were already being used.
"As everyone can see, the diagnostic criteria of the WHO are spelled above with the corresponding link to the WHO site: WHO-recomended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable diseases. Two different diagostic criteria are spelled there for you, but you chose not to take notice: (a) a "clinical only" criteria before the full WHO infrastructure is available, and (b) a lab-confirmed criteria afterwards. Obviously, "clinical only" cannot possibly tell "poliovirus" from "polio-like" disease (AFP), because poliovirus can only be confirmed in the lab, not by looking in the eyes of the patient. " So far none of this confirms the "hardly any polio there" claim you made. In fact, you seem to be specifically avoiding the notion that perhaps both virus' were there, and that the vaccination wiped out the one it was targeted, as would be expected. Of course, this is irrelevant to the notion that the vaccinations were "fake solutions". At best you've made an argument for stricter standards to fix HUMAN ERROR, not an argument for your stance of anti-vaccination.
"Obviously, this diagnostic malpractice overestimates the incidence of "polio" (if any) by declaring anything polio-like to be "polio" without confirmation." And we come back to this. I asked you to provide a source showing that polio wasn't a problem in India before the vaccinations.
"No one, therefore, can know how much polio (if any) was in the initial WHO estimates prior to the mass polio vaccination campaign. Once the WHO infrastructure was in place (during the campaign) the WHO switched to criteria (b) of "lab confirmed" and found almost no "polio"." Almost no polio? So in other words you're now admitting that polio was there... and that after the mass vaccination, polio seemed to vanish, as one would expect in a virus that has been heavily vaccinated for.
"The explanation given is "vaccination was a success", but this cannot be asserted because the initial diagnoses were a gross overestimation, as explained before. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of "polio" cases was predetermined to decrease in India, whether or not any vaccine was used." So now your problem was that you believe it was a false assertion. But having already admitted that polio was found there, then that comment also applies to you as well. You cannot assert that polio wasn't a major problem which the vaccinations took care of, because you don't know how far spread it was at the time before the tests were done.
"The fact taht AFP increased dramatically from 20.000 to 61.000 cases indicates that a simple reclassification had taken place. The actual problem was AFP and the problem just got worse." And at best you've only made an argument that polio was the lesser problem and that while vaccinations removed it, WHO should have also targeted the other virus' with their own vaccinations in order to prevent them from spreading as they have. So in other words your arguing for more vaccinations.
"Chew it slowly until reason and common sense sets in." I have, and like reality and with the experts, it doesn't agree with you. There is a reason anti-vaccination has already lost. Nergali (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You cannot assert that polio wasn't a major problem which the vaccinations took care of- Nergali The change in the diagnosis criteria is already sufficient to explain the drop in cases. It's also the explanation that requires less assumptions. Ockham razor. Also, if the initial diagnostic criteria had been maintained (symptoms only) today's extra 61,000 of AFP would be considered "polio" and the WHO would find itself in square -10 after its wasteful vaccination campaign (because the total nr. of paralyses got much worse).145.64.134.241 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Troll Of all the vaccines to chose, using polio as a case for anti-vax is so ludicrous that this guy is either deranged or trolling - I suspect the latter. Whichever, he's not going to change our minds and we're not going to change his (even if he believes this nonsense) so this discussion is pointless. Oh, and now he's moved over to GMO hoping to stir up trouble there. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
By the diagnostic standards used by the WHO to declare the "polio" epidemic and push its mass vaccination campaign, today's 62,000 cases of AFP in India would have been diagnosed as "polio". The futility of the vaccine would have been exposed. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is pooping on the scientific method. Without this scientific fraud the polio vaccine could never be sold to the public as "effective".145.64.134.241 (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Freeloaders[edit]

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)

to the vaccinated and their belief system[edit]


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)

Herd immunity denial[edit]

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)

Herd immunity part 2[edit]

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 [10] 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)

Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-vaccination_movement/Archive2&oldid=1665250"