Talk:Measles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Measles has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
Microbiology WikiProject
Biology Portal
Measles is part of WikiProject Microbiology, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of microbiology and microbiology-related topics. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within microbiology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Good article GA This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Measles as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] older entries

Should this article mention "measles parties"? They were mentioned recently in a UK soap, so they're presumably still an occurence.

It does have a mention of them now (not added by me), but this could use some cleaning up. It talks about a "recent" event without an actual associated date or even year. Thayvian 11:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Measles and History

I plan to add a section on historic measles plagues, including the Antonine Plague (including Plague of Cyprion) and the impact of measles on the Amerind population at European contact. Ideas for inclusion?? WBardwin 18:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment and History

Related to the above issue of measles history, the treatment section is about as historically POV biased as one can get. Measles certainly was treated before 1963. Part of the POV bias here is to assume that minority opinions cannot even be mentioned unless they follow the mainstream methodology of testing. (Testing that FDA whistleblowers have claimed are skewed by industry bias.) Is anything really NPOV that refuses to even mention a widely held minority position?

This POV method is far beyond any neutrality, because all that is necessary for true neutrality is to mention that a majority opinion thinks the minority approach not only bad but dangerous. As is, the article tries to defend the mainstream POV by silencing the entire history of treatment prior to 1963. Those who are financially biased because of vaccines shouldn't have any fear of someone considering treatments that worked prior to or since 1963, should they? Carltonh 22:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Measles epidemic

This article in the Guardian[1] sums it all up. It also has Simon Murch on the record stating that there is likely to be a resurgence of measles due to poor vaccine uptake. 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Measles in the USA

MMWR and JAMA have this report[2] about the 37 cases of measles in the US. Most cases were imported, e.g. from Chinese orphanages. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NHS and measles parties

The reporting about measles parties is from 2001. I could not find a resource for official NHS discouragement of this practice with Google. Anyone noticed it? JFW | T@lk 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And measles parties redirects to chicken pox, where there is absolutely nothing about measles parties. Ireneshusband 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

I believe I have found a citation to back up the statement about the NHS being opposed to 'deliberate exposure' of the child by parents, i.e. homeopathy. I'll put it up. DarkIye 12:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love to edit but impossible due to allopath suppression

Allopath suppressing just a link, so text would be a waste of time. User:Davidruben "rv - remove unscientific, trolling blog site (article has link already to vaccine controversy))" [3]. 'Unscientific' is an allopath pseudonym for non-allopathic thinking. john 08:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from not calling myself an "Allopath" (indeed in context term is used, is this meant as a demeaning belittling term ? If so not in spirit of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:Civility ?), I removed the link as it did not add to the discussion on measles itself (which this article is supposd to be about). I do agree though that it is not readily apparent where to read more about the associated vaccine (on MMR vaccine page) nor where to look for issues on the controversy on the vaccine (does/does not work or does/does not have association with autism/bowel disorders). The current in-text link to vaccine controversy is a general article, rather than being specifically related to the measles vaccine.

