Talk:Anti-vaccinationist/Archive 2

message: I see an undefined term being bandied about.  What is a "vaccine critic", as a definition?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs) .
:Someone critical of vaccines? Clearly, to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia it would have to be someone notable.  Dr Yazbak is in favour of vaccination but he is critical of some aspects of current practice.  The Invisible Anon 20:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although not of any specific vaccination noted among anti-vaccine websites.  The Invisible Anon 13:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't think that merely being "critical" of vaccines is being anti-vaccinationist. That would be like saying that anyone who is critical of using antibiotics every time a child has an earache is "anti-antibioticist." I have to imagine that every physician under the sun believes there are limits to the cost/benefit of vaccines. I would imagine that this article is about people who are categorically against vaccines as a medical practice. Midgely? --Leifern 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree...but I suspect that this article would apply to websites like whale. to which seem to be categorically opposed to anything associated with modern medical practice.  Andrew73 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me?  Why would I know.  Who preferred it?  Who wrote a page about it?  Whatever it is.  Indeed, a reasonable question, what is the concept?  John?  Ombudsman?  Midgley 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about the Anti-vaccinationists article - I would imagine Midgley has a view of what precisely defines and delineates an anti-vaccinationist from someone who isn't against vaccination per se but has misgivings about some aspects of it. I honestly haven't studied the ideological divides among those who oppose modern medicine, but it seems a safe assumption that those who are against all medicine would also be against vaccinations, but the converse is not true. --Leifern 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, but the writings by some of the editors appear to be opposed to all forms of medicine...this probably plays a role in preventing constructive discussion about the limitations (and benefits) of vaccinations.  Andrew73 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is why we need to have articles that carefully delineate the topic they're discussing. An article titled Why western medicine kicks alternative butt might get popular support, detractors would have a strong case against it. We're seeing this in an article formerly titled HGH Quackery that is torn to shreds (and not by me) because it took on the form of a polemic. --Leifern 21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  And a vaccine critic would be what, precisely, before we lose sight of that question? THat is, if anybody can define the term Midgley 00:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were the one who started an article about a group of people rather than a topic. The term "anti" is typically used for someone who is categorically against something or another, and it's notable that most activist groups tend to avoid using the prefix as much as possible. If an anti-vaccinationist is someone who categorically opposes the medical practice of vaccinations, anyone who has a less rigid position must be skeptical, or critical, but I suppose anyone can be that given a given set of circumstances. I would imagine that you would be against vaccinations with a 10% mortality rate that was 60% effective against a disease that was 0.05% terminal but for which treatment as 99.9% effective. Would that make you an anti-vaccinationist, or merely a vaccination critic? Neither, I would think. --Leifern 00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been forcefully suggested (see above) that antivaccinationist is a bad term since it is "not defined" and that "vaccine critic" is  better term. It seems an entirely reasonable question to ask, presumably of those who have called for the use of that term (of which I think Leffern was not one) in that case, what is the definition of "vaccine critic".  I don't see the contributions above as actually addressing ether that, or anything that has not been done to death above here.  Midgley 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idiot can define that, even me. A vaccine critic covers anyone critical of a vaccine or vaccination in whole or parts. I think I first collected them together .org.uk/m/critics.html. Anti-vaccinists are a subset of that, obviously.  Edward Yazbak is a vaccine critic, not an anti vax yet, for example.  Neil Miller is a critic. Robert Mendelsohn was an anti-vax. If you delete all pages to vaccine critics, then they can't appear on this page, so where do you put them? john 20:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I added the indentation above (just add one colon to the front per level of remark).  I could cheerfully go with "apparent to any idiot", and nested sets (as well as overlapping sets and intersets) but Ombuds/Manon objected to it, causing a scholar nearby to dig back to the root of "anti-vaccinationist" - available for people to read, still.    The problem wih the definition as given, once one actually igs down to it, is that vaccine critic turns out to include most of the articulate world, and yet doesn't quite manage to say whether it is a vaccination, vaccination or vaccinations that is being discussed.  Convenient in some situations, and in others being able to look for "rough consensus and running code" is also handy, but less than fully defined. Midgley 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, if one looks at the redirect page vaccine critics we see this history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_critics&action=history   If you want to change that and write it on the penumbra, then hit this linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_critics&action=history  Midgley 01:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a good example of a quality and type of argument, which might distinguish the anti-vaccinationist from a member of the Dutch Orthodox Reformed Church.   Within an inch of my writing "The problem with the definition as given ..." this chap is saying I accept and advance it.  The religious types are far more straightforward and honest, and say god told them so.   I suspect that we should classify religions who deny themselves immunisation in order to trust in god's will in a different classification.  I've not observed one demand that other people abjure immunisation, except as a tiny subsidiary part of their argument that everyone should accept their view of god and worship accordingly.  And usually, quite a polite argument.  Midgley 19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a WP:Don't misrepresent other member's writing policy?  Midgley 19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined term 

message: The organisations and individuals of whom it is known that they were formed in order to, or opposed, at some time, vaccination, and of whom no great detail of the rest of their lives has been presented would do well to occupy boxes or table cells on this main page.  Those of whom there is a greater volume of material would do best as sub-pages, where their being almost but not quite completely unlike biographies would not be the slightest bit remarkable, and where if an individual one became long, complete, and notable in some other way it could be moved to a page in its own right.   Midgley 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging in ... 

message: I think we came to something like a consensus on two things here:-
1.  That there is a better place for an article on the Thimerosal controversy than this;
2.  That extensive material on Thimerosal is out of place here.
I trimmed the Thimerosal paragraphs down to a very short indication and the pointer at the while page on just that...
and Ombudsman then reintroduced all the material, and more, all of which according to his own contributions on the talk and AFD discussion pages belongs not here but elsewhere.  Why?  Midgley 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinsertion of an article on Thimerosal 

message: There are many subpages, some done, some not, linked from this article. As I've only passed by and touched up a few things, I didn't want to change that, but subpages are not allowed for articles (they are OK for talk pages and user pages). See Wikipedia:Subpages. Wikipedia is not a hierarchical collection of information. I'd rather have very short sections merged into the general article, and empty sections deleted outright until there's some content to put into them. The last part of the article is still in need of cleanup, BTW.
I didn't understand why the potato thing had any relevance, so I took it out. It's sufficient to say that religious leaders had opinions against, or doubts about, vaccination, without making an analogy that requires an extra explanation. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone seen a moderately-sized table in a sub-page as was linked from the specific people section and containing a moderate amount of them?  Midgley 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpages 

