Talk:Anti-vaccinationist/Archive 1

message: This is at the top because it logically fits here (the page is now 91kbytes long and is going to need some tidying, which is not a wiki-skill I have yet, help appreciated.
The page is currently about groups and individual people, historical and contemporary, who share a definite common factor that they are anti-vaccination.
It is also about the nature of the arguments deployed (not, strictly, about whether they are wholly or partially or totally valid, becuase that belongs on the vaccine_controversy page, but about their nature).  
Necessarily, it is about the roots of those beliefs (something that evolved in the wiki discussion process on this page, after the story started).  
A definition of an anti-vaccinationist is a reasonable thing to try for - I'd suggest a Delphic one.  John is an anti-vaccinationist.  Anon thing is an a-v  Ombudsman is an a-v.  I'm not an anti-vaccinationist. 
John decided to help with the definition by type by providing a list of assertions (you could say characteristics or propositions) that an anti-vaccinationist will make (or show), whish are listed in tables in teh article.
Anyone who has real trouble working out what defines an anti-vaccinationist (and why the Chief Medical Office of the UK is not an anti-vacciantionist because he thinks that we should vaccinate against Rubella, but not, routinely against Chickenpox, in 2005) then I suggest two things:-
*1. Look at the tables and try to match beliefs to people;
*2. describe a person here on the Talk: page, and we'll come to a delphic concensus on whether they are, or are not.  
Midgley 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: === Percolation of rumour, Persistence of demonstrable error ===
The alleged Smallpox outbreak (Google: swabi smallpox 2002) is a good example, Chickenpox was reported as Smallpox which is regarded as extinct - except in the anti-vaccinationist writings on the Web.  The report was widely copied without any critical assessment, over a host of websites.  WHO reported fairly promptly (probably after abut as long as it takes to drive over and radio back, actually) that this was not Smallpox, but no correction occurs in any of the first few pages of Googled results... To what extent the misinformation continued to be spread after it was clear that it was Chickenpox might be interesting to map given the appropriate software. Midgley 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See sub-page Midgley 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, or Illustrations 

message: The alleged Smallpox outbreak (Google: swabi smallpox 2002) is a good example, Chickenpox was reported as Smallpox which is regarded as extinct - except in the anti-vaccinationist writings on the Web.  The report was widely copied without any critical assessment, over a host of websites.  WHO reported fairly promptly (probably after abut as long as it takes to drive over and radio back, actually) that this was not Smallpox, but no correction occurs in any of the first few pages of Googled results... To what extent the misinformation continued to be spread after it was clear that it was Chickenpox might be interesting to map given the appropriate software. Midgley 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See sub-page Midgley 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percolation of rumour, Persistence of demonstrable error 

message: Proceedings of the RCP around 1873 vaccination act. 
The historian Martin Kaufman, writing about anti-vaccination movements in 19th and early 20th century America, concluded his paper with this comment,
"With the improvements in medical practice and the popular acceptance of the state and federal governments' role in public health, the anti-vaccinationists 
www.mercola.com/2002/sep/7/anti_vaccinationists.htm 
Midgley 14:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source material 

message: The distinguishing feature, and the information presented on them, is that they oppose vaccination.  The pages are not biogrpahical, and the subject is therefore diffused.  ("A characteristic of anti-vaccinationists writing is that it is promiscuously reduplicated.") Midgley 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sensible arrangement of material on a single subject

message: The article on vaccination citics was deleted after a discussion, Ombudsman's edits are tending to recreate it, starting witht hetitle.
THis isan article about antivaccinationists, and there is no indication produced, not so far as I have seen in the general body o f material, of the groups and individuals involved being _for_ any vaccination.  
THere was already a redirect from vaccine critics to this article, which remained.  
Vaccine critics was one article, this is another.
Reducing the clarity of the opening paragraph and of the title tends to obscure - obfuscate even - the actual nature of the pehenomenom.
Midgley 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a good edit - not some, and are anti 

