Talk:MMR vaccine/Archive 1

message: I've just heard that the MMR vaccine is partly made using eggs and that infants that have an egg allergy cannot be given it.  Could someone source this and include it? violet/riga (t) 18:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: for the most part it isn't true though .Geni 15:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egg allergy 

message: A lot of research is quoted in this article, but I think it should be formatted like in other articles - not just a link to a website but with the full citation and PMID to boot. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper referencing

message: I think it was a BBC documentary I just saw on the TV. It had following points missing from this article:
*Large epidemiological study in Denmark, which showed no link between MMR and autism.
*Dr. Wakefield claims having found living (measles?) viruses in the blood of some claimed victims of MMR, possibly explaining the link between autism and MMR. Other research teams have failed to find such living viruses.
If I knew more, I'd add this to the article, but I hope someone finds these points useful for further editing. -EnSamulili 19:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info 

message: I have taken out the descriptions of websites as being "sites promoting MMR" or opposing MMR, or whatever, as these characterizations are ridiculous.  To describe the BBC as a site supporting MMR, or whatever, is absurd.  Naturally, antivaccinationists wish to imply that there is a matching for-and-against, as this gives their views equal prominence.  But to falsely characterize media organizations in this way is wrong.
COMMENT: Who is 'I'?  Absurd or not, it's not wrong, it's true, re BBC hale -dot- to/b/bbc.html. They are renown for promoting the industry agenda, eg Vivisection, like all of the media.  The only programme critical of vaccination I have seen was a Channel 4 one, and that was as a drama documentary, which was lucky to see the light of day, and the discussion programme that followed was biased towards vaccination.  The last media investigation into a childhood vaccination was in 1984, in a provincial US paper, the Fresno Bee hale -dot- to/vaccines/fresno.html, which say it all. And to remove sites 'opposing MMR' is just subtle suppression, as vaccinators don't like the public to know there are people who are anti-vaccine, or anti-MMR, such as w hale -dot- to.  They want to make out anti-vaccinists are kooks, paranoid etc, the old word game propaganda ploy.  You can see it in all it's manifestations on Wikipedia talk pages.  The latest one is to find all of the hot subjects on whale that our outfield to most non-thinkers, eg baby sacrifice, satanism, protocols etc, round them up for use as 'buzzwords' to hold up to anyone thinking of looking at the medical pages.  The Wizard of Oz was good at that, as I recall.86.128.165.240 22:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization of websites 