message: "However, recent evidence suggests that is not necessarily the case.  "
POV
In October, 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review [], [] of 31 epidemiological studies of the MMR vaccine.  The Cochrane press release []
I suggest considering the report, written by scientists, rather than the press release whcih is of a lower order of information.
 used to announce the study stated:-
:"MMR  is an  important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death .... "  
"However, in the same week the Cochrane team was contradicted by the science journal "
It isn't a contradiction.  Not even as written here.  Driving at 100mph is risky.  Many people have driven at 100mph for 10 miles without crashing, it doesn't affect the level of risk, the second finding does not contradict the r=first, they are two separate findings.
"[[Nature {journal)|Nature]], which published a correction to its own claims:
:"Contrary to a statement in the Editorial “Responding to uncertainty ” (Nature 437,1;2005), there is no evidence that lives have been lost as a result of the significant dip in take-up in Britain of the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella.""
Yet.
"In London, England uptake of the MMR vaccine is approximately 50% [] and in some areas uptake is a low as 10% [].  In other parts of the UK the uptake is similarly low. [] 
"
London as a whole?  All London?  Is that what we are being told that reference says?
"The Cochrane review has been undermined by subquent further reports of harm caused by the MMR vaccine raised by the former senior UK government scientific advisor on vaccine safety.  []
"
From other reports of that Mail article, I am less certain of the provenance of this.  It is in any case today's news, which is not encyclopedic.  Yet.  
Again, it is possible to crash and be killed at 30, that doesn't affect the safety of ordinarily driving at that speed.
=== Try this ===
Preferably in the page on MMR I'd have thought, since there is one, or alternatively if it is dispute that harm comes as part of increases in infection, and that some increases in some infections have followed some reductions in some vaccines some of which have been partly as a public response to information some of which has been presented with care and effort by some people who some people regard as conveniently labelled by "anti-vacinationists", then on the page linked by "harm alleged" in the section this collection came from.  (Are Nature cvaccinationists, or anti-vaccinationists, or neutral scientists?)
In October, 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review HTML, PDF of 31 epidemiological studies of the MMR vaccine.  (Press release  used to announce the study stated:-
:"MMR  is an  important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death .... "  
NPOV - OK?
In October 2005 the science journal [[Nature {journal)|Nature]] stated there was currently no evidence lives had been lost as a result of the significant dip in take-up in Britain of the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella.  (A correction to the Editorial “Responding to uncertainty ” (Nature 437,1;2005))
Also NPOV - OK?
:I'm putting these in the MMR article. Midgley 10:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you projecting here? Not everyone has a purely financial and ego motive in helping others. If you want to make a statement about MMR being safe then I can add it to my list to/v/safemmr.html. 81.129.89.243 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from harm 

message: Preferably in the page on MMR I'd have thought, since there is one, or alternatively if it is dispute that harm comes as part of increases in infection, and that some increases in some infections have followed some reductions in some vaccines some of which have been partly as a public response to information some of which has been presented with care and effort by some people who some people regard as conveniently labelled by "anti-vacinationists", then on the page linked by "harm alleged" in the section this collection came from.  (Are Nature cvaccinationists, or anti-vaccinationists, or neutral scientists?)
In October, 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review HTML, PDF of 31 epidemiological studies of the MMR vaccine.  (Press release  used to announce the study stated:-
:"MMR  is an  important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death .... "  
NPOV - OK?
In October 2005 the science journal [[Nature {journal)|Nature]] stated there was currently no evidence lives had been lost as a result of the significant dip in take-up in Britain of the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella.  (A correction to the Editorial “Responding to uncertainty ” (Nature 437,1;2005))
Also NPOV - OK?
:I'm putting these in the MMR article. Midgley 10:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you projecting here? Not everyone has a purely financial and ego motive in helping others. If you want to make a statement about MMR being safe then I can add it to my list to/v/safemmr.html. 81.129.89.243 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try this 

message: Please also see here (emphasis added) the use of "anti-vaccinationist" as a pejorative term "For your work against quacks, viz. anti-vaccinationists and others, I award you this picture of Sir William Osler and three colleagues!" [] Please note the context of the comment and the individuals involved.  Clearly, the choice of the term anti-vaccinationist will be taken by some readers and possibly editors of Wikipedia themselves to be a personal attack on all mentioned in that page and that indicates anti-vaccinationist is taken to be a pejorative term.  Perhaps it is an inappropriate page title and needs to be changed to avoid causing offence.
The Invisible Anon  21:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, true. I never used the term "anti-vax" term as it is perjorative (new word for me, but just the one I've been looking for), and for that reason you wont find anyone who is anti-vax describing themselves as such. It has always been thus, eg this 1895 book by Hutton "Anyone who adopts the cause of the "anti-vaccinator" is, ipso facto, reckoned by a vast number of people—who on any other subject would judge fairly and patiently—a crank, a faddist, and a fool."  You can see this in front of your eyes by reading the page Midgley has created. You can see his intent by the way the more suitable and non-emotive term Vaccine Critics was deleted for this page.  He may believe sincerely that anti-vax are psychotic, but that doesn't make it OK. Also anti-vax are a small section of vaccine critics, so he is effectively deleting 90% of vaccine criticism.  And to get an idea about the term, I would have to ask people if they were happy to be termed "anti-vax", as I wouldn't list them as such otherwise. john 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "anti-vax" (or "anti-vaccinationist") is pejorative, how would you categorize "vaccinator" and "allopath"?  Andrew73 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen the term "vaccinator" used anywhere except by me, apart from old smallpox books where all medical men were know as such. So I don't see much case there, and anyway, there isn't a page to ""vaccinator"", or anyone trying to use it to slag off vaccinators. As to allopath, I have yet to see it appear in any media in all my years of reading that source.  I detect allopaths are sensitive about the terms, but I feel that is more down to their desire to hide the fact they have a professional and financial interest in vaccination and pharma med.  Anyway, anti-vax are a small minority and minorities are usually the ones who get shat on.  It is a bit suspicious when the ruling majority complain about terminology. I don't know how many GPs there are but is 100,000 in UK a fair estimate?  All pro-vaccine apart from about 2, what I could call anti-vax, that I know of.  john 18:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would imagine that by extension, you would have thought that "vaccinator" was pejorative!  And the medical profession is already tightly associated with the pharmaceutical industry.  I'm not sure why the term "allopath" makes that link more apparent or something to be hidden.  Andrew73 18:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the forbidden term is "allopathic medical monopoly".  See how that term hits your biocomputer. I don't have any emotional investment in think my opponent is mentally ill.  If I was in his shoes I'd be doing the same thing, so I try to avoid judgement.  Judgement is just PROJECTION, anyway. john 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "anti-vax are a small section of vaccine critics" John, above.  And this is a page about anti-vax (surely an abbreviation of anti-vaccinationist).  What is so hard about that?  If someone believes that there should be a page about the larger population, critics as distinguished by them from a-v, then they will write one. If we write a page about airships do we expect to be told that the page should really be about Lighter_than_air, or do we expect that balloonists will write a page about balloons.  Someone wrote a page about that topic, but that was that page, this is this page.  Anyone who wants another page should write one. Midgley 01:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, Vaccine critics and you medical editors deleted it and merged it with this pejorative one, while you attempt to delete other ones with the same suspect intent Charles Pearce, National Anti-Vaccination League etc. Also revealed by your attempt to delete the main anti-vax man of the 20th century . Your balloon talk is typical distraction. Anyone who wants another page should write one is pure brass neck!, given your behaviour. john 08:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I have no idea why you are so stuck on the idea that "your" page was merged into this one.  It was not. This is obvious to anyone who looks at  the history. Midgley 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, the balloon... I thought it a nice picture, and a reasonable analogy, although most analogies are as bad as something only vaguely like one.  This, on the other hand, is a sheer brass neck.  My suggestion is not.  Midgley 01:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: use of "anti-vaccinationist" as a pejorative term 

message: From the Daily Mail article on the Chartered Physios' report referenced nearby: "An increasing number of parents are opting for single jabs through private clinics, due to fears over the MMR jab's safety. Each injection costs up to £100" (There are, of course, a total of 6 to make a course.  £600 per customer.)  This is a business that is worth advertising through Google, at least (observed yesterday).  Midgley 12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reduction of the profitability of that business could be achieved if the DoH provided single immunisations.   That they do not, in the context of theories of persecution on the part of some of the supporters of those giving or organising them, suggests the DoH believe what they say.  (I said that earlier) Midgley 23:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DOH have dug their hole so deep there is no way they could admit single vaccines are the way forward. This man reveals the real reason to/vaccines/mmrchief.html. john 09:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know your business of course, but I'd say this is a better reference for the hole that David Salisbury has either dug himself or been dropped into by his Minister: http://www.pjonline.com/Editorial/20020302/news/news_mmr.html Its somewhat independent as well.  Midgley 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single M;M;R as a business 

message: I've merged in the separate "Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes" article into this article.  Andrew73 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That has to be the classic POV. 81.129.89.243 09:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Bit low in th page?  Title on section it came out of is a way above.  Doesn't bother me... Midgley 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged in alleged harm... 