There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views, and I suggest therefore it is more a issue of directing the reader to the relevant pages rather than duplicate information or assertions. Hence I have added to the "See also" a link to MMR vaccine which sets out in some length the 'controversy' and again to vaccine controversy. David Ruben Talk 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Feeble justification. Allopath isn't meant as a put down, it is meant to flag you as biased, hence your deletion of my edit. If you can tell me where the homeopathic, naturopathic & nutritional medicine view of measles is on Wiki then please do so, otherwise restore my link. john 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
So much for WP:AGF. That link is to a site which is an admitted clone of the portion of Whale.to that relates to vaccination. Whale.to has been determined to be an unsuitable site to link to, and it is not becuase of the name. This is a transparent and continuing attempt to get links into WP in defiance of policy established by RFC and with the effect of adding credibility to your sites - and gaining click-throughs. Unscientific, meanwhile means unscientific. Midgley 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You allopaths took it upon yourselves to ban links to whale, which you call an 'approved RFC outcome'---I'd like to see the actual wording regarding that, so SHOW ME THE DIFF on that. Your only argument was ad hominem, which isn't an argument in case you hadn't noticed. You can't use that argument with Vaccination.org.uk as it doesn't have any conspiracy stuff on it. john 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I see from WP that this was an RFC, so although John may choose to accuse various users of various things (contrary to various WP policies including WP:CIVIL) this is not here as elsewhere the case. John has previously stated, in agreement with whoever first noted it, that vaccination.org.uk is a direct copy of the subset of material from whale.to , as he says, the anti-Jewish propoganda, the allegations of alien infiltration and a bunch of other conspiracy theory has not been copied across, but that doesn't alter the provenance of the site, nor its control. John, the WP Policy involved is very clearly WP:RS. I'd be obliged if you now accepted that you have been told this, even if you neither believe nor subscribe to it nor propose to act in accordance with it. Midgley 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
These are your spurious reasons for deleting links----first it was ad hominem. Now it is WP:RS. Don't you wish you practiced a medicine that didn't require so much work in medical politics. john 12:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
WP is somewhat more insistent on proper behaviour than the USENET fora where John has lambasted doctors for years while presenting his own advice or quotes stockpiled from many source to anyone who posts asking for advice. The above posting immediately upon return from a 24 hour ban for behaviour on WP suggests that such minor interventions are unlikely to be successful in moderating John's behaviour, or causing him to regard other editors of WP as anything other than obstacles to be got around where they cannot be ignored. Admins? Midgley 13:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Admins? I should think they are too busy with your antics [4]. You can get away with anything,it seems, whereas I have to suffer from your medical colleagues but even so have only been banned once, for the usual spurious reason. I wish I could ban you for calling me mentally insane.(John's writing is not very closely similar, one may have an idée fixée without being mad even in a lay sense)). One law for you one for me, that is the Wiki way on medical matters, as we can see with your medical colleague banning links he doesn't like. Don't you wish you practiced a medicine that didn't require so much work in medical politics? john 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And now it is WP:NPA. By the way, the quote is saying that John's writing is not very similar to a psychotic-appearing website, and reinforcing the message that his avocation might be had without being mad, even in a lay sense". He has repeated it several times. Midgley 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA. john 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I was about to block Midgley for NPA violations when I realised he was quoting. I object to the comments on John's person. Please stick to the facts on the merits of vaccination.org.uk and its [in]admissibility in the external links section. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)#

Midgley aside, I don't accept User:Davidruben justification for removing link There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views. He could prove his premise by showing me where these views are. There isn't a word on MMR [5] about alternative views on measles, and why a vaccine page for views on measles, when we have a measles page? john 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A condition (usually) warrants a separate page from a treatment article, especially if both are substantially discussed. Hence pharyngitis is a disease, brief mention is made of management/treatment (along with causes, symptoms, signs etc), yet the article does not go into length about what an antibiotic is nor the individual groups, e.g. penicillins vs tetracycline antibiotics etc, and even less about specific drugs (e.g. penicillin, oxytetracycline). Unless I'm misinterpreting your query re MMR page not listing alternative view points, what is the whole MMR vaccine#The MMR controversy and MMR vaccine#Recent studies sections that form the greater part of the whole article ? If the question is that MMR vaccine should mention alternative POV about measles itself, then by definition these alternative POVs are not about the vaccine itself, but are about the disease and would belong in the specific disease article. That said, I do not believe every infectious disease page in wikipedia needs duplicate alternate view points that disagree with the microbes-cause-infections concept (but perhaps appropriate under the overbridging topics of infection or microbes). David Ruben Talk 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The homeopathic view, the naturopathic view, the nutritional medicine view . They don't deny measles is infectious, but I'd like an explanation as to why you deny people those viewpoints on Wiki? john 20:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps because their viewpoints aren't verifiable? Andrew73 23:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Try harder, the evidence is even on Wiki Fred R. Klenner, better on whale.to, which also makes Midgley's WP:RSclaim to be pure WP:POV. john 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is admirably laid out. Its comments on interest and independence and evaluationg secondary sources are relevant, and worth reading if only in order to demonstrate that whale.to does not fall foul of any of them. Alternatively, if WP:RS is a clearly wrong, incorrect, unfair policy, then it is the same as any page in WP and available to any editor to simply edit until it says what they know it should say. Midgley 23:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)#