message: I see the large amount of biased editors on vaccination here , so Wikipedia is heavily biased on medical matters, which you can see easily on all the vaccine pages, obviously written by medical people/vaccinators.  Same with all the vaccine disease pages eg mumps .  All of the non-biased Wikipdeia editors should strive to maintain Wikipedia as an unbiased Encylopedia, unlike the written versions, that were purged of anti-vaccine articles, eg Dr Creighton was the last in 1888 hale.to/v/creighton.html.  At least allow external links to sites critical to allopathic medicine, but even external links get removed.  One has to ask what are they afraid of?  86.128.165.240 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to have you address the specifics of this RfC. The website hale.to w hale -dot- to has been cited by several editors as an inappropriate link for many reasons which are not related to its vaccine-related content. If there are aspects of the writing on other pages which you have problems with, be bold and add a NPOV, referenced section. If there is a editing disagreement, discuss it on the talk pages. If that does not resolve it, an RfC might help get different opinions. This RfC is for w hale -dot- to and, in particular, where, if anywhere, it is appropriate. InvictaHOG 01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "many reasons which are not related to its vaccine-related content."  These come down to one reason that is pure ad hominem or word game propaganda ploy, so invalid--you find buzzwords (protocols, child sacrifice, satanic, conspiracy etc) to hold up to the crowd so they will not look at the, in this case, vaccine & vaccine diseases articles on w hale -dot- to.  The medical industry have conditioned people to believe 'anti-vaccine', or 'conspiracy' people are nuts, paranoid.  Just neat mind control, and I see on the mind control page they are trying to suppress that under 'brainwashing'.  Not sure what being bold is about, I don't have time to edit text and then have it removed, just links get taken out in under 3 hours.  It is all on w hale.to anyway, if Wiki wasn't biased there would be no need for w hale -dot- to, obviously.  I know you like to sound reasonable, but that is just for effect IMO, so when you suppress w hale -dot- to links you can then say you had a fair discussion.  86.128.169.252 07:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: One of my favorite guidelines on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. I have not lodged accusations against your motives and would appreciate it if you could return the favor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with user created content, not a mere collection of links. I hope you agree that pages like vaccine are better when contributors add well-referenced, NPOV prose instead of simply adding links. It would be a poor page if it were simply dominated by outside links with instructions to "go read, it's all there!" You are right about hale.to w hale -dot- to - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling. InvictaHOG 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia". This is classic Name Calling propoganda ploy  hale.to/vaccine/propaganda3.html, are you aware of that or do you think you are dealing with an idiot?   Not only that but you are doing exactly what you accuse w hale -dot- to of doing!  Also, I don't believe your reasoning for a moment, it is just an excuse to stop people looking at w hale.to, you are implying wiki readers are mostly idiots.  Even links to articles on w hale -dot- to get removed, for example, one of Dr Irwin Stones articles--see how long this article link stays up , I have replaced that 3 times so far. Secondly, from your profile  I can see that you are an MD/physician , so it would be expected that you would attempt to suppress sites critical to allopathy, using Name Calling, rather than reasoned argument, but I am used to that, as w hale.to is very well documented, and impossible to refute, especially over vaccination. 86.128.169.252 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have come to the point where we must agree to disagree. For those who did not follow the link provided in the paragraph above (hale.to/vaccine/propaganda3.html), w hale -dot- to has begun to incorporate quoted parts of this debate with commentary into its pages. I would ask you to respect the Wikipedia official policy which forbids personal attacks such as "Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme." I will invite you to return the focus of this debate upon hale.to w hale.to and away from those participating in it. A variety of different subjects such as religions, political figures, organizations, and professions are expressly accused of conspiracy to commit evil deeds by w hale -dot- to. What will be our criteria, if any, for including a relevant link on these individual pages?  InvictaHOG 21:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That wasn't personal, that was just analysing your method of attack, in this case Word Game hale.to/vaccine/propaganda3.html. It was to be expected that you would interperate that as personal, no one likes to be exposed as using well established propaganda ploys.  I thank you for helping me analyise that ploy into it's 3 catagories---1. Use of Buzzwords as you demonstrated eg satanic, sacrifice, etc 2. Use of Buzzwords with slides attached which you also used, eg paranoid, conspiracy, conspiracist, conspiracy theory, anti-vaccine--it is noted that Wikipedia has given a whole page over to playing Word Game , quite something!   3. Basic abuse. I can't ever see a medical editor agreeing with w hale.to, impossible, so agreeing to disagree is the way, just stop taking down links to w hale -dot- to articles. 86.128.169.252 10:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: PS.  I wouldn't dream of being 'personal' for a number of reasons.  1. As the saying goes--we resort to abuse when reason is against us.  I have put a lot of thought/reasoning into my beliefs so resorting to abuse would be making out I had no argument. 2. I don't like to be emotional, I find hostility is something I like to avoid, and judgement, as they are all ego reality. 3. It would be a lower tone behaviour (ego), and I like to keep up tone (essence)hale.to/v/tone.html.  86.128.169.252 11:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Your criticism of medicine is quite in the same category as w hale -dot- to.  If we just take the smallpox vaccine research at w hale -dot- to--it is impossible to refute the fact the vaccine was ineffective and dangerous, as the governmnet statistics show hale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html, and the MMR vaccine hale.to/vaccines/mmr.html and so on.  If we take the cancer research at w hale -dot- to it is impossible to refute the facts as shown hale.to/a/cancer_c.html, likewise the fact dozens of disease cures have been suppressed along with the causes of most diseases  hale.to/m/therapies.html.  These facts have to kept hidden from the public, so medical editors such as yourself have to invent spurious reasons to delete links to whale eg: Jdwolff "All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia."  Not quite up to the standard of Hog who is using Word Game, but at least you are honest, although that is basic Word Game, I guess. 86.128.169.252 10:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 86.128.169.252 - so now I'm an allopath and not a vaccinator. And I am not the only opponent to the w hale -dot- to links. There is plenty of criticism of allopathic medicine on Wikipedia. Sorry. Strawman. Whale is not synonymous with criticism of allopathy/drugs/vaccines. So far all defenders whale have used this tactic. Oddly,  has been reinserting w hale -dot- to links on those pages from which they were deleted, but has not joined this discussion. JFW | T@lk 13:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Large amount of biased editors

