Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Unjustified revisions

The graphs Geni keeps deleting provide evidence essential to understanding the controversy around vaccinations. They are unacceptable and amount to vandalism, and I will take the issue as far as I need to. --Leifern 13:14, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

what essential information do they provide?Geni 13:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the main arguments against vaccines is that they get too much credit for the reduction in mortality rates from certain infectious illnesses. These graphs show that a) a reduction in mortality was evident long before vaccines were introduced; and b) illnesses for which there are no vaccines show a similar reduction in mortality. It should be fairly self-evident. --Leifern 13:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see any statisitcal analysis showing that this is the case. Eyeballing is not a valid statisical technique. Secondaly I fail to see any proper randomisation technique with ajustments for compounding factors in thier selection. In short they do not show what they claim they showGeni 13:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think that throwing a bunch of pseudostatistical jargon at me will intimidate me? You use randomization for sampling in clinical trials, and compounding factors are irrelevant to this issue. I'm reverting again and will keep doing it. --Leifern 14:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

sampling is used in all statistical procedures (unless you can examain the entire population which normaly you can't)Geni 14:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Eh, well, these are numbers that refer to the entire population. It would be helpful if you actually read the things you deleted before you deleted them. --Leifern 14:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, compounding factors rather strengthen the point of those who question vaccines. --Leifern 14:20, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

evidence?Geni 14:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You were the one who brought up compounding factors, not me. If a number of factors contribute to a reduction in mortality, one could argue that these factors continue to contribute to the decrease in mortality over time. --Leifern 14:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Having been involved in these disputes with you in several areas, I want to make a couple of observations:

• I welcome your objections, because they invariably encourage us to find even more information that strengthens the article
• You lose every single argument on the facts
• Your tendency to delete information rather than illuminate, modify, or balance it does your case very little justice

I have to wonder whether you really are an agent provocateur in this debate; if you are, let it be known that I disassociate myself from such a method. --Leifern 14:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

The graphs are a reasonable starting point for looking at the issue empirically, but I would much prefer an educated overview of the current state of scientific research on the matter as published in peer reviewed journals (PubMED should be able to dig up a few abstracts). If I conduct a study with a control group, then I want both groups to be subject to the same conditions with the exception of the one I'm looking at. Here, however, you are comparing graphs which show the mortality rates for very different diseases.

It seems far-fetched to try to infer any conclusions about the effects of vaccination on diphtheria from the effects of non-vaccination on scarlet fever. A cross-country comparison, where two modern countries followed a largely similar approach for the same diseases, but one used vaccines, and the others did not, seems like a better way to look at the effects of vaccination on a disease. Vaccine critics may see the issue of vaccination as independent from the type of vaccine, but vaccine supporters will very likely not agree with that assumption.

As a layperson, I would also suspect that Australia is a very specific case, with quarantine measures and border controls being relatively easy to implement. But what about a country where people from a neighbouring country with worse hygienic conditions immigrate, legally or illegally, in large numbers?--Eloquence* 02:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree: digging up arbitrary graphs from among the thousands published and making an argument for the non-effecitiveness of vaccines is at least bordering on original research, and possibly more than just bordering on it. Are these particular graphs considered a canonical example of why vaccines aren't effective? Or, failing that, has someone in a peer-reviewed journal used them to advance that argument? --Delirium 03:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to see a graph on the MORBIDITY of those diseases. Because as is, we're leaving out essential information; do the vaccines correlate with a decrease in morbidity? If we don't include that, we're using selective reporting. After all, there's a world of difference between the claim "vaccines did very little to help prevent deaths, because most of the deaths had already become preventable" and the claim "vaccines did very little to prevent the spread of the disease". It seems as if the article as written is attempting to conflate the two. --Thsgrn

Well, you certainly can't say they're arbitrary; these are all infectious diseases that threaten the public health to varying degrees. Any journal or publication on public health (WHO, for example), will make the point that mortality from these illnesses is affected by factors other than vaccinations. What is at dispute is the extent to which vaccinations make a difference, and these graphs are intended to raise the issue, or pose a hypothesis, not prove once and for all that vaccines are ineffective. Also, you can't on the one hand argue that Australia is a unique case and on the other that there should be a control group. One more thing: a graph is not "original research" if all it does is present data. The interpretation is the research, and here we are presenting both sides' interpretation. "Anti-vaccination" advocates assert that a) the benefits of widespread vaccines are at best exaggerated; b) the long term adverse effects are at best unknown. This article only outlines the controversy; it can't possibly resolve it. The graphs are part of the argument - critiquing them is fine; deleting them is a blatantly biased action. --Leifern 12:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

rasie the question? we are writing an encyopedia.Geni 15:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The point of including the graphs is because they raise the question. We can rephrase it to "critics raise the question" if you feel better about it, but I think it is perfectly in keeping with an encyclopedia to raise questions. --Leifern 16:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Geni's deletions are clear violations of the NPOV policy - that much should be clear by reading this section: [1]. We may argue about the correct interpretation of the graphs - and how they should be captioned - but simply deleting them is unacceptable. --Leifern 12:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, the copyright attribution on the graph images is improper. The website the images were taken from (vaccinationdebate.com, Ian Sinclair) indicates it took these images from the book Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma by Greg Beattie. These are copyright 1997 by Greg Beattie, so Ian Sinclair does not have standing to grant permission for their use on wikipedia. --Tabor 15:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Where I found them, they were copyrighted by Ian Sinclair. In any event, I hope to replace them with statistics from other sources over time - I just need to get to the New York Public Library to dig up the sources. --Leifern 16:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that where you found them they were copyright by Ian Sinclair. You gave the source for the images as vaccinationdebate.com. That site very clearly says below the graphs, "The above graphs, based on the official death numbers as recorded in the Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, are taken from Greg Beattie's excellent book 'Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma'".--Tabor 21:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