It is absurd to say whale.to is all WP:RS. Bit like saying the same for the British Library. It has the largest collection of books on smallpox vaccination available on the internet [/vaccines/smallpox14.html]. So let's see you make out those 19cent books aren't a reliable source. WP:POV. john 08:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What I am saying is that (according to my understanding of WP:RS and empirically to others understanding of it) Whale is not a WP:RS. This is not a matter of what is in Whale, it is a matter of several things which are laid out - as headings with explanations - in the page WP:RS. ganfyd (in whcih I have an interest) is probably a reliable secondary or in places perhaps tertiary source by WP:RS. Meditating upon the differences between ganfyd and Whale which lead to this may be enlightening. I think this discussion is going round in circles as we write past each other, and I may simply stop responding to it, but I would be interested in which headings of the [page WP:RS john feels don't apply to WHale. Midgley 08:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You are pushing your WP:POV. Can you let User:Davidruben explain his reasons, he seems to be hiding behind you. john 10:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection, I have never edited WP:RS and therefore whoever's POV it is, it is not mine. I do beleive it to be a good one, but the key point here is that it is Wikipedia's, and if you want to change it, go there to change it, not argue repeatedly on teh same grounds here. There is a WP dispute resolution procedure, and by all means make an RFC to assert that Whale is a Reliable Source and WP:RS must be edited to allow for it. Please don't carry on telling us individually about it, change (or at least confront and argue against) the policy of the community. Midgley 17:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Not "hiding", just spreading my time amongst other topics on wikipedia (reading articles as well as contributing). Anyway do you care what I think, given that merely being a doctor makes you flag me "as biased" ? Whatever you might have intended by that, I perceived it as a personal attack & failing to assume good faith. So why should I wish to try debating with someone who seems so single-issue focused and runs a personal blog site - if its not a blog, then has the site a wiki community input team ? The site is trolling in as much that only one point of view is expressed (or expressed even-handedly in wikipedia's NPOV style). Finally it is unscientific in as much that it selectively decides which opinions/statements/article/books to cite and is highly selective of what is quoted. If i select just the last word of "reasonably certain" then I am portrayed as absolutist and can be rediculed for being fixed in my ideas - likewise selecting from published (specific scientific publications and others) distorts the overall balance of an argument. Unfortunately you may be correct that some of the material on your site are fair comments/quotes, but the very nature of the site is so conspiratorial & unscientific (as viewed by the majority of doctors, health departments and medical researchers) that your site is questionable to quote from at all. Also as the sole writer of the website, links to it in wikipedia seems like personal advertising to increase linkthrough traffic. Things progress (or regress from your viewpoint) and having a website that includes rejection of vaccination from a few doctors in the 1910's seems hardly relevant to current understanding of medicine as also being preventative and current selection of vaccines. Finally others have added comments which I mostly agree with (not entirely, and some more strongly/negatively phrased than I might) and the "debate" seemed to be going quite well without my immediately having to jump back in :-) David Ruben Talk 15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly a convincing argument. The reasons--that was smallpox vaccination, it had been around for over 100 years by then, and was demolished by these medical doctors, William Job Collins, Charles Creighton, Beddow Bayly, Edgar Crookshank and the scientist Alfred Wallace---you can see your fellow medical people trying to make them appear insubstantial by cutting texts, attempting to delete eg Charles Pearce [6], Robert Mendelsohn [7] etc, making Beddow Bayly appear an idiot [8], and so on. Now we have dozens of recent medical doctors, like Robert Mendelsohn, Beddow Bayly, Gerhard Buchwald, Lanctot, Yazbak, and so on. I prefer to go after the truth rather than sit on the fence. As for site traffic, the only decenet argument to put down an attempt to increase site traffic is---if it was selling something---for money. doctors, health departments and medical researchers all agree, no surprise there, they all belong to the same industry. As silly as saying all car makers agree that making new roads is a good idea. Just because you have the majority in numbers you think that is the only one that needs expressing, as that is the Wiki pages, with the odd pejorative one called Anti-vaccinationists. Basically you have expressed your POV. john 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopaths support vaccination link