message: Anti-vaccinationists are a small headcount.  Is there an indication of how many people are involved?  Even in the 19th century they were a small minority, although like creationists in Kansas, Trotskyites in Liverpool in the 70s, and various other small motivated groups they were likely to get into boards where policy was applied.  "Many" is a POV addition commonly made, and never referenced by a reasonable effort to actually count.  THe latter would be a sensible part of an article on anti-vaccinationists, no? Midgley 11:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population size 

message: A part of the historical section in Vaccination
At the time, both vaccination and inoculation were condemned by the Protestant and Catholic churches. Yale president Timothy Dwight IV held that vaccination thwarted God's will, saying: 
:If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.
British theologian Edward Massey published The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation in 1772. Boston clergymen and devout physicians, believing that "the law of God prohibits the practice,"  formed the Anti-vaccination Society. Others held that the practice was unnatural and dangerous, going so far as to demand that doctors that carried out these procedures be tried for attempted murder.
Parts of theose churches surely, rather than all.   12:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  brought in from other pages 

message: Looking at a website referred to in the text, which is actually a reduplicated copy of Whale.to, and is in the .uk domain, I note that the first item in teh page to which one is directed first asserts that only a doctor may offer medical advice, before going on to offer medical advice labelled a opinion.
The UK law is actually quite different, IANAL but I am a UK doctor.
Anyone may offer medical advice and indeed offer to treat humans.  (Other animal species are assumed to need more protection than their own common sense, and only a qualified Vet may treat or offer to treat anyone else's animal)
What is restricted is asserting that one is a Registered Medical Practitioner, which only those who are, may.  
Richard Feynman's biography gives the account of his receiving many huge documents asserting they were proofs of perpetual motion or difficult theorems in mathematics.  His practice was to read them until he came to the first mistake, and then return them to th eauthor indicating "the first mistake is in page n line m" where n tended to be a small number.
If this approach is taken to anti-vaccinationists' material, the amount of reading necessary is much reduced!
In this spirit, the first mistake in www.vaccination.org.uk occurs in page 2, paragraph 1.
The name chosen of course associates the author (I do not believe there to be more than one) with the worst elements of Web society, the domain squatters, as a proper name for the domain would be anti-vaccination.org.uk  .  This mislabelling is also a characteristic of the tendency.  Midgley 13:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Law, medical advice and Registered Medical Practitioners 

message: Reasonably enough there is a question over citing references for this, which turns out to be less obvious than it first seemed.
Is there a character to the material, and its promulgation?
There certainly is, and some elements listed seem to me not to need a reference since they can be seen by anyone with Google and 1 minute.  One effect of the link-farming and reduplication that has gone on on the Web is that meta-information tends to be buried to any casual search (teh proliferation of articles apparently abut someone, which turn out to contain only that they opposed vaccination - as though one wrote a "biography of Mr Lindbergh which consisted of only "He consistently and successfully opposed gravity" - is an example of a similar tendency or tactic).
(If someone want sto make a case that the material is no different from anything else, that would also be reasonable, I think we are allowd to look at things and feel their nature)
Sometimes a test of the reasonableness of a statement is to test its opposite - if soneone says "antivaccinationist writings on th web and elsewhere are no different in any respect (save their conclusion) from writing about topics in general" would that pass unchallenged?  I think not.
More research is needed.  Should we assume that those anti-vaccinationists who read and edit this article are operating in a spirit compatible with WP, and if they had ever seen an analysis of teh character of the writings they accumulate and pass on would prsent it here.  TO do otherwise would be to conceal information in order to present a POV, which I thnk is actually part of a character of teh writings, whch distinguishes it from scientific work in general as well in its degree if not absolutely as from documents prepared by eg civil serants to support decisions on policy.  Polemic is a word that comes to mind.  Midgley 14:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character of Anti-vaccinationist writing 

message: Why though am I supplying all the detail?  Midgley 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the best articles are often the work of one editor. I can think of several examples. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is quite a good story here 