message: Here is the bit anonymously removed on the 12th with a comment "please don't edit my comments".  (It isn't ironic, irony is something different.)Midgley 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did it go in the other years, and what is the link to the actual figures quoted, selectively, from? Midgley 20:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measles figures presented for two selected years? 

message: According to the February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 90 percent of American obstetricians and 66 percent of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine. In 1990, a survey published in the January 27th issue of the British Medical journal showed that over 50 percent of doctors in the UK rejected the Hepatitis B vaccine.
It would also be useful to put that in the context of current practice.  
We discussed this on the talk page, I don't think the original assertions unmodified by that discussion should simply be pasted into the article.  Midgley 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 5 November 2005, pp. e623-e633 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0885) is a more recent survey of how physicians (Swiss Paediatricians and others receiving a vaccine info mailing list) immunise their children.  
"Conclusions. Ninety-three percent of the surveyed physicians agree with the current official vaccination recommendations and would apply them to their own children. However, the observation that 5% of nonpediatricians would not use Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine if they had a child born in 2004 is unexpected and concerning. In contrast, both groups gave additional vaccines than those recommended to their own children. Among physicians in Switzerland interested in immunization, a significant proportion of nonpediatricians decline or delay the immunization of their own children with the recommended MMR- or DTP-based combination vaccines, which indicates that clarification of misconceptions such as fear of "immune overload" has not yet reached important targets among health care providers who thus are unlikely to answer parental concerns adequately."
Midgley 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctors behaviour

message: I'm surprised we have not yet done immune overload.  Has recognition that the recent increase in immunisation numbers has actually reduced the antigens from around 3000 to nearer a dozen, and that we can respond to many orders of magnitude more antigens become general?  Midgley 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immune Overload 

message: What does the content of that section contribute to the article?  There is no argument there, nor description. Midgley 21:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can put the publications bit into text. john 09:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that as helping the article.  The publications are perhaps sources for the arguments used, but isn't it more interesting who said what when and why?  Where as well, to a degree.Midgley 15:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications 

message: What is the argument which Mr Kraus is mentioned to advance or illustrate?  
"In 1806 a Mr. Kraus was awarded $1000 by the then rulers of New York territory for his scientific discovery which had kept rabies out of New York for over twenty years. His formula is a matter of record and consisted of the ground-up jaw bone of an ass or dog, a piece of colt's tongue and the green rust off a penny of George the First reign." Page 185-186, Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean."
Very fascinating, but germane? Midgley 01:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Kraus? 

message: There is a short page which has considerable detail on the various acts (thanks to those who have made a study of them) and which is somewhat useful as a deeper reference for both vaccination and this page.  May I suggest that the detail of the history not be re-written into the paragraph it was taken out of, as it doesn't really help the flow?  Midgley 01:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccine Acts 

message: They were heroes in those days...
"The rabies vaccine was initially created by Emile Roux, a French doctor and a colleague of Pasteur who had been working with a killed vaccine produced by desiccating the spinal cords of infected rabbits. The vaccine had only been tested on eleven dogs before its first human trial.
This vaccine was first used on 9-year old Joseph Meister, on July 6, 1885, after the boy was badly mauled by a rabid dog. This was done at some personal risk for Pasteur, since he was not a licensed physician and could have faced prosecution for treating the boy. Fortunately, the treatment proved to be a spectacular success, with Meister avoiding the disease; thus, Pasteur was hailed as a hero and the legal matter was not pursued. The treatment's success laid the foundations for the manufacture of many other vaccines. "  Pasteur  
*Is the assertion actually true - IE no immunisation at all has been tested in a double blind randomised RCT of suitable size etc.?  
**Is the size an argument which lacks a specification about the power of the trial - some clinical trials require a population larger than the one available to be powered to detect all side effects, so other methods are actually the gold standard for them.  
**Being done by fallible people, few trials are perfect, and it is possible to serially assert that each trial should be succeeded by another bigger one... not a wholly convincing argument.
*This is getting a bit like epidemiology ... there is a risk of running into a pair of assertions - that the trials must be done to prove safety, and that trials do not prove anything, since it is all individual variation, and in this best of all possible worlds the people who get unusual side-effects will be those fated to get them.  Epidemiology seems to enjoy a two-pronged relationship with the arguments.  Midgley 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold Standard Trials, and others 

message: "In spite of the ban in England, variolation came to be known as "arm-to-arm" vaccination and the practice  continued in parallel with vaccination through the late 1800's.  "
It doesn't seem impossible although I suspect it is wrong - in that it would be Cowpox and then Vaccinia that was being inoculated directly, not Variola, and therefore would not be variolation. It also has no reference, but I chopped it out because it is not about anti-vaccinationists.
Unless the anti-vaccinationists were the anti-variolationists, and they had changed their mind about variolation!
Of course, if anti-vacinnationists were travelling the kingdom infecting people with Smallpox ... no, too much like a conspiracy theory.  Midgley 02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variolation 

message: The reference on Whale is rather less convincing - where were the people who are quoted, for instance, and how did they measure what they report?
The case fatality rates quoted on Whale suggest to me that reporting was very incomplete.
Midgley 02:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Case mortality is just another nail in the smallpox vaccine coffin.  Case mortality (death rate per cases of smallpox) ranged from as much as 26.8% in Japan where revaccination was enforced to 1.26 (averaging 5.1) under the Leicester Method where vaccination was rejected in favour of sanitation, and 0% under homeopathic care .org.uk/a/case.html john 09:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: smallpox case mortality

message: That is a feeble excuse. You can't take it, but vaccination can only survive by keeping these annoying truths out of public view:
*Anti-vaccinists would reply that 50% of measles deaths are in vaccinated children, or in children under the age of vaccination, and that measles is safe in children under proper supervision, one example being the use of vitamin C as demonstrated by Fred Klenner MD over 50 years ago .org.uk/m/klenner.html, or JB Ellison with Vitamin A over 70 years ago .org.uk/a/ellison1.html. Recent published studies have found that 72%. of hospitalised measles cases in America are Vitamin A deficient (while vaccines deplete Vitamin A levels .org.uk/vaccines/autism35.html). In the third world nearly 45 percent of measles deaths are associated with low weight and poor nutrition .org.uk/a/nutr1.html. Of course, the main argument against MMR vaccination is the amount of vaccine damage which anti-vaccinists believe to be way and above the bad effects from measles. While naturopaths and homeopaths believe measles is a necessary process of the immune system, either in elimination due to dietary choices and/or inherited disease traits .org.uk/m/measles4.html.org.uk/m/measles3.html. john 13:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I press for something more specific, a couple of headings up the page, where I took the trouble to take the paragraph apart and indicate some pieces that look to me as though they should  be in the article.  And a few other things...   (This is beginning to look like a day of ad homnimen "you are all liars except where you are fools dupes or in it for the money."  The WP rule son that have been mentioned before, most days I think.) Midgley 14:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can spread a lie, e.g. vaccination eliminated smallpox, but that doesn't make you a liar unless you know it to be false. Likewise you can use authority ploy without any conscious knowledge it is a propaganda ploy.  I haven't accused anyone of lying or being mentally ill unlike yourself .  You removed the above text using not peer reviewed journal references, nor original material - copy of it on partial site as an excuse. Klenner has peer review and Ellison was BMJ, and I don't accept peer review is the only acceptable information source. john 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of your links repeats a lie, about me - do you think if you keep doing that it will become true?  If one of the papers you quote is a BMJ paper, give the reference to it in th BMJ, not on Whale/clone.  One is primary, the other is secondary and looks like an attempt to grab traffic.  Vaccination was part of the process of eradication of Smallpox.  A lie that it was not is often repeated.  Which of those who repeat it believe it is a question I am unsure of as yet. Shall we rmeain WP:civil or is it too much trouble? Midgley 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me the link and I'll look at it. It doesn't matter if something is a lie so much, but lying is another matter. We both believe in our beliefs about smallpox, so we are hardly liars. You could see they were peer review papers, so why didn't you put that in instead of deleting?  It suggests you are more concerned to scupper my argument in anyway possible. Can you tell me why it would be wrong to grab traffic? The only argument I can see where it would be wrong is if I was making money off the back of it. Your deletion of links would appear to be an attempt to suppress the anti-vaccine viewpoint. john 15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link, not mine.  As for the articles, should they not be linked to on their home site?  Midgley 18:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Measles