message: "the strain of mumps component" <-- What does this mean? It is in the "MMR controversy" section. --JWSchmidt 16:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the mumps portion in the last MMR vaccine called Urabe.  That mumps component caused it to be withdraw when it caused meningitis hale -dot- to/vaccine/mmr15.html. It was replaced by another mumps strain called Jeryl Lynn. john 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Still going on  by InvictaHog. You are going to have to come up with a better excuse than Name Calling (ad hominem). john 11:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not suppressing information (as evidenced by the fact that there are hundreds of other links that we have not targeted). We are simply removing the site which you created and have seemingly joined Wikipedia to promote without addressing the real concerns that have been expressed in this RfC. In fact, Ombudsman has not contributed to this RfC yet continues to place the links to your site without discussion here. Not one user here has answered my very simple question - if w hale -dot- to is to be included on the vaccination Wiki pages, is it also to be included on the many other non-medical Wiki pages? If not, what are the criteria for inclusion and are they consistent? If so, will everyone support the linking of whale on the Wiki page of every subject that whale criticizes? Every voice on this page which at first advocates for whale disappears when this subject is addressed. InvictaHOG 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Straw man argument. Ad hominem variation. Don't make me laugh with your 'real concern' comment.  The other subjects have no bearing on the whale medical pages. Instead of holding up various subjects with fear attached for most people eg satanism, which is basic Ad hominem to muddy the water, you are now still using those other subjects in a different way.  Still ad hominem.  And you have taken it upon yourself to delete all w hale -dot- to links without any real justification.  It is obvious allopathic suppression, who do you think you are fooling with all this fake concern?  To answer the question which doesn't need answering as it is irrelevant to the argument, but I will humour you---if whale has documents on subjects with Wiki pages then obviously external links should be put in especially if whale is the only source for that document on the internet eg some mind control books hale -dot- to/b/books.html. I do admire your persistent ad hominem, but if I have to put all of the medical documents on a seperate site to avoid your ad hominem ploy, then I will do so, persistance is one of my strenghts also. As to your comment 'criticise', I don't offer any comment about many subjects, I just file the evidence, so I take it having a filing cabinet of documents on a subject is evidence of 'criticism'.  john 12:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suppressing w hale -dot- to orthomolecular medicine documents by allopaths