message: "totally disputed" from an anonymous IP address with only one previous contribution to WP (on German in Amercia) seems somewhat unhelpfully unspecific and detailed.  What, has none of the various authors added anything at all that is correct in the slightest element?
Any chance of getting a WP ID, then it won't look as thoguh you are someone else pretending to be new. Midgley 23:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tag trolling. Removed. Ombudsman is now using the placement of the tag as a reason to remove it from other articles. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the helpfully named Restoring Tag section below for the next chapter of this thirlling serial...Midgley 11:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV "absolutely everything wrong" 

message: I suspect that this large table should be on vaccine_controversy actually - since nothing about it names even one person, but if it gets heavily cross-referenced to who uttered them first then it adds to the story started in the page.  It seems likely to be good material - I am just slightly surprised that nobody has laid them out before - or have they?  Midgley
Meanwhile, i need to look at the non-Pasteur germ theory.  Somehow I seem to have been making cheese and wine based on the Pasteur one and missed the alternative.  What does an undermined cheese look like?  Midgley 23:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  And no, vaccination is a small fraction of our work and as a general practice we do more of it than any other layer of the NHS.  Hypertension takes up more of our time as does Diabetes and either of those has closer claims to being an article.  But no it isn't a religion.  EBM is one difference, and something that meddlesome may have got a sniff of backalong. Midgley 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a-vs' arguments 

message: In the immortal words:-  "You cannot be serious!"
Arguably, before Penicillin it was a bit harder to verify koch's postulate (this may be soemone else's cue to go read something) but Becahmp, 102 years and more ago, was just plain wrong.  Midgley 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read up on his theory, that is a good start. john 13:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bechamp 

message: Is belief in a different theory about germs (I'm not philologist enough to say whether "germ theory" is actually about what is the germ of diseases rather than "what are these funny wriggly things multiplying under the microscope that i scraped off this poorly person")  current or is it a historical curiosity?   Ombudsman, one for you I think...Midgley 11:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: (where is the assertion asserted to have been made that is asserted to be NPOV and untrue?  - Ombuds are supposed to deal with maladministration, not deal it out.)
::Ombudsman restored the tag again, to the whole article, having made no useful comment about specific grounds for it, contribution to the article to improve it, replied to the responses above.  This is purely obstructive, also stupid.  Is adding a tag 3 times 3RV?  Come on Ombudsman, grounds for your assertion. Midgley 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the point made by Ombudsman, although I do not accept the motive described for it, has been reflected in the article, by the inclusion of the argument about Thiomersal (I'm English).  Ombudsman could take time off feeling persecuted to reflect that he has contributed to improving an article considerably.  The Thimerosal one that is. Midgley 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the laughable assertion that concerns are merely moralistic" 

message: There is a nice page (it has colour in the tables, even) at Vaccine_schedule which seems very appropriate for material on how to actually _decide_ what schedule to give vaccines on and when to give them.  I think that the range of opinions on when to give what and the way in which schedules are arrived at would be appropriately dealt with there, and is not really the material of this page.  Pages need to stick to their own topic, not that of another page - we could simply refer to that, if a substantial proportion of people commonly identified as A-Vs are actually merely differing in opinion from the consensus on _when_ to give immunisations.  
It seems clear to me that such technical discussions will already be well written up and references easy to find, since they will have given input to official national policy-forming bodies, and there will be reasoned arguments behind each of the existing schedules - even if the reasonaing is of the order of "we want to get people as immune as we can to as many of the listed diseases as we can as early as we can without over-working everyone concerned and then keep them immune as long as it matters.  And eradicate Polio.  Actually the eradication of infectious diseases would be a reasonable page topic - immunisation is a part of it, politics another, sanitation and housing and feeding people yet another, most of whcih would not need writing in it since they have great pages already to point to. Midgley 10:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccine Schedules 

message: Whatever.  "Restoring tag" is one of those headings that is less than fully informative.  Ombudsman's chose tag was NPOV, for anyone who comes by after teh article is agreed to have become POV.
Whereas the discussion is about division of the article into several, historicity and so on.  Newspapers never let journalists write headlines for their storeis, instead sub-editors pick one, often discarding the journo's first suggestion.  The aim is to pick a short phrase which sums up the content of the story.
I think that story had much more content than "I've put the tag back".  Midgley 10:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roses and names 

