Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Various elements of questions on factual accuracy 

message: I was very suprised to find this highly flawed research  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Flawed Research Included Without Analysis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Andrew Wakefield - conflict of interest 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "measles deaths (fell) by 99.4% before vaccination was introduced" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Litigation => conflict of interest 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-vaccinationists, etc. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: But perhaps that is not a priority.  Midgley 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't make sense now... 

message: Note that I take exception to the Leifern's recent summary comment 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)
replies: text: To avoid cluttering things further by defending myself, see User:Leifern/Accusations by Midgley--Leifern 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The conduct of [[User:Leifern]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  content of an article about something ... 

message: "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"
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  From a post in a Anti-Vacc Forum 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What's the list of vaccination critics/supporters for? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is a vaccine critic?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor cleanup to intro