message: Allopaths suppressing links, eg on anthrax vaccine---- (last)  07:19, 1 January 2006 Jfdwolff m (w hale -dot- to is a poor resource - there is near-consensus on Talk:MMR vaccine against whalea)   I have to laugh at your contrived near consensus, that is 3 allopaths at my last count.  That is a kangaroo court of allopaths or a rigged trial where you lot are judge and jury.   And your best argument is the old propaganda ploy called Name Calling or Ad hominem, where you are attempting to discredit whale by drawing attention to emotive subjects there, eg, satanism, conspiracy,  Illuminati mind control, Jewish conspiracy, genocide via vaccination, Roman Catholics, psychic assassins, Mormons, Walter Cronkite, demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone, or links to alien implant removers  etc (thanks Andrew73).    john 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not suppressing information (as evidenced by the fact that there are hundreds of other links that we have not targeted). We are simply removing the site which you created and have seemingly joined Wikipedia to promote without addressing the real concerns that have been expressed in this RfC. In fact, Ombudsman has not contributed to this RfC yet continues to place the links to your site without discussion here. Not one user here has answered my very simple question - if w hale -dot- to is to be included on the vaccination Wiki pages, is it also to be included on the many other non-medical Wiki pages? If not, what are the criteria for inclusion and are they consistent? If so, will everyone support the linking of whale on the Wiki page of every subject that whale criticizes? Every voice on this page which at first advocates for whale disappears when this subject is addressed. InvictaHOG 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Straw man argument. Ad hominem variation. Don't make me laugh with your 'real concern' comment.  The other subjects have no bearing on the whale medical pages. Instead of holding up various subjects with fear attached for most people eg satanism, which is basic Ad hominem to muddy the water, you are now still using those other subjects in a different way.  Still ad hominem.  And you have taken it upon yourself to delete all w hale -dot- to links without any real justification.  It is obvious allopathic suppression, who do you think you are fooling with all this fake concern?  To answer the question which doesn't need answering as it is irrelevant to the argument, but I will humour you---if whale has documents on subjects with Wiki pages then obviously external links should be put in especially if whale is the only source for that document on the internet eg some mind control books hale -dot- to/b/books.html. I do admire your persistent ad hominem, but if I have to put all of the medical documents on a seperate site to avoid your ad hominem ploy, then I will do so, persistance is one of my strenghts also. As to your comment 'criticise', I don't offer any comment about many subjects, I just file the evidence, so I take it having a filing cabinet of documents on a subject is evidence of 'criticism'.  john 12:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allopaths fake 'near consensus' against w hale -dot- to

message: I have created a stub at w hale -dot- to. I recommend that debate about that website take place there instead of here, to make it easier for other people to follow the issue. --Arcadian 22:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Pablo-flores has nominated the page for deletion. If you feel that w hale -dot- to belongs in Wikipedia, the place to make your case is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/w hale -dot- to. --Arcadian 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange, looking at his page that he should be the one to nominate, as he doesn't look to ahve any interest in alternative medicine. john 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is that necessary? Wikipedians have fine feelers for what is notable and what is not. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[w hale -dot- to]]

message: It hasn't escaped my attention that most of the bogey words (demons, implants, etc) that User:InvictaHOG is using in his false ad hominem ploy against w hale -dot- to links are also on wiki pages. Playing along with his ad hominem argument for a moment, I am mighty curious to know how come it is OK for Wiki to have pages to Alien implants, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Skull and Bones, Demons, Satanism, but NOT OK for me to have them?? And I don't even offer any comment on most pages.  john 09:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as all your other material forcefully pushes a point it is only fair to assume that material is there for the same reason. JFW | T@lk 10:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: and the articles in Wikipedia are subject to the same process as other Wikipedia articles, whereas essays on external sites are not mutable or correctable.  Midgley 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Even User InvictaHog's ad hominem against w hale -dot- to is dubious