message: Need dates attached, since we are reminded by Ombudsman that some of this is historical, some modern, and there may be a difference between them (I think it is mutation and evolution, rather than tehre being any boundary, opinions may differ).  Midgley 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: *Infectious disease is caused by transmissible agents such as pathogenic viruses and bacteria.
**They satisfy Koch's postulate.
*the (human) immune system responds to invading organisms and to toxins from them (egTetanus) when they are presented to it.
*fragments of organisms (eg Influenza vaccine, or a weakened variant of the organism (eg Rubella vaccine) or small amounts of a toxin chemically or physically treated to break the damaging part of the molecule (eg Tetanus toxoid) or an organism similar to the feared one but much less dangerous (eg Vaccinia for Smallpox or BCG for [Tuberculosis]] produce a response from the immune system which is similar to the response produced in survivors of infection with the natural or wild or feared organism.
**The attenuated or substituted organisms are less dangerous than the wild organisms (eg vaccinia is less dangerous than variola minor which itself is less dangerous than variola major the two being strains of the same virus AFAIK and variolation an effort to pick the minor one in order to have a greater chance of surviving both it, and subsequent exposure to the major one))
**as the risk of exposure to the wild disease, during the whole of life, becomes smaller, the acceptable risk of vaccines also becomes smaller, thus vaccines which were a great advantage when introduced are now regarded as some sort of bug soup that we prefer to avoid, and as Polio incidence falls toward zero, the less effective and nastier to take killed injectable vaccine becomes a relatively more favourable proposition than the oral Polio vaccine.
*under suitable conditions some of these responses include immune memory, the capacity to much more rapidly produce a much greater response to a subsequent challenge (or infection or exposure) with the wild/feared organism.
*under other conditions, the humoural immunity produced does not persist long, and therefore while the immunisation is useful for visits to infected areas, it is not suitable for lifelong protection.
*vaccines are not perfectly effective, universally correctly stored or given, and do not in all cases encounter a perfectly effective immune system.
**after most people are vacinated, in the persisting presence of circulating transmissible agents of disease, even though those who are not vaccinated are many times more likely to contract the disease when presented to it for the first time, there are very few of them compared to the large number of people individually unlikely to catch the disease because they have been vaccinated, and therefore it is not unlikely that the majority of people ho catch the disease will have been vaccinated - far from unlikely it is inevitable from the mathematics.
**people with partial immunity from a response to vaccination or to a previous infection with the wild agent are less likely to die of the wild disease if they are exposed to it even if they catch it than people who have not been previously primed.
**some people are naturally immune to some infecting organisms, indeed given our understanding of the interestingly random development of parts of the immune system, it may be that all people are immune to some infecting organism, whetehr or not it actually exists in the locality.  (this is a small digression)
(do go on if I've missed some, so much if it is probably implicit in an ordianry education we may not know we believe it)
Midgley 14:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vaccination Belief System 

message: Yes?  No?   Midgley 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: 2002  www.vaccination.org.uk/a/mmrclinic.html
Not legally, according to the article copied there.  (That looks like a copyright breach)
I think you'd find if you dug into the international law around this, that countries claim two things:-	 
1. they are soveriegn so no other country has jurisdiction over them;	 
2. if they say something is legal, it is legal, within their borders. Naturally I deplore this ... or perhaps not. Midgley 01:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccine on sale after banning elsewhere 

message: Notwithstanding there being a perfectly adequate page on this, lets briefly amplify a statement in teh article given as a core assertion of antivaccinationists (may need demonstrating that is so but for now ...)
Quote:-
* Vaccines aren't safe.
** Vaccinators have stretched the definition of safe
***to include death and serious brain damage.
Questions:-
1.  What is the altenrative view of "safe", IE what would an anti-vaccinator find general agreement on if he called something "safe" among his peer group?
* Safe is breastfeeding. End of story. Not something that kills 100 kids (as compensated by the NVICP, so I believe)  a year in the USA, the bare minimum. john 07:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccine safety - a question 

