Talk:Vaccination

message: ‎ I see that you reverted me here , stating that it was POV, why? what was POV about this? I expect that if I try to remove a POV some will disagree, but most of my edit was not even intended to remove POV, why did you revert the whole thing? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made several attempts across various articles to push an anti-vaccine POV. The same here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert 

message: Orenstein WA Ahmed R
Simply put: Vaccination saves lives.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Apr 18;114(16):4031-4033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704507114. Epub 2017 Apr 10.
 [Available on 2017-10-18]
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1704507114
:The talk page is for discussion about how to improve the article, not general discussion of the topic, why are you putting these studies on the this talk page? What are you suggesting should be changed about the article based on these studies? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The study is embargoed until on 2017-10-18.  Upon its release, it should be included in the section presenting claims (made by individuals and not peer reviewed) to the effect that vaccine benefits are unproven.  The non-peer-reviewed remarks are repeated without close direct rebuttal.  On this subject, the PNAS review of evidence is relevant.  "Simply put: Vaccination saves lives."  Upon release, the study should be added to balance the currently-unbalanced section.Ocdcntx (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What section do you consider unbalanced? I was thinking this study would go in an effectiveness section, similar to the effectiveness section at vaccine, which I just realized this article doesn't have (I think it should). Tornado chaser (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccination saves lives 

message: Our article lacks and needs an effectiveness section.  Should be first section after intro.  
A thorough exposition on the burden of vaccine preventable diseases, and on vaccine's role of saving lives and health is needed.    
Simply put, diseases sicken and kill.  Immunization protects from vaccine preventable diseases.  If you don't understand diseases, you won't understand what vaccine do.   
Our current article's intro. mentions vaccine's proven effectiveness, but does not discuss it.  Rather it simply points to the studies.  More detailed discussion of effectiveness of a particular vaccine does occur later, but only in the context of rebutting "controversy" as to effectiveness.  
We should re-outline so that our article begins with a clear exposition of the compelling benefits.  With attention to presenting how those benefits have been proven.  "Controversy" should then be introduced, so that there is a frame for evaluating, e.g., non-scientific studies.  This avoids "controversy" inserting itself as a section headline and so becoming the cognitive frame.  
The intro. of the current article includes brief effectiveness information, which might be enough if a "controversy" had not been declared.  People interested would then simply click through the footnote links and read the sources cited.  
:... The effectiveness of vaccination has been widely studied and verified.[1][2][3] Vaccination is the most effective method of preventing infectious diseases;[4] widespread immunity due to vaccination is largely responsible for the worldwide eradication of smallpox and the elimination of diseases such as polio, measles, and tetanus from much of the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that licensed vaccines are currently available for twenty-five different preventable infections.[5] ...
Unfortunately, there is a lucrative business in vaccine denialism, (e.g., by the selling of books).  Hence vaccine's proven and ongoing contribution of the well-being of families via the reduction of disease burden deserves space at the top of this page, right after the intro.  The organization of the Influenza vaccine page could serve as a model.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added an effectiveness section, copied from vaccine with a few minor changes, I'm not sure why vaccine and vaccination are separate articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness section.   

message: In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccination&diff=836221458&oldid=833502726 I added a paragraph on evidence of the influence of aluminium adjuvents on the brain, something for which there seems to be a growing amount of evidence (but I did not put it in those words as the "growing amount of evidence" is a subjective observations).  (Something went wrong with the diff here; it's just the "Recent studies..." line.)  In retrospect, my addition does not fit perfectly in this paragraph "Vaccination-autism controversy".  For that, the sectioning in this article should probably be restructered a bit.  Any ideas what's best to do here? Hulten (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aluminium adjuvents 

message: I think in the MMR section related to autism another key thing to put in is the research done by the CDC. Including that article is also another useful source for this section as it is an ongoing debate between both sides. 
Kisbell1 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If all the opposition was listed in this article it would be really long, we actually have a whole other article about vaccine controversies. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

text: . Tornado chaser (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Supporting Source 

message: Hello! As part of a course through UCSF School of Medicine, I am editing the Vaccination Wikipedia page. Below is my work plan for the month:
- I will streamline some of the language in the article
- I will assess for the presence of any potential plagiarism or paraphrasing
- I will ensure that information is up to date, and if there have been changes in the field I will update them
- I will reorder some of the sections to improve the flow of the article
- I will expand on the section that talks about vaccination on a global scale
- I will include a section to talk about vaccination recommendations and schedule
- I will include a section to talk about some of the controversial ingredients in vaccines
Timeline:
March 4: first meeting
March 5: pick topic --> vaccination
March 5-8: first collect sources, make work plan (post to public talk page)
March 8: first WP-WiP
March 13: second WP-WiP
March 15: match day, take today and next 2 days off
March 18: third WP-WiP, start working again
March 25: fourth WP-WiP, peer review work
March 27: make last edit
March 28: end course, 10-12 wrap-up session  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thayermartin (talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Wikipedia Elective Plan 