message: This is authority ploy. A well know propaganda ploy to/vaccine/authority.html. They would hardly say otherwise, as silly as saying all car dealers approve of more road building.  john 13:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The national health services and almost all doctors point out

message: The middle two sentences are no good:-
"The medical practice of vaccinating the populace, has been opposed by a wide array of critics since the practice first began to supersede variolation in 1796. As early as 1798, organized groups self-identifying as Anti-vaccinationists lobbied against vaccination for reasons ranging from religious justifications, conflicting scientific evidence, philosophical, aesthetic and health reasons."
1798 is later than 1796
The collection of reasons would seem to overlap (aesthetic?).
And I think there was a gathering of resistance after compulsion, and it didn't start off wide.
Looks NPOV.  Midgley 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Para 1 - now rubbish 

message: Midgley wrote, about "anti-vaccinationists:"
:Underlying the anti-vaccinationist coherent group is a set of philosophies. They are essentially a rejection of modern science. Now to what extent that is a cloak, and to what extent it is obvious to someone who believes them that all of modern biological and medical science is a delusion or fraud, is interesting.
It is awfully hard to ascertain the underlying philosophies of people who are only thought to exist, so let's take this piece by piece.
* If I understand Midgley's point correctly, it is that the people who are critical to vaccines now are in all important respects successors to the Anti-Vaccinationist leagues that were at their most active in the late 19th/early 20th century. The evidence for this is to be found in a comparison made by Wolfe and Sharpe of the arguments found in both camps.
* Now, Wolfe and Sharpe are presenting a case that one could dispute. To their credit, they do not reach for the conclusion that either of these groups reject modern science; they are simply drawing parallels. To test Wolfe and Sharpe's arguments, one would have to find out if a) the sample of arguments from the two groups are in fact representative and exhaustive of either one of them; and b) whether these arguments help distinguish arguments made by other groups.
* Midgley goes beyond what Wolfe and Sharpe say by claiming there is a continuity in the underlying philosophies. This would mean that there is a worldview that is similar. But as far as I can tell, the arguments that Wolfe and Sharpe compare boil down to two propositions:
** There are limits to the state's rights to coerce individuals into taking medical treatment
** The value of a vaccine program must be evaluated in light of its efficacy and safety
* I have to imagine that such a philosophy will find adherents among the vast majority of medical professionals; certainly all medical doctors I know
* To be sure, the anti-vaccinationist leagues of the past had a strong position on these: they questioned whether the state had any right to vaccinate people against their will; and they held that vaccines had absolutely no efficacy and great risk. But the difference between vaccinationists and anti-vaccinationists in those days was not on philosophy; it was on facts. 
* Stated this way, there is nothing in the position of the anti-vaccinationists of yesteryear that represents a "rejection of modern science." Certainly, there was a rejection of the assertions made by the medical establishment of the time, but that was because the anti-vaccinationists thought they were lying.
:I see that "modern" is yet again tripping us up.  
:Pasteur to me is modern science.  
:John at least rejects him.  A sampling of anti-vaccinationist websites appears also to do, but I am not yet convinced that when John tells us it is a canon of faith, that it is so.  We should test that.   
::It is interesting that Pasteur was a fraud and plagiarist www.vaccination .org.uk/v/pasteur.html, hardly an encouraging fact.  Likewise jenner was a charlatan.  (John)
:::Edward Jenner was trained from 13 as a doctor, trained in London by eminent and famous doctors who have left more of a mark on the world than you ever will, elected Fellow of the Royal Society for science other than medicine, elected justice of the peace and served as a GP in a country area where he is still remembered, and remembered fondly - it is not far from here, past the Practice of one of his descendants - and where he was built purpose built premises.  It is a characteristic argument of the anti-vaccinationists to belittle those they do not agree with, but in this case it doesn't work, it is ad hominem and even if it were true it would affect in the  slightest way the composition of viruses, their behaviour or the response of the immune system.  
::He didn't believe cowpox was a preventive of smallpox, he touted horsegrease, but gave that up when Pearson wouldn't accept it.  It was no discovery of Jenner's that cowpox was inoculable and preventive of smallpox.  That was a rural superstition.  
:::John, that is what discoveries are.  I agree he didn't have priority, that probably goes to Benjamin Jesty, a successful farmer buried in a position in his churchyard that demonstrates he was not the least well thought-of citizen of his village (I've been there)  and who was abused in scurrilous terms by one of Johns spiritual companions - it really does demonstrate continuity, assuming that John is accepted by anti-vaccinationists as a holder of a resource, not in his own word a kook which seems likely since I have yet to see a word of criticism of whale. to  or its content in site that present themselves as vaccine-critics or are clearly anti-vaccinationist.  What Jenner did was to observe, at the age of 13 or so, discuss, be unsatisfied by the status quo and think about it until 34 years later, practiced, established in medicine and the regard of the people in his area, he acted and then observed, described, refined (as mentioned, his initial hypothesis was excessively complicated) and published.  
:::I'd take issue with the word "superstition" there as well.  It was an observation by people who had many opportunities to make it, over a long time, and if anything, it is surprising that it took so long.  Why would it take so long?  One reason would be that Jenner didn't have a model to explain it - until Pasteur demonstrated that the ancient Roman who remarked on contagion in marshes was right (albeit perhaps about Malaria) there was no model to adequately explain infection, immunity and immunization.  That is one reason why there would be so much cross-infection and infection - Erysipelas as in the Leicester account - with early vaccination - in modern times with infection understood rather than empirically treated as Jenner did -  vaccination had little bacterial secondary infection and no mortality from it (that and antibiotics, of course).  Jenner's initial model was not fully accurate, but what of it, science involves refining of models and only some fictitious process has the initial inventor either perfectly right or perfectly wrong, wholly lauded or wholly derided - a problem with the idee fixe is that you miss the fun going on around it - the Enlightenment, the birth of modern science through the empiricism of the Royal Society. There is a book in it, and I may have to write it - it'll give me a use for the wordage splashed around here at least. Midgley 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on.. you were saying 99% effective and 50% failure are consistent, do explain more, please.  Midgley 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sample size is 2 in the immunized group, to set an extreme case. But more importantly, there may have been flaws or unknown factors in the original study that established a 99% immunization rate. New information may become availably subsequently. --Leifern 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sample size is 2 then most statisticians would suggest not doing statistics on it I think.  In order to have half a chance of distinguishing between 99% and 50% efficacy you'd need around 50 people in the sample, so th trial with 2 people is not powered to determine the difference.  What does crop up with similar numbers is that if the vaccine is highly effective, perhaps not quite so good as 99%, and most people are vaccinated, then most of the people who catch the disease will have been vaccinated.  Rather more in proportion of the people who don't catch the disease also will have been vaccinated, and a rather higher proportion of those unvaccinated people who are exposed will catch it.  We tend to see one figure only, in official material as well as anti-vaccinationist.  At the moment I'm looking for people who were bitten by an animal later proved to be rabid (John I suppose won't accept that one can prove it or that the viruses in their brain are anything to do with it, but I'll leave it to him to tell us what to do about Rabies - VIt C is it?), didn't have Rabies vaccine either beofre or after, and didn't get Rabies.  If they did get Rabies, then with one exception, they died, but I'm interested in the ones that didn't.  I'd think people wanting to demonstrate that vaccines were not needed and antibodies were not effective in immunity might have been looking also, did they find any? Midgley 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oh, and here is an anti-vaccinationist link.  They are not critical, they are 100% anti.  They represent themselves as numerous, organised, and widespread.  Their card is copied on Whale but I don't know the copyright so I won't upload it here. Midgley 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You must be a bundle of fun to work with - why do you stick at scientists?  Do you not demand that your integrity is questioned constantly?  If not, what is the source of the privilege you award yourself?  Midgley 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that when I make an assertion, I have to back it up with facts and logic. If someone finds that my facts are shaky or my logic is flawed, of course I expect them to tell me. I try to be honest, i.e., be clear as to what remains uncertain. I advise executives on their decisions, and there is nothing they care more about than what uncertainty is. --Leifern 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What is actually essential is that the findings of scientists are repeated.  In order to do that, the data must be available, with a description of the method.   Midgley 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, not quite. In order to replicate a study, you need to fully understand the method so you can control for the same variables. What you are talking about is review, i.e., to find out that the data supports the conclusions. In an ideal world, you would insist on both - each finding should be replicated by parties that are independent of each other, and each of their findings should be reviewed to make sure that there weren't any mistakes in the analysis. Pharmaceutical companies spend huge amounts of money on both of these, and they describe their findings very very narrowly. In the meantime, you probably know that the vast majority of diagnostic work is based on clinical experience not double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies. --Leifern 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hierarchies, or levels of evidence are described by the evidence based medicine (EBM) community - who recognise that RCTs are relatively new, and that much of what we know was established to our satisfaction, often correctly on further investigation, in ways that were in use at the time.  There is a saying going around - it was a joking aside between Archie COchrane and another early EBMer, that only 10% of medicine is based on science.  Actually, and reported a few years ago on the Jiscmail EM healthcare list - when you look at it and ask the question "for these patients, in how many is the main intervention supported by good quality scientific - trials - evidence?" you get around 80% which is pretty good.  Forming the question is key, and attempting to write for WP is an interesting exercise in that which is feeding back into my work in http://ganfyd.org and the Practice.  (Possibly a sign of being time for a wikkibreak if it gets into conversation).  Pasteurs experiments are pretty easy to duplicate - in fact, in the average kitchen, it is a struggle not to.  The key thing I take out of scientific method, and what the ones named above here did was to build the model that fitted the world.  After a Bright does that, us Tweens can follow, indeed it looks as though it was always obvious.  It'd be a pity to just bog down in this article, there is interesting stuff lying around , and on a good day John allows it to be teased out and spun into a thread.  We could split it into old and modern, but where, and what caused the split?  I see a continuity (that model again) running weakly from ancient Greece and with a big kink in it labelled Bechamp/Pasteur.  I suspect the former was a perfectly useful scientist, made money, married, had children, solved problems etc., but he is defined now on the web by accounts of how beastly Pasteur was, and they are aimed at supporting a braided collection of ideas that amounts to another worldview, and includes much anti-vaccinationism - as it would have to be, if one asserts Becahmp to have been right and Pasteur, thus Koch, inevitably Jenner, and the best part of 40 000 of my colleagues to be wrong.  Midgley 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection of modern science and philosophy 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-vaccinationists&oldid=39804963
As written, that is not a very useful sentence - trial of what, for instance.
Also, unless we get bogged down in how large "large" is, it is trivially easy to demonstrate to be wrong - if one RCT ... has been done then it is disproved.  Here is one RCT
Rubella Immunization: Vaccine versus Placebo on Adverse Reactions in Postpartum Women ... blind placebo-controlled study on adverse effects of rubella ...
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/bir/2004/00000031/00000003/art00007
Would someone like to turn it into an assertion they feel comfortable with?  
I notice the only contribution ever by that IP address is to this article.  Midgley 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the section about the proper trials is referring to. Is it just smallpox (mostly gone prior to modern trial designs) or does it refer to any/all vaccines? Because there are certainly well designed RCTs for many of the more recent vaccinations (see Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00139347 and NCT00090233 for two rotavirus vaccine RCTs published just last month in the New England Journal of Medicine!) InvictaHOG 12:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an abusive buzz-phrase wrapping in a superficial appearance of science a simple lie, which when challenged will retreat into folds of what an CT should be, of how large it must be and the level of significance etc. required, and when finally pinned down will simply assert that the supervision was not "proper".  (Unless someone can point to a more definitive statement of the proposition?) Midgley 16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ... RCT trial ever 