message: Although most of the edit war has thankfully died down, there are still some instances where reversions continue on an almost daily basis (I am certainly guilty of this!). Because most, if not all, of the people arguing against the w hale -dot- to site believe are opposed to the presentation instead of the information, I have begun indexing commonly inserted links (see Lily Loat for an example) into WikiSource so that they can be linked without the w hale -dot- to connection. I propose that all non-copyrighted primary texts be placed into Wikisource. If text is copyrighted and cannot be placed into Wikisource, I'd favor not linking to it, either - no sense in supporting copyright violation (if it exists, I'm not saying it does!) InvictaHOG 07:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your are a pediatrician. john 15:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would that have to do with anything? Michael Ralston 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  he has been deleting all my links to vaccine criticism. john 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not your links John. They are the Wiki's links. And the Wiki isn't yours. And the fact that he's a pediatrician is irrelevant. I'm presently doing geriatrics. So what? Stop ad hominemming if you can. JFW | T@lk 14:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the people arguing against are allopaths/vaccinators, and using ad hominem, which appears to be a valid argument on wiki. Bit of a cheek really considering the time I put into it.  And your Wiki job on Loat  isn't much to write home about compared to mine hale -dot- to/a/loat1.html. And it would be hopeless with the longer books, but I suspect you wouldn't want anyone to read them anyway.  john 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  John: You don't seem to appreciate that to call someone an "allopath" is to ascribe to them a ridiculous label invented by a 19th century German quack who left no proof that he ever cured one person of anything.  It's ascription is, of itself, an ad hominem insult, somewhat more lofty, but in reality of no greatly different order to any person calling you a "crank" (which of course they wouldn't, as this breaches wiki etiquette). Am I wrong? 86.129.108.212 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you have Allopathic medicine on Wiki even, so someone who practices allopathy is an allopath. The other term is 'conventional' or 'orthodox', but 'conventional medical doctor' doesn't really work does it.  It doesn't matter who invented the label, as it doesn't matter who decided to call the Yew tree a Yew, or why he chose that name.  And words gain numerous meanings over the years, as you can see in any dictionary, so the term is the best I have come across to describe drug using medical doctors.  If you have a better word then supply it.  Allopaths have to be distinguished from other medical doctors who use nutrients as in orthomolecular medicine (eg Archie Kalokerinos), or other non-drug modalities, and from those that use homeopathics, or natural healing etc. I am talking for the layman, so I can explain medicine to the layman, I am not too bothered what medical people think, the politics gets in the way there. It is a wonder to me that allopaths, as I call them, don't like to be labelled, eg as 'vaccinators', which was a common term for over a 100 years.  They seem to be in denial, and that maybe because they can pretend they are unbiased over vaccination, and are in control of what they believe over vaccination, when, in reality, they have no choice but to believe in it, and people like Wakefield give them an example of what happens to non-believers, and he touts single vaccines. If you don't like being labelled allopath, then maybe you don't like being labelled, but as the saying goes--"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by the right names."   Crank is used in ad hominem and is usually used to describe someone who isn't into allopathic thinking on a medical subject eg vaccination, as Dr Hadwen said in 1925: "A man is eminent as long as he is orthodox. When he begins to think for himself he becomes a crank."  Another is quack which allopaths throw at non-allopaths (you only have to look at Quackwatch to see the list, the ACS had a huge list), or anti-vaccinator--I was called a Nazi here for being one of these.   john 19:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New idea and compromise on w hale -dot- to

message: :::::Hey, John? Have you bothered reading these articles you use to support your arguments? Because, you see, they don't actually do that.  The Allopathic Medicine article clearly and repeatedly states it was a term founded by homeopaths and NOT used by practitioners of conventional medicine. The article basically says it IS a term that is fringe and not generally used. (ps: whoops, forgot to sign.) Michael Ralston 14:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but who wrote that article?  Allopaths, or medical people who write most of the medicine articles here. I know allopaths don't like the term probably as it was coined by a homeopath who said they only treat symptoms.  I know conventional/orthodox, what I call allopath MDs don't use the term, or like it, and I figure the other main reason is because they don't want to be put on a level playing field with other type of doctors, or MDs.  They want to believe, and everyone else to believe, their medicine is top dog due to science not politics. If they can avoid being labelled then it keeps the public in the dark, as labelling reveals certain, hidden in this case, truths. john 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay ... and this quiet conspiracy includes HOW MANY people? Michael Ralston 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Resorting to conspiracy talk is a retreat into ad hominem, by the way. We have a medical monopoly hale -dot- to/a/medical_pol_b.html, but not many medical people know that in my experience, as who would want to know that if they were a medico, the medical Pandora's box is the box of all boxes hale -dot- to/a/hoaxmed.html. Bit like the army, at the top some (eg Butler ) know wars are fought for oil and gold hale -dot- to/b/war.html, but all the foot soldiers haven't a clue, although this last war is breaking down the mind control on that. john 09:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there anything that isn't a conspiracy or a hoax?  How would you know that anti-vaccinationists aren't involved in a hoax as well?  Especially when they could be engaging in mind control?  Yes I agree with John that allopathic medicine has been granted a monopoly by the government over health care, at least in terms of medications and devices, reimbursement by insurance companies, etc., but at least this recognizes that allopathic medicine uses the most rigorous scientific methodology.  Andrew73 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one who declared it a conspiracy, not me, john. You just avoided the word - but it's not the label used that makes it an ad hom, it's the contents of the claim. And I'm sorry, but citing *yourself* isn't evidence. And if you don't see the difference between scientific practices and military practices, then... erm. Michael Ralston 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Follow the money is the test that usually applies.  I wish I could make some money out of it. Your 'scientific methodology' isn't true when you look into it, otherwise we would be using Vitamin C to cure infections hale -dot- to/a/levy4.html, heart disease etc, and prevent cot-death, as Linus Pauling said, most discovered 50 years ago. I document the whole sorry story  hale -dot- to/m/therapies.html. john 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that medicine isn't free from commercial influences.  And I wish that vitamin C was proven to be more efficacious.  Andrew73 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been, 60 years ago hale -dot- to/v/c/index.html, but commercial  interests and medical politics suppress it.  john 16:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Much as I hate to be seen as a guy who steals candy from children, could I ask John to explain his theory of how "commercial interests and medical politics" suppressed the wondrous healing powers of vitamin C, when vitamin C was synthesized in the 1930s by a pharmaceutical company - Hoffman-La Roche - which was the world #1 producer of vitamin products for the remainder of the 20th century? Does John know something they didn't? 86.129.122.203 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Get a name, I don't like talking to numbers. You can manage to do that?  john 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pretend I asked it, then. I've got a name, after all. Michael Ralston 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  "etc".  Yes, that is the difficult one to cure. Midgley 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The MMR vaccine page is not a NPOV, but I can't be bothered at the moment to have an edit war. An external link here hale -dot- to/vaccines/mmr.html would partly satisfy me, but even that would be reverted. john 16:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would question how effective vitamin C is as a treatment/preventative to the MMR diseases, with my diet containing a lot of vit C, and D too, and many vegetables and fruit, and anything else you can think of recommended on those sort of pages, and yet I caught mumps shortly before the MMR was available to me. After having it, I didn't catch the others, although I did catch chicken pox many moons later. In later years, I knew several 19/20 year olds who caught mumps last winter; none of them had kept up to date with their boosters. I didn't know anyone who caught it who had. I would bring this up, but of course it would be hear-say, not proper evidence. And, I'm sure, irrelevant. I'm intrigued though. Does John agree that diseases can be caused by germs? 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: medical monopoly