On the bottom of the page, it states very clearly that copyright (all rights reserved) is held by Ian Sinclair. I e-mailed him, he gave me authorization to use them, and I have no reason to believe that he wasn't allowed to do this. --Leifern 21:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

He uses them and cites the original source very clearly. His credit to the original source is your notice that he is not the originator of that particular portion of the work. When a work subject to copyright contains excerpts of other copyright works (whether by fair use or permission), that does not in itself transfer the rights of the quoted portion, excerpt, or image to person who cites or reproduces them. The originator of a work holds the copyright unless there is a written copyright transfer agreement. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, in particular: Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. These either need to have the permission from Greg Beattie, or be marked fair use instead. --Tabor 18:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I asked him (Ian Sinclair) for permission; and he granted it. I have to assume that he is able to license it on Beattie's behalf. --Leifern 20:02, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kind of like all those "owners" of the Brooklyn Bridge that own it because someone "sold" it to them. I see. --Tabor 20:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You guys will stop at nothing to keep readers in the dark, will you? Fine, I've written to Sinclair asking him to confirm. --Leifern 20:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested the images should be removed. I just ask that they be properly attributed. --Tabor 20:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

did you ever get a responce (not that there are not other problems with those image's coprywrite status)Geni 12:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni's latest edits needed some cleaning up. Public health measures are not proven to reduce the rate of infection of these illnesses appreciably (though one could find that natural immunity is stronger under better conditions), but there is no question that mortality rates are reduced, which is the (edited) last point. --Leifern 16:29, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

R^2

Geni - there you go again, throwing around statistical terminology as if you know what they mean. An R^2 is a statistical measure used in regression analysis, which is used to identify multiple contributing factors. You use it (and its more precise adjusted R^2 to suggest causality of multiple factors), not to identify a trend. A trend, in this case, refers to a downward or upward slope, e.g., "unemployment is increasing," or "inflation is decreasing." There are statistical methods to prove such trends, but they are not used when the trend is apparent. Only a fool would dispute the assertion that mortality from pertussis has decreased in Australia in the last 100 years. --Leifern 10:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you have a trend line you will be able to caluclate an r² value from it. Thus if there is a statisicaly significant tend you will be able to produce an r² value. If you haven't done a statisical anaysis then it is imposible to say if a trend is real or not and definetly not posible to say what caused it. You current wording suggest that the desease rate for all illnesses vacinated against fell before vaccination was introduced. Can you provide evidence for this claim?Geni 11:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

If you really want, we can assume a linear relationship with time (down to near-zero incidence) fit the curves as such, and produce r² values. It would be a meaningless abuse of statistical technique, but it could be done. Obviously the figures are moot with respect to proving the purported point—that vaccination has no effect on incidence of disease disease mortality, and that these diseases would have gone away by themselves without intervention—but with respect to demonstrating a trend in incidence, they're certainly valid. In other words, interpreting the figures as showing a downward trend in disease incidence mortality with time is quite reasonable; inferring information about the efficacy of vaccines from it is not. That latter point is best addressed in the article text, however. Figures like this one are often used as arguments against vaccination and it is appropriate to report on that fact, even if only to debunk it. (Incidentally, another useful graph would be a plot of incidence versus time, rather than mortality. Food for thought.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC), amended 13:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

On the statistics front, you generally prove a trend by correlating the observed value with elapsed time using a least squared analysis, e.g., years passed since you started the series. That would yield a correlation coefficient, usually termed R (not R-squared), which you can test for statistical significance with a Student's t-test or something similar. It can be safely assumed that time is a completely independent variable, unless you want to get into really philosophical debates. An R-squared, as you'd learn in freshman statistics, is used to test the multiple independent variables on one dependent variable. It would indeed be appropriate to measure the effects of improved sanitation, nutrition, and vaccination on the mortality and/or infection rates for these illnesses, but it's a very complicated study to construct for reasons that I don't have time to go into. --Leifern 14:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

But you claimed there was a tend. That means you have a model. There is no reason to think that this model is linear though. Now you should be able to take yor model and compare the line produced by it to the real data and from that get an R² value.Geni 20:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, a trend simply means there is a long-term directionality to an observed phenomenon over time, nor does it make any assumption about whether the trend is linear. It says nothing about the causality of the trend. If I postulated that the incidence of mortality from disease X was a function of a limited number of variables, I would have to at least articulate those variables and show what I expected the effects to be - negative or positive. With that hypothesis, I'd have to prove that the model provided statistically significant explanation, corrected for autocorrelation. This is very hard to do with aggregate population data, because a) it's hard to isolate variables; b) it's hard to know whether the data collection is complete and non-biased; and c) there may be any number of other variables not accounted for. And even if all those things could be done, it's hard to prove causality with a regression analysis - for example, the decrease in mortality of an illness may be the result of better awareness of how to treat the illness, and that would be hard to measure quantitatively. This is why it is so difficult to design clinical trials, and also the publication of the results are so full of caveats; there are so many statistical pitfalls that are nearly impossible to avoid no matter how hard you try. --Leifern 20:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I'd recommend letting this one drop. Even in the absence of a mathematical model, there is an accepted common usage of the word trend to specify a general direction or course in time. Without commenting on the validity of the interpretation of the mortality data presented, it's certainly accurate to say that the general tendency is towards lower mortality. Is this a point worth spilling more ink/bytes over, particularly since the wording doesn't even include the word trend anymore? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

well until Leifern responds to my comment on the current version there isn't anything else to talk about (however I've finaly got around to buying rome total war so I may not be around much).Geni 21:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