message: Thank you for giving me the chance to provide peer feedback on your edits so far. This is an important topic and you've made excellent choices in terms of what sections to flesh out more. Overall your edits were very effective in conveying complex concepts like chemistry and the vaccine regulatory process in easy-to-understand language. 
Lede
* Excellent and easy to understand language in 1st and 2nd sentences. 
* "it helps" should be "they help" if referring to "vaccines" from previous sentence
* I agree with your decision to make minimal edits to what is generally a well written section
Mechanism of action
* Good choice of exemplars for various vaccine applications
* Pronouns: "its" referring to plural rabies vaccines in P2 should be "their," and the "This" starting sentence 2 of paragraph 1 should be more specific or be "They" if referring to vaccines. 
Safety
* Definitely a good choice to make Safety the main header and to beef this section up
* Excellent description of vaccine development in terms of clarity and ease of understanding
* I think the first two paragraphs could go under a sub-heading along the lines of "vaccine development and approval process" since they focus on that specific topic rather than summarizing the entire Safety section
* "thoroughly" is a subjective word that you could consider deleting, even if your citations use that word. 
* Great decision to include a table of resources. The table format works better than paragraph format. 
* Conveying event rates as "1 in #" format makes them easier to understand -- good choice
* I liked the conciseness of the description of metal salts vs the elemental form
Vaccination-Autism Controversy
* Well organized, concise description of the Wakefield paper and its fallout
* It was a good idea to flesh out this section even though there is a parent article, as many people coming to the vaccination page may be interested in this topic
* In this section or elsewhere it might be valuable to have some quantitative data on the scale of the anti-vaccination movement and the platforms it was most active on.
Again, I think you've done an excellent job so far!
Manuvenkat (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer feedback for [[User:Thayermartin|Thayermartin]] for UCSF Project WikiMedicine Edits Spring 2019 

message: I'm proposing a merger of any usable content from Vaccine failure into Vaccination because the content in the other article logically belongs within Vaccination and the length of this article is well below the guideline caps. Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 06:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment: There are some merge proposals that look like a straight forward slam dunk and then turn out to be anything but. I note that that this was merged in 2017 and then de-merged again; I would be inclined to support though. CV9933 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Vaccine failure]] 

message: I noticed the vaccine safety chapter features predominantly US regulations for vaccines. From my point of view it would be nice if there were some paragraphs describing the handling of vaccine safety regulations in other countries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C9:3F22:3301:452B:18F9:849E:7A8F (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Vaccine Safety 

message: The claim in the article that the Miller, Goldman studies "have shown that current vaccine schedules increase infant mortality and hospitalization rates, arguably an effect of synergistic toxicity." is simply false.  Their findings are consistent with that conclusion, and supportive of that conclusion, but there are numerous problems with the studies, and at a more fundamental level, because they are rather simple correlational studies, they cannot show anything about causality with confidence.  Accordingly, I'm making wording changes to that section of the page to put the reference to the Miller/Goldman studies in a more scientifically grounded context.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regutten (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Miller, Goldman papers 

message: > Pandemrix was discontinued due to lack of demand, not due to side effects
This is plausible however all the information included is also referrenced from high quality sources... I hope. There might be WP:DUE arguments. What do you think about the suggestions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pandemrix:_People_probably_have_an_opinion_on_this.
Would you prefer a different title for this section.
Talpedia (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  After a little discussion, I've added a more general discussion "adverse outcomes identified after mass vaccination". I'm going to move the content written to the main Pandemrix page. Talpedia (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pandemrix 

message: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, everything in the article was relevant to the "Vaccine" topic. The article mentioned the mechanisms and functions of a vaccine, vaccination versus inoculation, vaccine development and approval, side effects, severe side effects, the ingredients of a vaccine (varies on the purpose of the vaccine), monitoring, society and culture, litigation, opposition, and the costs and benefits of a vaccine. Nothing in the article distracted me because the information was concise and straightforward with no bias just useful information. Elyybeth (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation for GWAR class 

message: The redirect Vaccinationists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Vaccinationists]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]