message: He's back.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-vaccinationists&diff=40021003&oldid=40013495
to describe that as "more accurate" is less than.
I think this is not an article about vaccine critics.  An article about vaccine critics is something several people assert should exist.  Why not write vaccine critics if there is material about vaccine critics you want to put in an article called vaccine critics?  
Midgley 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Edit, unconsciously ironic summary? 

message: "The periodic nature of disease outbreaks has always challenged the scientific investigator and led the incautious astray. "In 1806 a Mr. Kraus was awarded $1000 by the then rulers of New York territory for his scientific discovery which had kept rabies out of New York for over twenty years. His formula is a matter of record and consisted of the ground-up jaw bone of an ass or dog, a piece of colt's tongue and the green rust off a penny of George the First reign."  Page 185-186, Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean."
The point about disease outbreaks is that they tend to be aperiodic.  Some follow a cycle, for instance the epdiemics of Measles that used to sweep through countries, but the random variation produced a random schedule reinforcement in people following particular courses.  Midgley 23:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant and wrong 

message: "Reverse English" is a sort of spin used in Billiards, and this large edit is an exercise in spin.
Partial, and badly written and spelled.  Orwell would not have approved.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-vaccinationists&oldid=40054425
Several of the "fact" tags are just above the sections which have been discussed here, which provide the references - the impression is of an editor pushing an argument "there are no anti-vaccinationists" in the same way as Leffern's afd started with an assertion that they could not be found in Google.  It is also inaccurate, the opposition in the late 19th century was not "... as a  public health measure".   Midgley 23:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (People who want to read the changes can find them here: I don't know about "badly written" - I am sure my prose can be improved, as can anyone else's. But I did reword a number of sentences into the active voice, simplified prose where pronoun usage was uncertain, etc. But for a few exceptions, I kept the propositional content intact. I did insert a request for references for assertions that should be part of the historical record. I find no grammatical errors in my edits, and the only spelling mistake I made was writing "immunizatio," and to that error I plead guilty. My apologies.  --Leifern 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Line 4  "These self-identified as anti-vaccinationists since 1798."  Is an error in grammar, added.  Midgley 22:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, no. It would have been better to write: "these identified themselves as anti-vaccinationists," or "these characterized themselves as anti-vaccinationists," but there is no grammatical error in that sentence. --Leifern 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lefern's edits ('''not''' a "cleanup and writing in English" as described 