More deletions

Geni has a tendency to simply delete information that he either disagrees with or doesn't support his opinion. This borders on vandalism, and I'm considering making a formal case of it. In the meantime, Geni has proven repeatedly that he has very limited knowledge of basic statistics, including what represents statistical proof (e.g., asking for an R^2 square for a univariate analysis). In the case of deletion of graphs that show reduction in mortality rates, he is arguing that "there is no evidence that such a comparison is valid." The comparison is certainly valid, what conclusions you can draw from making such a conclusion are unclear, but we are not promoting a particular conclusion. The graphs stay. --Leifern 14:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ok lets see then. Two of the illnesses are virus and non of the non vaccined illnesses are. That prevents valid comaprisons from being made in those cases. Do you have any comment on this. You can produce an R² value for anything you have a modle for. A trend line/curve/whater is a modle and you can calculate an R² value for it.Geni 15:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I would strongly urge you in the most polite way to take an introductory course in both statistics and critical reasoning before you embark on these arguments. First of all, the point of the argument is to question the efficacy of vaccines as compared to other public health measures; virus vs. bacteria is one of many distinctions you'd have to make in order to do anything but question the premise that vaccines make that much of a difference. We can certainly indicate the variables that distinguish the illnesses from each other - there are many more than whether they are virus- or bacteria-born, but you can't dismiss a comparison because of an invalid inference that isn't even made. --Leifern 15:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

cheack I still have A levels in pure maths+stats and biology around. Now you are claiming that it is posible to compare the graphs yes? That means that they are in some way comparible. Now suposeing we break the biological clasification system somewhere beyond breaking point the we find the viruses and bacteria are speperate at kingdom level. life forms/boarderline life forms don't come any more differentGeni 15:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Apply for a refund for your "A-levels." My point is very simple: you can't reject an assertion that isn't even made. Read any journal on epidemics and public health, and you'll see that public health agencies routinely take credit for reducing infection and mortality rates without making the distinction you're talking about. And if you read about the delta-32 mutation, you'd be shocked to find out that immunity against viruses can also confer immunity against bacteria. --Leifern 15:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

could be tricky A levels are taxpayer funded. As for the rest delta-32 mutation stuff isn't relivant since we are talking about aquired immunity and read any journal references are not exactly helpful.Geni 12:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Vaccine policy"

Strictly speaking, a "vaccine policy" could mean "no vaccines to anyone, ever." I think what the term is supposed to mean, is that cases are made for and against obligatory vaccination for a wide range of illnesses. But this is misleading as well. There are, of course, those who think vaccines should be abolished, but there are others who believe they should be used more sparingly, and among those there are a wide range of convictions. The headlines used before probably need work, but the ones we have now don't work, either. --Leifern 12:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman

I believe that editors need to keep a close watch on Ombudsman's activities with regard to vaccines. Examination of his edits and many of the topics he has started show a clear agenda of alleging that autism is an epidemic, that it is substantially caused by vaccines, that there is a "medical establishment" cover-up, and that those who try to edit wiki along lines of established evidence - which does not support any of his propositions - are malign, if not corruptly influenced. In pursuit of this, he has created page after page overlapping with existing subjects, generally creating alternative narratives to those worked on by others over many months. He has also added a network of links that would tend to lead readers away from the contributions of others. He has repeatedly deleted links on such pages - most often to delete links to the autism page, where he has been unable to gain influence. He has repeatedly breached the three-reversion rule in his attempts to promote a handful of anti-vaccine activists, edited comments on his own page, making it difficult for readers to follow what's going on. He plainly has no specialist knowledge of any of these topics, and in the rare cases where he references a claim, it will generally be to an anti-vaccine opinion website. I am all for free speech and multiple viewpoints, but I would hope that those with real knowledge of autism can find the time to follow this phenomenon. Misinformation on these topics has caused real distress to parents, and, in my view, exposed children to real risks. 86.129.121.203

Links

Since there's obviously been a lot of discussion on this page, I didn't want to edit it, but how on earth can whale.to be considered a reliable source for anything? Here's an example of the prose on the site: "[Most health hazards are created or encouraged by the Illuminati through their various monopolies, eg Medical with Pharma drug overuse and suppression of life saving alternative medicine; Political monopoly with Fluoride, Wars, Masts, Aspartame; Food/Farming Cartel with GM foods, Junk foods. Their covert war against humanity can be seen here, it is not just about robbing the taxpayer." I think this link diminishes the credibility of the article. --Stijl Council 00:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not particularly credible, no ... on the other hand, that's a reason I want to leave it in. Let the anti-vaxxers hang themselves, y'know? Michael Ralston 00:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A bit of reorganization at the links - anti and promotion classification added. Jkpjkp 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Various elements of questions on factual accuracy