MMR the facts: MMR basics - What about homeopathic alternatives? [9] This gives the misleading impression homeopathy supports vaccination, but the Faculty of Homeopath is a minority, and all allopaths, so they would say that. "The Faculty of Homoeopathy speaks for a medically qualified minority. The more numerous medically unqualified homoeopaths belong to the Society of Homoeopaths, the Institute of Complementary Medicine, or the Homoeopathic Medical Association, totalling some 2000 practitioners. None of these bodies supports vaccination."--Peter Morrell john 09:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • These opinions (right or wrong) are about vaccination in general, rather than being specifically about measles. Hence they deserve to be more under the overall vaccination article, rather than a specific member of the group.
  • I would totally agree that it is only this group of homeopaths who are generally strongly in favour of vaccination (interesting that they feel vaccines "prove" the homeopathic principle of a little of what causes a disease might be used to prevent/treat it - but that is another discussion) and the other groups are most clearly not. This divergence of opinion is I think confusing to the general public & doctors who are not aware of the different groups/traditions that homeopaths might belong to. John, is this a specifically UK division of opinion, or is a similar situation seen in other countries ? Should not this information be added to Homeopathy#Homeopathy and vaccination section ?
  • I do not think that, in general, arguements against "all vaccinations" need be discussed in detail on each vaccination page (as duplication), but rather a short link to a single page that discusses the viewpoints seems a more sensible way or organising within wikipedia (afterall a single encyclopaedia). In particular links to problems with a treatment should be on the treatment article rather than a disease article (hence issues of antibiotics resulting in super-resistant bacteria belongs not under sore throat or otitis media, nor the specific antibiotics amoxicillin or flucloxacillin, but rather under antibiotics or the specific article: staphylococcus aureus). David Ruben Talk 14:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Davidruben is correct as above. Is this a description of the majority of homeopaths as anti-vaccination? Midgley 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The link is what I call 'lying with the truth' in that it is an attempt to give people the belief that homeopaths support vaccination, whereas the vast majority don't. Only allopathic ones, which tells a tale, although one homeopathic MD has written a book denouncing vaccination. john 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I note it is stated that (a subset of) homeopaths do not support vaccination. Are they neutral about it? Do they oppose it? Midgley 13:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutritional vitamin C cure of measles left out

The Nutritional treatment of measles has been left out. I would put it in but I am sure allopath Davidruben would remove it. john 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a very curious reference. It is hard to identify what claim John is making. Children with viral illnesses were given Vitamin C and a few days later were better. Every week we have children with viral diseases who are not given VItamin C, and a few days later they are better. The chap with testicles the size of tennis balls was improved 36 hours later - well, yes, he would be. And if you take two chaps with 4 tennis balls, and inject one with Vitamin C and one with saline, they'll be better abou the same time. If you walk round them anticlockwise trailing a ball of incense and they are better in a few days it doesn't indicate that if you didn't they wouldn't have been. The thing that is missing is a critical sense. Midgley 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German measles

Somebody please write more about the german kind of measels. It is left very unproffesional - anon contribution, 30 March 2007

Please see Rubella for a discussion of the "German measles". It is actually a distinct disease from the measles addressed here. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Outbreak

There is currently (May 2007) a measles outbreak at several colleges in Tokyo. Several have closed for a week but I dont have more information.

There is a link now on the main article (under "Public Health") to a web page which discusses the Japanese outbreak at length; nobody please move it back to "MMR Eradication". That paragraph talks about outbreaks in the Americas (where the disease has already been eradicated) that are being caused by viruses imported from other world regions. In the Western Pacific Region (which includes Japan) measles is still endemic, and the current outbreak is not import-related, but rather a continuation of local transmission in that country.

--I apologize if this appears somewhat pedantic on my part, but the Japanese outbreak information keeps being moved back to "MMR Eradication", and there is no way that I could fit this entire explanation on an update summary.  :P -- Pine 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Outbreak in San Diego, CA

This article ought to be updated to include the recent outbreak of measles in the San Diego, CA area. San Diego, CA outbreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.90.99 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy in Public Health and Eradication sections

Both sections site the outbreak of measles in Indiana in 2005. I believe it just needs to be in one of these sections. I can't decide which though. Someone help. Saritamackita (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion for section Worldwide MMR Eradication

While it looks like there is some good information here on recent outbreaks, there is also some information that is distinctly not about Measles or even specifically the MMR vaccine. This information should probably be moved to another article, possibly on the MMR Vaccine itself. It would be preferable to mention MMR vaccine only as it specifically relates to Measles in this artical on Measles. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) "Worldwide MMR Eradication (Not to be confused with the World Health Organization's Measles Initiative)... There are also plans underway to eliminate rubella from the region by 2010.[12] As of 2006, endemic cases were still being reported in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela, they are currently vaccinating Dominican Republic.[citation needed] While some have proposed eradication,[15] none is likely to take place until, at least, after the worldwide eradication of Poliomyelitis."