message: Is that it for the organisations?
No others known to anyone here?
No others then or now of note other than the four listed as yet?
Midgley 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the greed for organisations?  The last time I posted some on other pages they got deleted!  A lot of organisations don't want to be labelled antivaccine, so I was hesitant to list any more until I had asked them.  They prefer to be pro-choice.  the reason as I deduce it is because of medical industry propaganda, where anti-vaccine has been given the tag of mentally ill, for want of a better word.  Terms used to infer mental illness are Conspiracy theorist, paranoid etc, an ad hominem tag, essentially. The medical industry has tried to banish the word anti-vaccine by this method, and succeeded for some time.  Also you will never get any media attention if you come out anti-vaccine, so you will reach less people, they theorised. I will put a vaccine critic list up to cover the rest, but there are 20 or so. john 07:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisations 

message: Can we archive Thimerosal then?  
This one of the 580 Golgle hits Leifern didn't find is rather interesting... earlier than I thought. http://www.nicd.ac.za/pubs/press/vaccination.htm
Earlier than any of the other contributiors thought I guess, or one of them would have mentioned dates, being colalborative good wikizens. Midgley 04:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on 

message: Ombudsman prefers to put one tag on the whole article, but i wonder if anyone might consider the possibility that as many as a single section or line of the article - even one of the cells of the table containing material provided by john, tidied by me for layout, and listed as an assertion by some people against vaccination is not factually incorrect to describe as being an assertion made....  if so then putting the tags in all other sections would be a possibility... and we could then tackle them one at a time instead of taking one off and on.  I don't think ombudsman is actually criticising the article, i think he is criticising someone who may not even exist, but that is another matter from process here.  Midgley 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many of the totally disputed tags!  What is needed is smaller tag for the individual items!  Andrew73 20:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be accused of trying to hide the disputes?  I don't know all the tags yet.  Midgley 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag reversion war: a suggestion 

message: Currently in news media religious spokesmen are often brought on to comment on new developments, and it is usually possible to find one for, and one against (albeit one may be weird).  I surmise that this has not changed greatly over a few centuries.
===was vaccination different from potatoes?===
By illustration of the introduction of a new thing, in the useful WP article potato we see 
 Initially the food was treated by distrust, and was believed to be unhealthy and even un-Christian. 
 This prevented widespread acceptance for a period,
But now of course we know that bits of potato are a vital component of a Spanish omelette and various tapas, and very nice they are to.
So:-
*are the intial responses quoted different for vaccination than for anything else?
*are they imbalanced, in that on the stage at a meeting woudl be two men in dog collars, one for and one against, and certain literature only records that one was present.  
In the absence of contemporary sermons or Papal Bulls it would seem the situation at least needs to read "the Catholic church regards vaccination as a proper medical procedure, although at its introduction at least one priest had doubts."  (Which leads on to who he was, what his doubts were, when they changed, and why".
There are far too many flavours of Protestants to handle, but it is quite clear  that the Muslim and Jewish religious view is in favour of immunisation as of other medical activity - although there may be areligious element to the fuss in Kano with Polio.
(Shall we concentrate the assertion or hyperbole or metaphor that vaccination is a religion practiced by doctors into a section here as well or just let it sink quietly?)
: For the life of me I can't see how vaccination equates with potatoes. Potatoes did more than vaccination to reduce disease, but that isn't difficult as vaccination did nothing. john 13:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a "yes".  So in what way was the religious response to vacciantion different from that to the potato?  Midgley 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are now sub-pages.  They are linked as logical sub-pages of more than one main article.  Dealing with restricted topics, it may now be appropriate to tighten them up. Midgley 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: By illustration of the introduction of a new thing, in the useful WP article potato we see 
 Initially the food was treated by distrust, and was believed to be unhealthy and even un-Christian. 
 This prevented widespread acceptance for a period,
But now of course we know that bits of potato are a vital component of a Spanish omelette and various tapas, and very nice they are to.
So:-
*are the intial responses quoted different for vaccination than for anything else?
*are they imbalanced, in that on the stage at a meeting woudl be two men in dog collars, one for and one against, and certain literature only records that one was present.  
In the absence of contemporary sermons or Papal Bulls it would seem the situation at least needs to read "the Catholic church regards vaccination as a proper medical procedure, although at its introduction at least one priest had doubts."  (Which leads on to who he was, what his doubts were, when they changed, and why".
There are far too many flavours of Protestants to handle, but it is quite clear  that the Muslim and Jewish religious view is in favour of immunisation as of other medical activity - although there may be areligious element to the fuss in Kano with Polio.
(Shall we concentrate the assertion or hyperbole or metaphor that vaccination is a religion practiced by doctors into a section here as well or just let it sink quietly?)
: For the life of me I can't see how vaccination equates with potatoes. Potatoes did more than vaccination to reduce disease, but that isn't difficult as vaccination did nothing. john 13:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a "yes".  So in what way was the religious response to vacciantion different from that to the potato?  Midgley 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are now sub-pages.  They are linked as logical sub-pages of more than one main article.  Dealing with restricted topics, it may now be appropriate to tighten them up. Midgley 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: was vaccination different from potatoes?