message: === Please No Personal Attacks and Assuming Bad Faith ===
(Moved text to comments below to which they relate.  The Invisible Anon 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to our friend from Canberra: User:155.143.15.130 which IP address has made exactly one edit to WP, and that one here.  Midgley 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Vaccine controversy appropriately contains a heading Sites decidedly or apparently totally against vaccination which is - after a large argument that some people wish to recreate here - a sample, nothing like a listing of them.  To say that the anti-vaccinationist movement is extinct or minimally active, or never existed mot likely labels the writer as a member of that group.  It is not an assertion that belongs in this article.  Midgley 17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome also to our friend User:Uppertoe who has made exactly one edit to WP, and that one a removal of large amounts of this article.  Perhaps I should not be welcoming him, since Ombudsman already has, at 12:47.  Still, anyone seeing Uppertoe's remark "(Hopefully this makes more sense, but this article really needs a complete overhaul.)" might be excused for thinking that he seemed very familiar with WP terms as well as the process of editing.  An amazingly good performance for a total newbie, if he is.  Midgley 18:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And welcome also to Sly Soprano, who seems unaccustomed to newspapers running campaigns, for instance the Sunday Times, in the 70s, on DPT, and yet is clear about some things to do with vaccination, that there are no anti-vaccinationists and that the writing of the article is unintelligible.  His contributions are this article, and a quick series of edits to one on Brit Millah which I took to be a pop star until I saw it is some religious festival.  contributions Sly Soprano.  Who else was involved with that around th end of January?  Midgley 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Midgley, Brit milah is the ritual of circumcision within Judaism, not a "religious festival." As a medical doctor who presumably is involved in circumcisions, I am a little surprised that you didn't know this to begin with. Why do you feel an urge to ridicule people you disagree with? --Leifern 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't say it was my idea of a party, but it looked religious, and if festival is not the exactly idea word for the celebration of the rite and the party thereafter (and the one I went to a few years back was very jolly) then I shall just have to wait for a better one to appear.  As to the presumption, just add it to the list -  and of things that offer to distract us.   Midgley 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, on further thought, I'm insulted that anyone should presume that I'd be involved in ritual mutilation of children.  It is child abuse.  Midgley 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't suggest you were involved in it, only that you were aware of it. Other than that, your opinion clearly shows that you're not going to let something as annoying as facts get in the way of forming a judgment on what other people - in this case Jews - do. --Leifern 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact being?  I appreciate you would not cut bits of babies if one of the gods had not told you to. Midgley 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You made the characterization of child abuse - this is a serious charge that should be substantiated. There are people who are opposed to circumcision because they believe it is unnecessary and risky. --Leifern 14:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis is it not child abuse?  If I cut a piece of someone then I need a good reason, and normally their consent.  Please don't answer that, the argument is rehearsed elsewhere, and you are yet again getting WP:LEGAL. Midgley 16:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Reversionism 

message: (Moved text to comments below to which they relate.  The Invisible Anon 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please No Personal Attacks and Assuming Bad Faith 

message: The following personal attacks against three Wiki editors imply bad faith.  The attacks seek to discredit the contributions of the editors by suggesting bad faith: one for having an IP address and implying the other two are sockpuppets.  Regardless of whether they are, personal attacks like this only encourage editors to seek as much anonymity as possible and discourage other editors from attempting to sort out this minefield of a page.  This shows how personal attacks like this can only damage Wikipedia.
The same applies to threats to, attempts to and actually publishing the identities of editors who have not published their identities themselves e.g. "... our friend from Canberra".  The author of this implied threat has previously published the identity of another editor and is closely associated with another editor who has also done so. The Invisible Anon 09:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to our friend from Canberra: User:155.143.15.130 which IP address has made exactly one edit to WP, and that one here.  Midgley 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Vaccine controversy appropriately contains a heading Sites decidedly or apparently totally against vaccination which is - after a large argument that some people wish to recreate here - a sample, nothing like a listing of them.  To say that the anti-vaccinationist movement is extinct or minimally active, or never existed mot likely labels the writer as a member of that group.  It is not an assertion that belongs in this article.  Midgley 17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome also to our friend User:Uppertoe who has made exactly one edit to WP, and that one a removal of large amounts of this article.  Perhaps I should not be welcoming him, since Ombudsman already has, at 12:47.  Still, anyone seeing Uppertoe's remark "(Hopefully this makes more sense, but this article really needs a complete overhaul.)" might be excused for thinking that he seemed very familiar with WP terms as well as the process of editing.  An amazingly good performance for a total newbie, if he is.  Midgley 18:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And welcome also to Sly Soprano, who seems unaccustomed to newspapers running campaigns, for instance the Sunday Times, in the 70s, on DPT, and yet is clear about some things to do with vaccination, that there are no anti-vaccinationists and that the writing of the article is unintelligible.  His contributions are this article, and a quick series of edits to one on Brit Millah which I took to be a pop star until I saw it is some religious festival.  contributions Sly Soprano.  Who else was involved with that around th end of January?  Midgley 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Midgley, Brit milah is the ritual of circumcision within Judaism, not a "religious festival." As a medical doctor who presumably is involved in circumcisions, I am a little surprised that you didn't know this to begin with. Why do you feel an urge to ridicule people you disagree with? --Leifern 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't say it was my idea of a party, but it looked religious, and if festival is not the exactly idea word for the celebration of the rite and the party thereafter (and the one I went to a few years back was very jolly) then I shall just have to wait for a better one to appear.  As to the presumption, just add it to the list -  and of things that offer to distract us.   Midgley 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, on further thought, I'm insulted that anyone should presume that I'd be involved in ritual mutilation of children.  It is child abuse.  Midgley 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't suggest you were involved in it, only that you were aware of it. Other than that, your opinion clearly shows that you're not going to let something as annoying as facts get in the way of forming a judgment on what other people - in this case Jews - do. --Leifern 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact being?  I appreciate you would not cut bits of babies if one of the gods had not told you to. Midgley 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You made the characterization of child abuse - this is a serious charge that should be substantiated. There are people who are opposed to circumcision because they believe it is unnecessary and risky. --Leifern 14:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis is it not child abuse?  If I cut a piece of someone then I need a good reason, and normally their consent.  Please don't answer that, the argument is rehearsed elsewhere, and you are yet again getting WP:LEGAL. Midgley 16:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad faith edits and conspirators? 