message: "Controversy has arisen regarding the efficacy of the MMR vaccine, because some scientists and parents contend that the vaccine might be linked to the development of a number of conditions, such as autism, bowel disorders such as Crohn's disease, and the brain disorder Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD)."dif
It isn't about the efficacy, certainly not on the text given, but about safety.
I do not believe that controversy arose because of that, either, it arose 150 years ago, and this is another instance - of finding something to claim a vaccine causes.
Losing the first clause to the comma would do no harm to the meaning.
"have attempted to link" might be reaosnable phrasing.
Is there still a _scientist_ who _contends_ that there is a link to CJD?  THat was a specific evidence-free claim in our Antipodes based on the possibility of nvCJD agent being in BSA, and instantly eliminated by reading the ingredients - there being no bovine serum albumin in MMR! 
Is there a salveageable phrase in there?  Midgley 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered who had put that in.  Ombudsman, Dec 28th.  It really doesn't add anything useful, and indeed is inconsistent with the existing paragraph a couple later, noting why the claim relating to CJD was incredible.  I rather think it has been in the article before, noted to be rubbish, and removed - that seems bad.  Midgley 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noting the problem, but the paragraph in question was added nearly two years ago by User:ChrisO, and was left unaltered on the date referenced.  Ombudsman 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bad paragraph 

message: http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/news/newsitem.php?id=59 says 1992 for the start of funding (£15 million by the end).
It seems odd, and surely partial, that the entry noting legal iad funding was started... does not also note it was temrinated, and why - no hope of success in a case since no evidence of a link had been found after the expenditure of a phenomenal amount of money.  
WHo introduced that?
Midgley 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On vaccine controversy we now mention that legal aid was withdrawn in 1995. JFW | T@lk 13:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal aid 

message: There is controversy regarding this vaccine; as such, it is a medical controversy. This categorical classification is useful and should be restored. 201.121.218.56 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Controversy 

message: I don't think the reference to a set of rapid responses to the BMJ is a reliable source.  References to any that get published - IE have had at least editorial review and perhaps peer review, are.  BUt as it goes anything that can't be got into this page can be got into a rapid response, and then pointed to as though it enhances the article.  I suggest removing that reference, or at least making it to teh paper, not to the mob scene afterward.  Midgley 14:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  un-reviewed opinon and argument in rapid responses: [[WP:RS]]?? 