I question a few things.
1) Can anyone provide incidence-rate graphs? I seriously question the mortality-rate graphs, and feel incidence-rate graphs would be much more meaningful, and less likely to be a deliberate slant masked in statistics.
2) Can anyone show there actually IS an increased incidence per capita of leukemia, multiple sclerosis, or SIDS? I already know the data "proving" such on autism, as well as the problems with that data.
3) Why aren't there any direct sitations for, eg, "number of individuals in a number of cases who were assumed to be immunized and still contracted the illness" or "possible links between the increasing incidence of cancer and vaccines"?
Thsgrn 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Since Obmudsman (being one of the defenders of the controversy stance), at least, has been active lately but hasn't said anything about this, I've taken out the graphs (and the explanatory paragraphs associated with such), under the assumption that if someone cared, they'd've said something by now. Thsgrn 04:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, what do the graphs show that's worth a quarter of the article? You're the one being silly. They require a copious amount of clarification to not be actively misleading, and the bullet point "Critics of vaccination policy point out that the mortality rates of relevant illnesses were already dramatically reduced before vaccines were introduced, and claim that further reductions cannot immediately be attributed to vaccines." seems to convey the exact same information, and to do so without attempting to push this confusion between mortality and prevalence as being the most important point of the article. Replace them with graphs of prevalence if they're so important, since that at least isn't misleading. Thsgrn 01:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman, I leave you an open question: Why can't you replace the graphs with graphs of prevalence? That would be fair and honest. The mortality graphs are inherently dishonest, because the claim by vaccine advocates is primarily that vaccines reduce prevalence, and morality decreases are a mere side-effect. Thsgrn 07:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course if we really wanted to have fun we could compare rates between vaxed and non vaxed coutries un fortunetly I don't think the UK produces stats on chicken pox since pretty much the entire population sufferes from the ilness at one time or another.Geni 12:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Thsgrn, didn't mean to ignore you, but felt Leifern would better be able to explain his contributions. How best to present the data will hopefully work itself out, but in the meantime, this article is about the controversy, and therefor the concerns of major stakeholders should be presented. Rather than prematurely deleting graphs that give some insight to the controversy, it would be nice to discuss the matter here, perhaps find better visual aids, or refine the section content to indicate why vaccine proponents feel so uncomfortable with the arguments from critics. Ombudsman 18:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss the matter here. This is the first response I've gotten. I would have replaced it with prevalence data myself, were I able to find such a thing. As is, I do not feel those graphs are worth the volume of the article they take up. Michael Ralston 18:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that the graphs as they existed are not particularly enlightening and should not be replaced; in particular, there's an obvious reason why mortality rates for typhoid and scarlet fever would decrease in the post-WWII era: commercial use of penicillin to combat them. I believe the conclusion that one is supposed to draw is that mortality was decreasing "naturally" for these diseases. But there's compelling evidence that's not the case, and I don't think the graphs "prove" the point they're intended to prove. They might be useful if typhoid and scarlet fever are replaced with other diseases where there wasn't a substantial public health advance at the time of the decrease. --Stijl Council 04:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

WHO DELETED THE GRAPHS?

I obtained permission from the copyright holder to keep the graphs; I posted this to the relevant page; and they were still deleted. Please let me know what happened. --Leifern 16:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Err no you didn't since you only got permission to use them with permission. We don't accpet images with that copyright status any more.Geni 20:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

well I assume that is the reason I can't find them in the deletion log and I can't look at deleted images.Geni 20:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

At the time these images were uploaded, Wikipedia did accept images with such a status. As it was, I obtained permission from Greg Beattie and made that clear while they were in the VfD document. If you deleted them, I insist that you upload them again and explain to the world that you made a mistake, and apologize you made a mistake. Otherwise, I can only assume you are acting in bad faith. --Leifern 01:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't touch them. If you ever look through the page where all these copyvios are delt with you will understand why I leave it to others. There is currunt project to remove images that are not compatible with GFDL. This is phase two. At some point they are going to have to take a look at fair use witch is a different can of worms. As I said I can't find them in the deletion log so I don't know who deleted them.Geni 18:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Flawed Research Included Without Analysis

I was very suprised to find this highly flawed research [2] included in the "The case for widespread vaccines" section . It is a shame that this research is proprietary and only readable via subscription. A | fuller analysis reveals that the first 14 days after vaccination where excluded from the study, which every vaccine researcher knows is usually the peek of mortality for vaccinated subjects. It seems to me that on a page about the vaccine controversy some more analysis of such a report would be useful, and if not the report should be excluded. Siting this single highly flawed report with the attached statement is dangerously to the neutrality of the article, and we should be moving towards more established facts. What do people think? --Gremble 24 October 2005

I think you haven't read the study. The first 14 days had to be excluded "To eliminate confounding resulting from vaccination being postponed for acutely ill children". JAMA is not in the habit of publishing flawed research. Your claim "every vaccine researcher knows is usually the peek of mortality for vaccinated subjects" is uncited. If you can provide a solid reanaylis of the data published in a reputible journal we may have something to disscuss. Untill then WP:NOR. Incerdently User:BenjaminGreen why are you signing you comments with the name Gremble?Geni 01:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It is legitimate to include critiques of cited research. That is in fact part of the scientific process that Geni applies only selectively to those bits of research he doesn't agree with. JAMA is not infallible, nor have they ever claimed to be. --Leifern 11:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

yes it is legit as long as you cite sources and don't violate WP:NOR. Of course if you follow the same rules it is posible to critique the critique.Geni 11:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

All medical research to support the MMR-doesn't-cause-autism stance is full of holes john 18:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield - conflict of interest

