Talk:Vaccine adverse event

message: Ombudsman, you have included numerous external links, but it is unclear which of these are sources that support the content of this article. Could you revisit the content and add footnotes to facilitate WP:CITE? JFW | T@lk 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Does anyone know what this somewhat ambiguous phrase is intended to mean?  I assumed that the "tolerance" referred to was that of public opinion, and edited accordingly, but that has been reverted on the grounds that it is "unclear that public opinion less tolerant".  certainly, but the alternative interpretation of the phrase (that it is the people themselves that are less tolerant - i.e. vaccines have worse adverse effects than other treatments) is at least equally unsupported.  I'll put a fact tag on it for now in the hope that the source for the statement will make it clear, but can anyone clarify?  Brunton (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source (Bonhoeffer & Heininger 2007, ) says "Immunization safety concerns are different from concerns about other medical interventions, because they are administered to generally healthy individuals and the tolerance of AEFIs is substantially lower compared to adverse events following medication for an existing illness." When I wrote the text in question I merely attempted to put it into the active voice. I removed the fact tag and put in a comment saying what the cited source is (normally there's no need to supply one of several duplicate citations). Eubulides (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  So when they say "the tolerance of AEFIs is substantially lower...", it looks to me as if  they are essentially talking about the tolerance of public opinion to adverse events.  As I said above, the wording is slightly ambiguous, and could be taken as indicating that it is the tolerance of people's bodies that is lower (i.e. adverse effects of vaccines are worse than adverse effects of other treatments).  I don't have access to the full text, although the abstract certainly doesn't suggest that the paper supports the alternative interpretation.  Brunton (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tollerance of public opinion" doesn't make much sense.  People can be tollerant or intollerant individually, but public opinion is some ambiguous amalgum of people's opinions, what pundits say, etc.  Also, public opinion is largely in favor of vaccination, it is in the individual case that people may have more reservations about vaccination.  (i.e., vaccination in the third person is good - people want the benefits of everybody else being vaccinated, it is in the first person (me or my children being vaccinated) that more reservations come into play.)  Zodon (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the ambiguity that Brunton is talking about is whether it's the person's body that is tolerant of AEFIs ("tolerant" as in "lactose-intolerant"), or whether it's the person's opinion that is tolerant of AEFIs ("tolerant" as in the film "Intolerance"). The source's context makes it clear that the latter interpretation is intended. I tried to fix this by changing "people are far less tolerant of vaccines' adverse effects than of adverse effects of other treatments" to "people are far less willing to tolerate vaccines' adverse effects than adverse effects of other treatments". Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was precisely my point - the new wording is better. Brunton (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "people are less tolerant of vaccines' adverse effects than of adverse effects of other treatments" 

message: At present the article reads as a provaccination polemic. THE Vaccine Controversy article is the place for that. Here actual risks should be listed and the medico-legal aspect explored. e.g. SV40 long term prognosis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.165.128.188 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.2601:80:4003:7416:4415:D680:992D:3498 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Side effects and safety 

message: From 1988 until March 3, 2011, 5,636 claims relating to autism, and 8,119 non-autism claims, were made to the VICP. 2,620 of these claims, one autism-related, were compensated, with 4,463 non-autism and 814 autism claims dismissed; 
This doesn't explain what happened to the about 4800 (5636-1-814) autism claims that were neither compensated nor dismissed nor does it explain what happened to the about 1000 (8119-2620-4463) non-autism claims that were neither compensated nor dismissed. --Espoo (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info on what happened to claims 

message: Hello - I entered information on Vaccine Compensation in Quebec, but I could not get the Canada subheading to look like the two other countries - US and United Kingdom - can anyone help?  thank youCsessa2017 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Formatted it. Interesting reference you gave for your edit. It noted that during the 2009–2010 period, 5.7 million people in Quebec received the A(H1N1) vaccine alone,  but only six cases were compensated overall. Moriori (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles/subheadings 

message: The article currently defines vaccine adverse events as adverse events “caused by vacination”. Is this entirely correct? The article seems to be discussing claimed, or reported, adverse incidents, but these are not all actually caused by vaccines. For example the VAERS database has a disclaimer saying that inclusion in the database “does not imply causality.” I suggest a change to “associated with”, or perhaps “caused by or associated with”. Brunton (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good question. In general, it seems to me, that a vaccine adverse event is indeed an event caused by a vaccine. There are many claimed vaccine adverse events, which may, on investigation, turn out either to be VAEs, or not. Most of the academic sources do start from the premise that they are talking about actual adverse events, and make a distinction between those and events which follow, but may or may not be caused by, vaccination. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition in opening sentence 

message: You made this revert apparently because I removed the word "common", however, I replaced it with "popular", which I thought mean essentially the same thing as "common" in this context, I am not trying to change the meaning, it's just odd to have "the idea has been classed as a common misconception", don't we normally just say something like "despite the common misconception"? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not popular with me... Guy (Help!) 15:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context "popular" means common, believed by many people, ect. It doesn't make any sense to talk about whether something is popular with a specific person. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea that adverse reactions are common, has been classed as a "common misconception about immunization". If one word needs to change, it cannot be in the quote, it would have to be the first instance of common, not the second. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting getting rid of the quote and just stating as fact that the misconception is popular. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course you are. But the quote is fromt he WHO and is directly relevant, so let's not do that, however much it might please the antivaxers. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Statment from RS don't have to be attributed quotes, often they are just stated as fact, I don't see how this would please antivaxers. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no harm in having the quote. It makes it clear that this exact wording is the authoritative opinion of the body being quoted. bd2412 T 00:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems awkward to me, but this is not a huge problem. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common misconception" 