message: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2114632,00.html An anti-vaccinationist win.  Midgley 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, Adrian. Brian Deer != Dan Olmsted. JFW | T@lk 01:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The source of a certain emotion 

message: From the talk page of Andrew73
:I reverted your edit that removed trademarks.  For one thing, registered trademarks must be noted under the U.S. law.
:What's more important is that "Attenuvax®", Mumpsvax®, etc. are products that Merck sells.  Merck wants the trademark symbol on them, just like any good capitalist company.  The wikipedia needs to reflect this actual fact in order to maintain NPOV.  If you find some WP:style_bullshit that says trademarks are out, fine.  Otherwise, I'm putting them back in incessantly. Heathhunnicutt 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't disagree that these are registered trademarks.  However, as a stylistic issue, for example, the pages for Coca-Cola and Pepsi do not include registered trademarks for Coke or Pepsi.  I can't quote WP:style chapter and verse that they should or should not be included.  However, I don't think any user would confuse Attenuvax, etc. with being generic terms; that's why they're capitalized.  Plus, while these trademarks are printed in the product insert, they are not seen elsewhere such as in journal articles or other scholarly writing.  The presence of these symbols commercializes the tone of the article and reduces it to the appearance of a product insert.  Andrew73 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's one thing to compare Mumpsvax to Pepsi and note the discrepancy in trademarks.  Could a more thought-provoking comparison be of Mumpsvax to Urabe Mumps vaccine?  The fact of the matter is that these really are products, and them having the appearance of products is a factual representation of reality.  They may be helpful, good products, but they are products. Heathhunnicutt 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made an effort to improve the appearance of the registered trademark symbol in the Formulation section, and to remove any redundant labelling of trademarks.  However, my inclination is that the trademark symbol for M-M-R® II should percolate up to the top of the page. Heathhunnicutt 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style  to see what other people had to think.  Again, registered trademarks are not used in the academic literature.  For example, a 1998 article in Pediatrics  that describes these MMR vaccines does not use these symbols.  For me, this is primarily an aesthetic issue, as I think these symbols are visually distracting and do not add any informational value.  It's apparent that these are branded products, and the symbols are redundant.  Andrew73 02:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) is the "bullshit" you were looking for. Attenuvax is Merck's trademark, not Wikipedia's. What responsibility does Wikipedia have to protect Merck's trademark? You say that trademarks must be noted under U.S. law; can you cite the relevant part of the U.S. Code for that, or refer me to some other authoritative source? I think you'll find that the burden is on the trademark owner, not on the rest of the world, to ensure that the trademark does not fall into generic usage. Besides, I don't think Wikipedia is mistreating the trademarks by omitting the stylistically ugly ® and ™ symbols. You'll notice that the only place you tend to see those symbols is in advertisements, where the trademark owner is publicizing the "trademarkness" of the mark, or competitors are making it clear that they do not claim ownership of another's mark. You don't see them in newspapers, encyclopedias, books, or magazine articles. As I've said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a press release or an advertising medium. Neither style nor content should be dictated by a company's marketing department. --Rob Kennedy 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I echo Rob Kennedy's thoughts on this one.  Again, you don't find these in any other media form, why should they be in Wikipedia?  Andrew73 17:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unconvinced that products are encyclopaedic.  This goes with the general tendency in academic medical journals to use generic names.  Midgley 23:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure I agree with you about what's encyclopedic although I'm not sure I disagree, either. But either way, that's a different issue. The issue at hand is how to represent trademarks in articles, not whether the trademark should have been mentioned in the first place. --Rob Kennedy 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, get rid of them!  Just stop providing a crevice for Midgley to pry on.  Obviously, every drug is topic worthy, and they are all products.  I don't care about the trademark symbols.  By the way, you don't understand what the "law" is, Rob.  It's cases as well as codes and trademarks are a part of the law of torts, so look it up yourself.  Personally, I don't care if the Wikipedia respects trademarks nearly so much as I care that it represents topics accurately and completely and does not kow-tow to the Establishment that it's out to replace, such as Physicians who want obscurity for articles on drugs. Heathhunnicutt 07:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember looking into this way back (can't remember which article). The outshot was that though companies like to come on heavy about trademark symbols, there is no legal requirement to use them in article text and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) reflects that. You can find this confirmed in house style guides for many major publishers: for instance, Chicago Manual of Style "In publications that are not advertising or sales materials, all that is necessary is to use the proper spelling and capitalization of the name of the product". Tearlach 11:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the Chicago Manual of Style reference.  I've removed these symbols as per consensus.  Andrew73 12:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  You're right, Heathhunnicutt; I don't know what the law is. I don't know how to quickly find out what it is, either. You said something is required by U.S. law, so I hoped you would have some better information about it than I, and that you might be willing to share. Sorry to impose. --Rob Kennedy 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Rob, must be noted under U.S. case law, or Wikipedia foundation could theoretically be sued.  One day, that will probably change the policy.  Anyway, all I wanted to say is that my IP does not start with 68 and I am not floriola or whomever; i.e., not involved in the revert war this led to.  Don't really care that much about trademarks, just that the products get their topics covered.  Heathhunnicutt 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registered symbol and trademarks 