I am no particular fan of Wakefield, but it seems to me that to accuse him of a conflict of interest is like accusing all scientists in any field of such a conflict. The test should be what the opportunity cost is for someone - if Wakefield could have done as well or better doing something else besides being activist about the MMR vaccine, then it's far-fetched to accuse him of having a conflict of interest. --Leifern 22:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Accusing Wakefield of conflicts is the biggest pot kettle I have ever heard in my whole life and the next 50 as well, and the pathetic reason is to somehow make out he was dissing the MMR just to promote one of his own vaccine efforts, which is one of the greatest smears I have come across for some time, but the stakes are so high it is a wonder Wakefield is still alive. john 18:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So it's okay to accuse those who feel that vaccination helps people of a conflict of interest, but it's not okay to say the same about those who agree with you? Michael Ralston 12:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of a strawman argument. My point is this: if someone develops an earnestly held conviction about an issue, and decides to pursue this issue based on his/her convictions as a fulltime effort, one could certainly make an argument that he/she has a financial interest in that issue. But a conflict of interest leaves a reader with the impression that the financial interest drives the person's convictions. A much more reasonable standard is what the opportunity cost is for the person or organization accused of a conflict of interest. It seems to me reasonable to assume that people like Wakefield have equally financially rewarding alternatives to pushing their point of view on this issue, and so the conflict of interest is less pronounced than someone who might get sued for billions if not trillions of dollars if it turns out that the MMR vaccine is dangerous. But the bigger point is this: if we are to give credibility to allegations that Wakefield has a conflict of interest, then we must apply the same standard to every doctor and scientist who stubbornly holds on to something they believe in and try to make a living doing it, as well as every salaried person in a charitable organization. --Leifern 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The conflict of interest runs deeper than e.g. a researcher who receives funding from a charitable organization, since if you believe Brian Deer's reporting, 1. Wakefield's research on MMR vaccine started following a contract with a legal firm (perhaps in anticipation of litigation based on the results) and 2. Wakefield patented a single measles vaccine that could have been a potential rival to the MMR vaccine. Andrew73 14:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Leifern: My point is that right before it claims that Wakefield is an example of the anti-vaccination crowd who have a conflict of interest, it DOES claim that everyone who supports vaccination has a conflict of interest. But you didn't complain about that one. Michael Ralston 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Supporters

Thank you Arcadian, for that fantastic encyclopedic NPOV edit[3]! JFW | T@lk 20:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. For context, this is the edit referenced. --Arcadian 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That was where Leifern asked for vaccination proponents. Should we include Robert Koch? JFW | T@lk 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I've added Robert Koch to the list. --Arcadian 20:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding supporters is absurd on a vaccine controversy page. john 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! InvictaHOG 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to have a controversy. The only way it's absurd to list one side is if that side is so obviously right that the controversy is manufactured by the other side exclusively, or, maybe, if that side's so numerically overwhelming that a list of proportions similar to that of the real world would dwarf the other side. You think one of those is the case, John? Michael Ralston 12:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Listing famous musicians, etc. that support or oppose vaccinations is unnecessary and inappropriate. Those left in the middle should choose a side based on facts and not danceable tunes. 30 March 2006

I agree with Michael Ralston above -- adding vaccine "supporters" just legitimizes the anti-vaccination campaign. It would be akin to putting up a list of "supporters" of the "non-flat Earth controversey." Amcfreely 18:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"measles deaths (fell) by 99.4% before vaccination was introduced"

THe headline is given in the text. Going to what is asserted to be a copy of the reference cited (it is a page on whale.to which looks as though it is a BMJ paper from some time ago, I find the remark on incidence is:-

"The annual number of deaths attributed to measles on death certificates fell from 39 in 1970 to 17 in 1983,"

The rest of that sentence is "... but the ratio of deaths to measles notifications showed no declining trend over the period" which is of course relevant to death rates.

The arithmetic seems unexplained, and it is unclear also what it is about that paper that is claimed to support the assertion in which it is presented as a reference. Midgley 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Later... After immunisation was introduced in the UK, and up to 1996, measles mortality fell by 100%. I just thought people would like to know that...Midgley 22:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

When one is talking about measles attributed deaths in a developed country ( where the total numbers are low) one is looking at statistical 'noise'. Had you looked at earlier Wikipedia entries you would have seen comments that the CDC found >100% increase -in some years- of death certificates indicating measles in vacinated individuals but not in unvaccinated individual. Doubting this, I checked for myself - suggest you do that same. I just thought people would like to know that... --Aspro 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Litigation => conflict of interest

Personally, I am perfectly prepared to believe that people will take up a cause simply to enrich themselves through litigation, but this is a point of view based on certain premises about the tort system. I'm not going to edit it now, but I think it's hard to assume that the legal system will enrich the undeserving - the assumption should rather be that cases will win in the courts based on their merit. --Leifern 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationists, etc.