message: The Lancet this week has a paper by Salmon et al on "Compulsory vaccination and conscientious or philosophical exemptions: past, present, and future". I suspect it will be immensely useful in making this article factual and cited. JFW | T@lk 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, I cannot access it without paying some humongous sum, so I shall have to trudge to the library once my night shift is over. JFW | T@lk 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled across the Lancet article too, and found it interesting- I wrote a short summary of compulsory vaccination and opposition to it into vaccination, which I figured would benefit from it.  More detail from it might indeed be useful for making this a more neutral article as well - it sure needs it. CDC (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful paper

message: For the benefit of Americans (I'm English) and others, presumably North Cabotians, the title of this section is in fact ironic.
http://www.reformation.org/
It even has pictures, and conversation (as Alice would have preferred).
Is it mainstream, or not, and is the direction of percolation of material _from_ Tonga  to Cabotia, or vice versa, or is there one or more intermediary steps?    Midgley 16:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A wonderful website! 

message: Ombudsman asserts that efforts have been made to tone down POV.  I looked to see if Ombudsman had made any, and indeed to see if Ombudsman had actually contributed anything at all to this article.
On 28 Jan His Ommer made an alteration http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-vaccinationists&diff=prev&oldid=37065798 to the lead paragraph.
He changed groups to "many groups" and narrowed the focus from vaccination to vaccination for herd immunity for public health.  None of this was referenced.  He also changed the name of the article to one that had previously been deleted and I think may have been one he wrote.  
Apart from that, sicne then, the only contribution Ombod has made is to repeatedly insert the same tag, and refuse to offer any focus or improvement on any part of the article.  THis is quite clearly his usual behaviour, and is disruptive and dishonest.  Midgley 16:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps he was hoping for deletion. The best solution would be to revert to vaccine critics, but you couldn't push your POV to such extremes and exclude most vaccine criticism with that terminology. 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, there had been an article called that, which was deleted.  I do not think John was a member at tht time.  Ombudsman was though. Midgley 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a page I started which is why I find this dogs dinner pretty annoying. john 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was that page.  It was called vaccine_critics.  It was, you tell us, as does ombudsman, about a different subject or group.  It was deleted after due process.  It seems to me a wholly  unreasonable claim that this page is your work.  If you think a page called vaccine critics about a different subject is useful then you are at liberty to actually write it.  Then anyone may see what group it is about, and how they differ from other groups.  Go forth and as a multiple write it.  Complaining about it here suggests disruption ratehr than usful effort.  Midgley 13:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ombudsman's Unfounded Assertions, and contributions 

message: There is a thread on mothering.com linking to this article. Might want to keep an eye out for rather POV edits.Geni 04:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean apart from Midgley's epic POV? john 10:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to this article from offsite

message: Are you going to fix that table? Or is that part of your POV, to chop the best bit in half. john 10:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is your edit that isn't working.  If asked politely for help in making an edit to fix it, I am no doubt one of many users who may be inclined to give assistance, more assistance in my case, to you.  When we have time.  Midgley 13:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Vaccinationist Assertions table