message: Would like to include links to prominent monitoring databases around the world. The WHO database is called VigiBase. There may be analogous or partner databases in member and non-member countries MarsInSVG (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adverse Effects Databases 

message: I propose we add the standard definition of rarity of adverse events:
*very common – this means that 1 in every 10 people taking the medicine are likely to have the adverse reaction
*common – this means that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 people may be affected
*uncommon – this means that between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 people may be affected
*rare – means that between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000 people may be affected
*very rare – means that fewer than 1 in 10,000 people may be affected.
Source: https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/consumers/Safety-of-Medicines/Medicine-safety.asp Forich (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These are "standard"? Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that way; Side effect#Frequency of side effects quotes the WHO on the subject. (I have no horse in this race.) - CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of these ranges seem relevant to vaccines, for which serious adverse reactions are more along the lines of 1-2 in 1,000,000. BD2412 T 22:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think -- but I may misunderstand -- that the point is that, by accepted definitions of adverse event incidence, all serious vaccine adverse reactions are very rare. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  My caution is that it would be misleading to specify that "fewer than 1 in 10,000 people" are affected by reactions that are a hundred times rarer than that. BD2412 T 23:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   that's Original Research, we follow established guidelines.  I propose we include the parameters as they are published in reliable sources and let possible misunderstandings be dealt with at the appropiate channels out of Wikipedia. Forich (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be trivially easy to find sources providing the specific average incidents for specific vaccines. For example, this. BD2412 T 20:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding more precise definitions of rarity 

message: Paragraph I says “caused by vaccination,” but Paragraph II says “… can be coincidental.” This seems inconsistent and confusing. 216.106.149.86 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall an account of a woman who brought her child to the pharmacy be vaccinated for COVID-19. Later that day, the child had a seizure. The thing is, when they had gotten to the pharmacy, the line was too long, so the child had not actually been vaccinated that day at all. Had the child received the vaccine, it surely would have been blamed for the seizure, and treated as the likely cause by courts and doctors. BD2412 T 14:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely by the tabloid media and anti-vax campaigners. No doctor of any quality would do so, and I would also hope the courts would do better. But yes, the first post here is correct. That wording is problematic. Even the word "believed" seems wrong to me. Surely a VAE must be caused by a vaccine to count as one. Some nutter believing an event was caused by a vaccine doesn't make it true. Nor could we create sensible content covering all the false beliefs about VAEs. Unfortunately, the source, Health Canada, accepts reports of adverse events from "consumers", i.e. not just health professionals. The website doesn't make clear whether it does any quality control on such reports. I am tempted to edit the opening wording of the article to have it make more sense. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is, quite frankly, most often unclear whether a vaccine was the cause of an adverse health event proximate to receiving the vaccine in the way that we can say that dropping a hammer on your foot was the cause of a broken it. There are certain statutory presumptions made under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the U.S. (and in comparable programs in other countries) to the effect that a certain medical event occurring within a certain amount time frame after receiving a particular vaccine will be treated as if it was caused by the vaccine, even if the relationship is actually unknowable. BD2412 T 01:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know if anything similar happens in other countries? (And just a tip - Have a read of WP:EDITSUMMARY. It tells you about not writing such long Edit summaries.)  HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest starting with Clare Looker & Heath Kelly, No-fault compensation following adverse events attributed to vaccination: a review of international programmes, Bulletin of the World Health Organization (March 21, 2011). Most of the countries examined only require a balance of probabilities (or in some cases, probable cause) to award compensation, which is often a lower burden than would be required in a civil suit. As for the length of my edit summaries, they are within the length that is physically possible within the constraints of the platform. BD2412 T 03:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All that tells me is that some people almost certainly receive compensation even when their injury was not caused by the vaccine. That really doesn't help us here. (My comment re your Edit summaries was merely a tip. Yours are abnormally long. They really aren't summaries. And they make you appear to be an inexperienced editor.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that what is called a "vaccine adverse event", both medically and legally, is usually just a guess at causation based on correlation. Also, "inexperienced editor" is one of the most amusing things I have ever seen put into writing on this platform. Too experienced, actually. My reign as one of Wikipedia's top editors precedes that rule three times over. BD2412 T 12:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying and pasting your post is NOT summarising it.HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations for being literally the first person who has ever cared about the length of my edit summaries. Let me see if there is some kind of barnstar for that. BD2412 T 02:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial comment was intended as a helpful tip. Sorry you didn't see it that way. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your initial comment was directed towards me personally, and not relevant to the development of this article. It should have been left as a user talk page comment, and should be hatted now. BD2412 T 13:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Your wording  is an improvement. Maybe "suspected of having been caused" is even better? Adding a data point to databases like VAERS does not necessarily mean one actually believes there is a connection. (I don't know how far we are moving into WP:OR territory here, and the lede should also summarize what the body of the article says.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   I don't know how much we want to finesse it. In some instances, it is more accurate to say that it is "presumed to be". Perhaps we can find a source for the latter proposition. BD2412 T 13:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a watchlist. No need to ping me, especially for something I do not need to respond to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Language in First Two Paragraphs