Geni insists that it's only been since 2005 that "anti-vaccinationists" (a contrived term) have objected to vaccines. He knows just as well as anyone that this is false. Parents in many countries have been concerned to the either the aggressive schedule of vaccinations or thimerosal or both, without being "anti-vaccines" beyond that. What is this? --Leifern 03:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with your most recent edit to that opening paragraph. I don't think Geni is actually making the assertation you say he's making, mind you. Michael Ralston 04:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

OK, I removed Geni's attempts at associating one set of criticism against vaccines with another, as if the two were related, represented the only controversies, and (I have to imagine) of equal (de)merit (at least in Geni's opionion). I also took out language telling parents what they should realize, since this was both biased and misplaced in the introduction. --Leifern 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Need for Substantial info on the Controversy

This article now reads like a defense for governmental vaccine policies, eliminating specific charges of harm done by vaccines. The substantial information on why there is a controversy, and the specific evils that vaccines, in their differing marketing presentations, have been shown or suspected to inflict, need to be reinstated. Beggining this job. 201.121.166.164 15:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is perfectly reasonable and understandable that the public should question the safety of vaccinations. (especially when certain journalists use the subject to sell news papers -What a pity the Press_Complaints_Commission did not ask for a retraction of a certain interpretation of a certain line of research featured by Yellow_journalism. What happened to standing together in support of one and other? Or has unexamined dogma started to run away with itself ?). What Joe and Jane Public need is to have their concerns addressed. A big problem appears to be that PR people -with their degrees in media studies- keep on repeating the answers that have been passed down to them from above, without regard to what the actual questions are . Instead Joe & Jane get spoon fed the same stale dogma.

It is simple and if I can provide anxiety reducing answers -so can Wikipedia!!!

But as 201.121.166.164 points out the article now reads like a defence for governmental vaccine policies.

Will leave you with this[4]: and take note of item two & four... Item five usually takes care of itself... As much or as little as you allow it to!--Aspro 21:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be looking for something like this: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124 Midgley 11:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that it a good example. It both address the concern, brings the evidence together and puts it (even if briefly) into real world context. Also, and perhaps just as importantly, it reflects what is actually experienced and witnessed in the real world. Then, on the basis of that article: if the word 'overwhelm' can be associated with (say) the past practice of living under the same roof as ones sheep, cattle and so on, then the anxiety may 're-float' and reattach itself to a more realistic concept of the word 'overwhelm' and thenceforth update their world model of relative risks.People seem to me, to need to be able to make connections that make sense to 'them' via the opposite process that brought about the concern in the first place. Afterwards, (it is as if) their neural network has become more resilient to nonsense in general than it was before. This assurance will -one hopes- then get passed around in the counter direction. --Aspro 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense now...

But perhaps that is not a priority. Midgley 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The conduct of User:Leifern

Note that I take exception to the Leifern's recent summary comment[5] in this article. It is one of a recent unbroken series of egregious violations of WP:CIVIL by him in my direction. If Leifern has ever made a comment involving me which actually falls within WP:CIVIL I regret that I cannot recall it. Perhaps someone else has seen one. And Leifern has made a lot of such comments. Looking around WP, there are many controversial topics which do not benefit from Leifern's input, and the participants in whcih are free from this level of nastiness. I suspect it may not be a coincidence. Midgley 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To avoid cluttering things further by defending myself, see User:Leifern/Accusations by Midgley--Leifern 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

content of an article about something ...

Is it usual to include the date something started (and if it finished, that date as well)? When then did "vaccine controversy" start? And is it actually vaccine controversy, or something that predated vaccines, and was opposition to variolation, retargeted on vaccination in 1798? Midgley 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

From a post in a Anti-Vacc Forum

"Unfortunately, the relevant articles are being hijacked by editors who believe that anything out of the mainstream is quackery and should be discredited. They have taken to deleting content they find disagreeable. There are only a few of us who are trying to make sure that readers get a complete overview of the state of biomedical intervention and the controversy surrounding the cause(s) of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

For better or worse, there is a bit of mob rule on Wikipedia - it takes a lot of participants to make sure that a controversial perspective is represented fairly and accurately. Right now, editors who believe that any more or less "alternative" approaches to treating our kids are at best ill-informed and at worst quackery are winning the day. As an example, a recent biographical article on Peter Fletcher, the former chief scientific officer at the United Kingdom's Department of Health was deleted because he has spoken up about the possibility of a link between MMR and autism.

Some examples of problematic articles are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_in_autism
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_intervention_for_autism
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_Haley
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationist
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thimerosal_controversy"

203.208.251.205 (talk · contribs)

How delightful, and what a shame you didn't give an URL for the forum post in question. The editors have no problem with mentioning alternative approaches, especially when these are popular, but the same editors get a bit jittery when people enter the stage shouting about suppression, conspiracy, mob rule and God knows what else. Frankly, I have met a few editors who'd rather stick their arm in a crate with velociraptors than edit a page on vaccines.

The fact is: most "alternative" views on vaccines have proof problems. Several large studies have shown no link between MMR and autism, yet the "believers" in the link will do anything to discredit these studies, however methodologically meticulous.

If the editors on the "vaccine criticism" adhered to common sense and editorial policy, no conflicts would be necessary. JFW | T@lk 04:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just occurred to me that the scientific 'debates' and issues, and the ideological disagreements (controversies) are getting constantly jumbled up. (arguing from different premises as it were) Therefore, I 'll put the article it in the 'debate' category as well -to encourage some effort of separation to take place; or at least, a debate about it.--Aspro 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Give http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AVN/message/29154 a try. Problem is (like most Anti-Vacc newsgroups) one wiff of dissent, and you're unsubbed.203.208.251.205 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that vaccination may be responsible for every single case of terrorism, 50% of cancer cases and possibly the september 11 incident. I feel that my completely reasonable view has been unfairly excluded simply because its alternative.

An Unbiased Opinion

I know I am probably just adding fuel to the fire here, but I read the beginning of this article and stopped about 3 paragraphs into it.

The beginning of this article seems entirely biased to favor vaccination programs.