message: Uncited long enough.  "Proponents point to studies showing live measles virus is detected in the gut of these individuals."  (there were claims about nucleic acid sequences from Measles being found in gut, but not AFAIK live virus.) Midgley 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed live measles from intestine 

message: I was too young to remember any of this, but this is what I've been told by my parents. When I was quite young, I was given the first measles-mumps-rubella shot. A couple weeks afterwards, I came down with the measles. A few years later, I was given the second shot. Again, a couple weeks afterwards, I came down with rubella. There was supposed to be a third shot some time later, but my parents refused to have it done. I didn't seen anything here about the vaccine actually giving the viruses to children, so I'm wondering if this was a bizzare coincidence, or if there are other documented cases .. --Q Canuck 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MMR is (as noted overleaf) a live attenuated vaccine.  So a rash and fever a couple of weeks later is a common occurrence - it indicates that the vaccine has taken and that you will produce a high level of immunity.  The wild disease is worse.  I'm slightly surprised that you were expected to have a third dose - the schedule is two doses (line two of the article), and the second one was only introduced in the UK relatively recently, as it was thought one dose might be sufficient.  The immunisation which comes in three doses is the DPT, and catching Measles or Rubella after a dose of that is no great surprise (although with maternal immunity around it should still be attenuated).  What age were you?  Both Measles and Rubella are not the only diseases which produce similar rashes - you might have caught twpo other diseases. The w hale -dot- to page is another heap of old assertions - I don't regard it as a reliable reference to anything, even history.  Midgley 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Midgley, in the United States a three-dose series is required for admittance to public schools at age 4-5. Heathhunnicutt 19:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002026.htm differs as does http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa02/main_pages/page_51.htm Midgley 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, huh.  Has that always been the case?  I was going off childhood memories of my younger relatives. Heathhunnicutt 17:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK had hopes that only one might be needed, but it became clear later that the second one was needed.  At both stages I recall it being promulgated that other countries used two doses.  I've no recollection of any using three.Midgley 18:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I did what I could with the material that was added relating to this news article: , which is now a reference of the article.  In particular, the use of Urabe in UK seems to have concluded prior to the Wakefield study.  Anyway, this is a call to editors to do more with the material that was added today.  Heathhunnicutt 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed more material.  This material from the same IP address inserted references and assertions that deaths from measles were declining prior to the advent of immunization.  That may be, but the decline in infections is more relevant to the article.  Arguing that the deaths were declining seems like more anti-vaccionationist.  I am thinking that a page  may soon be in order, if anonymous edits like this continue.  Anyway, I removed the irrelevant and uncited material.  Heathhunnicutt 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urabe Mumps additions from an IP address