message: To completely leave aside the issues of general population vaccination for a moment (ie vaccine effectiveness, levels for herd immunity, genuine concerns for how cost-benifit balance equates for both society & individuals, issues of society's advising/urging/compulsion of individuals etc etc), there is a far smaller use of vaccinations for specific individual protection. The 2 senarios that come to mind are pre-travel vaccinations (e.g. typhoid, Hep A, tetanus, tick-borne encephalitis) or specific worker protection (e.g. BCG & hepatits B in healthcare, tetanus for gardeners or sewage workers). Are these similarly included in the debates/arguments, or seen just as personal decisions in light of personal circumstances and assessment of exposure risks (e.g. academic staff vs surgeons, modern costal city resorts vs. extended back-backing) ? David Ruben  Talk  15:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question - I can't recall anyone arguing that vaccinations should be banned, which would be a logical consequence for anyone who thought they were all bad and no good. --Leifern 15:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal vaccination protection

message: the authors of the paper, not article are historians who write not writers who hist.  Previously they were named there which is a usual way to refer to scholarly work.  Midgley 17:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening para 

message: Although plenty of words are produced on the talk page, I can not see that the article is getting much better. I'd like to see if I can summarize the state of the article and propose a way out of the impasse that doesn't lose information and ensures encyclopedic standards.
It seems to me that the main purpose of the article was an exposition of groups and individuals who object to vaccinations, tie them into historical movements with a similar purpose, and examine the arguments that they make. 
This is a contentious issue where both sides of the argument feel much is at stake. Those who object to vaccines feel that harm may be done by exposing individuals and society to risks that they believe are typically underestimated in order to achieve benefits that they believe are typcially overrated. Those who support vaccines feel that harm may be done by discouraging vaccines that prevent illness, complications, and death.
It doesn't help that the parties in the argument paint themselves as having roles in a drama - those who support vaccines as the enlightened, educated professionals who preserve the truth against ill-informed ignoramuses and nutcases; and those who object to them as crusaders against an establishment that is bent on self-preservation.
There is no middle ground between these positions at the present, and we can not hope to create an article that would give readers a definitive answer. 
There appear to be several implicit chapters in the article, though it is not really organized that way:
# The history of opposition to vaccination - who the people are, how they organized, the lifecycle of the organizations
# The history of those who resist the opposition - who they are, how they're organized, etc.
# The rhetoric employed on either side of the issue - the evidence produced, the logic employed, what these arguments appeal to
# The evidence itself, which is a hodge podge of opinion pieces, peer-reviewed articles, invectives, polemics, blogs, websites, statistics, etc.
At this point, both sides to the argument are discrediting themselves in this article and not doing the readers any service. I propose that we work on several articles that provide ample cross-referencing. One approach might be two, maybe three articles:
* An article on Organized opposition to vaccine policy that describes the impetus for, organization of, and platform of, organizations and groups that oppose vaccination policy. It should differentiate among the types of organizations based on their expressed platform. It should also include groups that oppose vaccination as part of a broader platform, whether that is political, religious, or whatever.
* An article on Vaccination and epidemiology that discusses the historical epidemiology illnesses for which people are commonly vaccinated, bringing in all the factors that are thought to contribute to lower infection rates, morbidity, and mortality.
* Possibly also an article called something like Common good and individual risks (maybe something more specific) that discusses the philosophical and political issues related to coercing an individual to do something for the good of his/her community. Something like that may exist already in Wikipedia, but it is something we should address explicitly, either by reference or directly.
I further think that we must carefully delineate the controversies as they relate to safety, efficacy, and other issues, such as civil liberties, the common good, etc. --Leifern 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means start any articles you think should exist.  "Organized opposition to vaccine policy" translates as "anti-vaccinationists".  Curiously, I agree there should be an article.  It should differentiate among the types of organizations based on their behaviour, and what they say, rather than what they say they do.  The interesting thing about the topic is not so much the people or the arguments they make, but the underlying reasons and philosophy presented as or causing those arguments to be made. Midgley 18:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to come up with a solution that puts the effort here on the right track. I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "the arguments they make" and "underlying reasons and philosophy presented as or causing those arguments to be made." --Leifern 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that some of the frustration in editing this article again boils down to the term "anti-vaccinationist."  Some view it as all encompassing while others view it as being restricted to a historical movement in the past.  I'm starting to favor the the latter, as the term "anti-vaccinationist" does have a somewhat antiquated feel, almost like "abolitionist."  Perhaps if we can settle on a more appropriate title, then it would make editing the article more constructive.  Andrew73 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that it is purely a red herring.  I do agree, there is an antiquated feel to the whole business, but when discussion turns to immunisation, we are presented with arguments relating to Smallpox in 1880, not to HiB in 2000.  Midgley 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to clear this up 

message: Quackwatch is not a weblog.  Actually looking at the site, which displays a HONcode badge and link indicating it is independently assessed as following good practice for medical websites, reveals a link  to the board of medical advisers, 152 in number.  There are also 30 legal advisers... it may be the case that legal advisers are more useful in avoiding being sued than in preventing "partisan rants", but to characterise this as one man's blog is an attempt to mislead if made in knowledge of it that needs two clicks to obtain, or suggestive of very poor analysis if not.  Midgley 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine that - now look at how many of the articles he has written himself vs. others have written for him. And let's see if he has anything charitable to say about anything "alternative" - he even goes to far as to question Doctors of Osteopathy as somehow being lesser than Doctors of Medicine. I am on pretty firm ground in claiming he is an anti-alternative-medicinist. Be that as it may, he is clearly not just "commenting" on the matter, he is weighing in one side of it. And wouldn't you say that the title "quackwatch" sort of gives it away? I don't see any of his writing that is objective, but that's neither here nor there. As far as the HON certification is concerned, I looked at the criteria, and it's basically a club for medical doctors to certify each other. Which is absolutely fine, but that's what it is. I'll try to come up with something that is descriptive and neutral. --Leifern 23:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of the HON is that is merely reflects on the nature of the website itself, rather than the medical opinion included. Hence HON sites must be written by doctors, not try to directly diagnose or treat conditions, indicate the date pages were last updated, cite their sources, indicate clearly the author and source of any sponsorship. By this reasoning a doctor discussing one particular cause of a disease (provided not making excessive claims) would be acceptable, even if the rest of us are aware that more common causes are not included which may lead overall to an unbalance article (compared to an encyclopedia), eg a site might discuss diphtheria sore throats and miss out on common viruses & streptococcus bacteria. So HON will not be a weblog - its only real purpose is to ensure readers are able to verify it is written by the medical authors claimed and with any sponsorship/advertising transparently indicated (vs an author falsely claiming to be a qualified doctor, or hidding the website's financial conflicts of interest). David Ruben  Talk  00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So if we look at a website, whatever it bills itself as, and we "see if he has anything charitable to say about " a particular topic, then if it doesn't we conclude that whatever the site characterises itself as, it is in fact a site which is anti-{topic} and presume it to be run by anti-topicists.  Do stop me if I'm misinterpreting anything here.  Perhaps one only applies that to sites which one already has been told are a collection of "partisan rants", applying a particulr view of the world against a particular topic? Or perhaps the problem is that an argument introduced to hamper the writing of an article is actually of no merit whatsoever and can now be discarded as not fit for purpose?  I agree the Honcode is not a panacea, however markings will be withdrawn from sites Genva considr disreputable.  Quackwatch is noticeably older than WP, and while it wasn't at the dawn of the Medical Web, it is venerable. Midgley 00:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised the description of Quackwatch, because you're absolutely right - I shouldn't apply different standards to the things that I agree with than the things that I disagree with. Having said that, I tend to judge the credibility of a website by its level of intellectual integrity. Quackwatch addresses every issue to prove the same point over and over again, namely that anything that isn't practiced by the majority of medical doctors is quackery. As an editorial aside, I find Kevin Trudeau's stuff to be pretty looney, but after I read what Barrett had to say, I started wondering if there's something more to the stuff Trudeau says, simply because I was wondering "is that the best you can do?" --Leifern 15:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are hugely pragmatic.  We'll pick up anything that works.  Midgley 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: They probably don't like Whale either - is it mentioned there?  whalemedical.com by John Whale of Devon is probably in their list as well, with its coloured lights whose pseudoscience probably goes back to the bechampist "microscopist", and Dr Beddow Bayly's offer to cure anaemia with ultraviolet light.  Any connection or is it all coincidence?  Midgley 13:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm surprised that the content on http://whale. to (where the "Church of Allopathy" may be found) has not been mentioned.  Surely the content there is about the "truth" like to/b/implants.html alien implant removers, to/b/demons_q.html demons sacrificing virgins, and the to/b/protocols1.html Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.  Andrew73 15:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, I don't know how I would describe whale. to's platform. It seems to be anti-everything-the-Man-tells you. --Leifern 15:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the absence of dissent with _any_ part of Whale among those sites which to my eye share some other common characteristics to be part of the group of properties defining their membership of a particular group (or set or cloud or constellation or network).  Many people if they chose to point toa Whale resource as evidence or to support or amplify something might say "although much if it is bogus hocum, this particular page is the pure unvarnished truth".  Compare and contrast to scientists and doctors substantially in agreement with each other in Nature, the BMJ, medical web fora or at conferences.  The latter argue and pick out any weakness in their colleagues' descriptions.  The former accept anything aimed against their target, regardless.  Midgley 15:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A very nice example of this is at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=258#more-258 - an analysis by a judge of the attempt to prevent discussion of evolution, accomplished in part by the promotions of the pseudoscience of indigent design, and which is so familiar.  Midgley 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a retired doctor's blog 