This is an important topic obviously. I have a nephew who was just diagnosed with PDD so I came here for insight. Even the tone of the debate here seems very biased. co94 March 31, 2006

The reason why it appears to be "biased to favor vaccination programs" is because it reflects the consensus of the medical community! Andrew73 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

PDD? Midgley 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know what PDD is, and can't be bothered to type PDD into the search field of Wikipedia, how can you express yourself with such confidence and authority on neurodevelopmental issues? I'm just wondering...--Leifern 22:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That is an untrue statement. TLAs are a pain, and PDD != PDD, whereas WP:CIV is unambiguous. Midgley 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PDD. (I'm going to assume that from that list it's pervasive developmental disorder.) As Andrew73 notes, the article's 'bias' reflects the opinion of the bulk of the medical community. Wikipedia isn't a place for investigative journalism or speculative science; we just report on what the current state-of-the-art happens to be.

The insights that you might draw here are that the causes of disorders in the PDD spectrum are not understood; there is a vocal minority which holds that vaccination is responsible for these and other health problems; various mechanisms by which vaccination may cause harm have been proposed but not verified in humans; and there aren't any solid data to firmly support a link between vaccination and PDD. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the medical community in general has soundly come down in favor of vaccination programs. Nevertheless, there are people who dissent or at least feel that questioning dogma is worthwhile. For Pete's sake, one need look no further than Merck and Vioxx for an example of when the established medical community was wrong. People thought asbestos was safe at one point too. At one point researchers maintained that it was impossible for heterosexuals to spread HIV. Doctors thought at one point nerves could never be regenerated. Established medical thought is not alway correct. The reason why it changes is because people search and discover new things.

When I read the criticism portion of the article, I almost laughed aloud. I am not a "conspiracy theorist" or anything but I was very surprised that there was not even a mention of the possible link between autism and vaccinations. That debate is ongoing in both the United States and the UK. Is this odd that it is not even mentioned in an article describing the controversy of vaccination programs?

This is fact: Up until 5 years ago, a form of mercury called thimerol was routinely used as a preservative in several vaccines. In 2001, the US Govt AND pharmaceutical companies agreed that thimerol should be reduced or eliminated from vaccines as a precautionary measure. Just like mercury is no longer used in dental fillings. This was done even though there has been no proven link between mercury in vaccines and autism. (1) Note: this article was published just this month. Why is there no mention of this or something similar in the wiki entry? Where is the mention of the MMR debate in the UK? Those are facts that give insight as to why this controversy even exists.

UK spelling is Thiomersal US spelling is Thimerosal the article relating to the Thimerosal controversy now let me see, what was that called? <grin> Midgley 20:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When you start the section on the case against vaccinations, the first thing that is mentioned is that the controversy has been around for centuries. I.e., it is old unenlightened thought. The second sentence implies that people are jumping to conclusions because they read WebMD now and then. It is as if to say that the critics are just malinformed and dont understand the complexities of the issue at large. Is this what you mean? [6] This article is leaving out massive amounts of information and doing so is making it very biased.

Saying that for example the MMR topic should not be introduced because it did not represent established medical opinion is nonsense. It is an integral part of the CONTROVERSY (what this article is about). One can describe the topic and then say that it went against accepted medical opinion, but to omit it entirely gives a one-sided argument to this controversy. I reiterate that this article is very biased. co94 April 1, 2006

Note, I resaved this part while someone was updating it. Apologies.

?IMDB? Some dissenters - those offering an alternative - are quacks. Some are not. All are promoting or making a choice which seems to the overwhelming majority of those who examine the evidence offered a bad one. It is hard to see how the controversy could not include views on the effectiveness of immunisation, given that one of the recurring arguments presented to dissuade people from seeking or accepting immunisation since 1798 or so is that they are not effective. Midgley 17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Midgely, this was the book, "Evidence of Harm" I was referrring to: (2) Yes, it is probably pretty biased. I have not read it but it got good reviews from reputable critics such as the New York Times. It is being made into a movie. All the more reason to get an unbiased entry here. Last thing people need is more confusion.

Actually, the Introduction link at the aforementioned website is a good read about the vaccination controversy. I think everyone here would enjoy reading it. co94 April 1, 2006 1:14 EST.

"Optioned" for a movie. That is very much not the same things as "being made into a movie". (Through a complex and uninteresting chain of events I know something about this.) Tell us when pre-production starts, at that point it has a reasonable chance of becoming a movie. Above here there are references to the absence of various things in the encyclopaedia which are present in copious amounts. Look around. Midgley 20:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, This will definitely be my last post here. I have made a lot of comments on various topics before. Never have I seen the vindictiveness and hair splitting like I do here. Midgley, does it matter that it is a movie being optioned or being made? Will it add more credence to the discussion here if it goes to pre-production? If Hollywood approves a screenplay, does that mean something has been validated? I dont understand the logic. EoH is just a book, that's all. You react as if you are a lobbyist for the vaccination industry. Go read the introduction like I suggested. Or the NYT review I linked above. Those two sources provided a lot more information than this article and debate have done. As a simple example, they name the specific Internet parent groups that pushed the controversy in the US. Those groups were parents who discovered that their situations were strikingly similar so they investigated on their own. They were organized and got the issue in front of Congress. No mention of even the name of the organization in this article? C'mon.

The NYT has done an extensive piece over the past week about vaccinations in the Third Wolrd. They raised the issue of why polio has been effectively eliminated in developing nations yet still exists in some poor countries. They never ever mentioned that doctors are questioning the efficacy of vaccinations. They talk about a plethora of possible causes but effectiveness of a particluar vaccination was not one of them. The entire section on criticism is practically unreferenced as if the authors are just soapboxing it.

[7]

This is just a bad article, plain and simple. And the author is unwilling to change it so it will never lose its NPOV status at this rate and it will be eventually relegated to the trash heap. Like I said at the beginning, I read this article on a whim because I have a family member with PDD and this controversy is getting a lot of attention lately. I was only reading it for information. There isnt much here though. Respond if you wish, but know I wont read it. Washing my hands of this article. co94

The author? Ah well. Midgley 23:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article

This article takes an opinon that is not really held by any medical professional and presents it as if it were mainstream. Yes, there is going to be a certain percentage of deaths among any mass-vaccination, but every educated person knows this percentage is infinitesimal compared to the number of deaths without the vaccinations. The reason that drug companies already don't invest in vaccines as much as they should is becasue idiotic people that don't understand the concept of vaccines will bring massive law suits against any maker of vaccines.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The original writers of this article contend that these drawbacks of vaccination are not acceptable, and that there are lots of scary immune-mediated conditions that are possibly caused by vaccination. You are correct in your assessment that on the whole there is little support within the medical community that this is indeed the case, and there are a lot of articles (a walled garden, in fact) that propound the immune theory to a degree that there are NPOVUW issues. I have no doubt that mutual collaboration is the key, but requests for high-quality sources (say, above the investigative journalism level) have met with considerable hostility, name-calling, labelling and other inappropriate behaviour.

Autism is not regarded as an immune disorder by paediatric psychiatrists. Autistic enterocolitis probably does not exist. While thiomersal may increase the mercury load, the link between mercury and autoimmunity is about as tentative as that between autoimmunity and autism. None of these claims have ever satisfied epidemiological criteria of causality, nor do I suspect they ever will. Sometimes epidemiological studies document association (e.g. rotavirus vaccine and intusseseception), but even this level of evidence is absent with respect to TCVs and autoimmunity/autism. Activists will claim that the data is being suppressed by those in power, but activists can equally claim that watching football causes cerebral atrophy and that the studies have been falsified because the government thinks football keeps the yobs watching TV instead of causing trouble outside. JFW | T@lk 11:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And you know you is responsible for all of that.....The Jews!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is valid. Sometimes a scientific methodology does not produce desirable results. Take MMR/Autism. Epidemiological research is typically inadequate in this area (refer Cochrane and others) - frequently it is not possible to find populations to compare that are both sufficiently large, and alike except for having / not having the vaccination. Frequently the populations compared are significantly unequal in autism rates, but there are too many possible causes for any one to be isolated with confidence. The scientific conclusion is then reported "the study revealed no evidence of a connection MMR/Autism" and perhaps should be read as "the study revealed nothing". This is then reported in the media and policy guidance as "Further evidence that MMR is safe" and people who question this should be considered as unsafe / deluded.--213.212.65.12 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the list of vaccination critics/supporters for?

To let me know that Bono supports vaccination? To tell me that a few MDs support vaccination and a few MDs don't? If they are important figures or organizations in the 'vaccination controversy' world, their position on the issue should be mentioned in prose under the sections 'The case for widespread vaccines' or 'Criticism of widespread vaccine policy'. --Dodo bird 12:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It may have as part of its aim doing just that - but note that it isn't a few" MDs who support vaccination, but all bar ... Midgley 13:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, it may just be a partial recreation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaccination_critics that. (I wans't around for that one, by the way) Midgley 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How is the list of vaccination critics different from the list in Anti-vaccinationist ? Amcfreely 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would assume anti-vaccinationists consider vaccination all bad no good, but critics argue the pluses and minuses. But I wouldn't know. The anti-vaccinationist article don't actually have a definition of what an anti-vaccinationist is. --Dodo bird 21:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made these lists a bit smaller so they take up slightly less space. I can't say I find the lists particularly illuminating. Nunquam Dormio 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a vaccine critic?

An attempt at a definition is part of vaccine critic. You might think that this would be one place to put a list of vaccine critics, though not of course anti-vaccinationists. Midgley 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions. Word the names into prose. (eg. ...celebrity and humanitarian Bono has shown strong support for vaccination..., Archie Kalokerinos, an australian physician claimed that vaccination schemes have been used for deliberate genocide among indigenous Australians, and in spreading HIV in Africa, Louis Pasteur(1822-1895), creator of the rabies vaccine is a supporter of vaccination back in those times when no one actually objects to vaccination, Mark Blaxill, who has an MBA and is not important enough for an article of his own on wikipedia objects to vaccination.) After we done that to all the names, it would be clear which names don't deserve to be here. --Dodo bird 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor cleanup to intro

I know that introductions of articles tend to have been worked on with a fine toothed comb, but I see a way to improve it. Instead of the sentences:

Critics question the claimed efficacy and safety of such programs. See anti-vaccinationist about the individuals involved.

I have removed the latter and have the link to anti-vaccinationist be from the word "Critics". They now read:

Critics question the claimed efficacy and safety of such programs.

It reads cleaner. I tend to believe that "See (also) ..." statements are much more inelegant than links, in a medium like this. The second sentence also had a ever so slight air of POV disparagement, I think due to the "anti" prefix, and that "the individuals involved" has a faint ring of fringeness, a (perhaps wrong) implication being that, wow, if there are so few that they can actually be enumerated, they must be wrong.

I am of course aware that the critics are the minority, and some of their work is quite fringe, and worse. But some isn't. This now reads more neutrally, while in ins context accurately.

Baccyak4H 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)