message: Lets concentrate the discussion on the talk pages of articles, and lets not saddle any future random user near Bromley with the content there and animus around it.  Midgley 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I may not necessarily agree with this anonymous user, I haven't heard of a user talk page actually being deleted; I thought a talk page was the user's own domain!).  Andrew73 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is explicit that this is not the case, that the user pages are part of the WP and that use for purposes other than writing the encyclopedia - although interpredeted widely by the tolerant community - is cause for deletion.  It is implicit that users who have a username, and therefore an actual user page which is reliably theirs and not shared with the next user of that IP address, get very wide tolerance.  Note that the user page which this is an appendage to was deleted administratively, and that use of the talk page is very similar to the use of the user page.  Getting a user ID is a trivial exercise, and would provide the user with assorted benefits, some of which he has claimed to already posess and therefore may be presumed to value.  The affair is very perverse.  Midgley 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:86.10.231.219]] 

message: This is highly disputed article. Removing the tags as a way to argue is not appropriate. Until we reach some kind of consensus - and I have proposed ways out of this, the tags must remain. --Leifern 11:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, the editor who removed the tags as far as I can see (and correct me if I've missed an edit) was just visitiing, looked at them and stripped them off with a quick and penetratingly analytical comment to boot.  I suggest that not all of the article is disputable, so applying tags to sections may be aprpopriate, but to the whole article is neither helpful nor, as User:Intersophia note, appropriate, regardless of motive or faith.  In addition, the actual state is that a small group of editors, some of whom have only ever appeared in order to make poorly phrased and unconstructive edits to it, are far more determined to prevent there being an article on this topic, than to improve it.  Suggestions that are easily categorisable as "lets write an article about something else" would if they were serious have produced articles about some of those things.  Midgley 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are dozens of calls for citations, a fair number of ad hominems, lots of sentences that are poorly written. I am giving the editors of this article three weeks to make it NPOV and written at an O-level/high school freshman level of English before I weigh in again, but I will continue to reinsert these tags until this article lives up to minimal standards. --Leifern 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another three weeks of adding none of those things noted to be needed.  Imagine, all the other people in the world who are not writing th is article or looking up referneces also refrain from telling us.  Which is preferable?  Midgley 01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know what this article is supposed to be about, except "Midgley's musings on people he disagrees with." I've waited and waited to see if it evolves beyond that, and aside from bringing in the Nazi party and characterizing people as psychotic, there hasn't been much improvement. The purpose of the tags, by the way, is to signal to other editors that help is needed. If I wanted this article to be depracated, I'd let you continue doing what you're doing. --Leifern 12:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about anti-vacinationists.  I am impressed by anyone who can manage to now know what it is about despite writing vitriolically for several weeks.  Although of course the first item Leifern wrote on it - the call for deletion since "Google returned no hits" - was celarly made without any actual research or reading anything noticeable of the article, so there is no clear reason to expect reform.  I think anyone who writes so much on the talk page though is defining themselves rather clearly when they set themself apart from "the editors of the page" despite having made a number of changes to it themself.  Midgley 13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would edit if I knew what this article is about - I will certainly agree that there were people who characterized themselves as ant-vaccinationists 40-100 years ago, but it is only your opinion that such people exist today. I see a lot of prose written about the history of vaccination, but this is redundant to Vaccination or else belongs in an article called History of immunization. It is hard to contribute to an article based on a few people's opinions, especially when the opinions are hazy to begin with - my efforts would likely lead to an edit war, which does not help things. As for your repeated ad hominems about my contributions, I welcome you again to look at my contributions or else stop complaining. Yes, you're right that I probably misspelled anti-vaccinationist in my original google search, but the basis for my AFD was that the articled begged the question - which it still does. --Leifern 23:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The basis asserted by Liefern was that the article depended upon the presence of a single organised body with the total absence of the word from Google being cited as evidence.  It was a rush job.  There is no need for a single body to exist for there to be anti-whatevers, or an anti-whatever movement, but there is coordinated activity - coordinated through a significant number of websites (I suspect some of these are set up more to swell numbers and squat on domains than because there are separate groups for each, but their membership is less than totally clear) and mailing lists.  Midgley 12:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: "In broad terms, your editorial is correct in stating that many anti-vaccinators are opposed for religious and political reasons and this was also the case in the 19th century"  Year 2000.
He goes on to give a homeopath's view of the reasons.  he seems an articulate academic poster-child for the movement to put up as an example.  Any demur?  Leifern want to say he doesn't exist, or is wrong in his use of English? Midgley 22:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His quote on MS is wrong in its detailof coruse ("Mapping multiple sclerosis susceptibility to the HLA-DR locus in African Americans.
Oksenberg JR, Barcellos LF, Cree BA, Baranzini SE, Bugawan TL, Khan O, Lincoln RR, Swerdlin A, Mignot E, Lin L, Goodin D, Erlich HA, Schmidt S, Thomson G, Reich DE, Pericak-Vance MA, Haines JL, Hauser SL.
Department of Neurology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0435, USA. oksen@itsa.ucsf.edu
An underlying complex genetic susceptibility exists in multiple sclerosis (MS), and an association with the HLA-DRB1*1501-DQB1*0602 haplotype has been repeatedly demonstrated in high-risk (northern European) populations. It is unknown whether the effect is explained by the HLA-DRB1 or the HLA-DQB1 gene within the susceptibility haplotype, which are in strong linkage disequilibrium (LD). African populations are characterized by greater haplotypic diversity and distinct patterns of LD compared with northern Europeans. To better localize the HLA gene responsible for MS susceptibility, case-control and family-based association studies were performed for DRB1 and DQB1 loci in a large and well-characterized African American data set. A selective association with HLA-DRB1*15 was revealed, indicating a primary role for the DRB1 locus in MS independent of DQB1*0602. This finding is unlikely to be solely explained by admixture, since a substantial proportion of the susceptibility chromosomes from African American patients with MS displayed haplotypes consistent with an African origin.")  but that is to be expected.  Caucasians rarely sickle.  So it goes. Midgley 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Morrell response in http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-163/issue-7/10-13.htm 

message: Could we at least have the point of view expressed in English, please. Midgley 19:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First section again edited to not actually make sense 

message: What is this article: Anti-vaccinationist/catholic herald? Is it some sort of POV fork? It certainly is not a valid article title and doesn't seem to discuss "catholic herald". Rmhermen 02:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above in talk page for the reason for the name and purpose.  Possibly it should be in the Talk: space rather than article.  Midgley 12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-vaccinationist/catholic herald