Talk:Vaccine controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaccine controversy article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
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.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Merge?

Should the article Anti-vaccinationist be merged into this one? The two articles cover a lot of the same ground, and I do not see a reason why there should not be a single cohesive article on this subject, as opposed to two disorganised ones. -Severa (!!!) 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. Anti-vaccinationist is a logical section here in vaccine controversy, in my opinion. Heathhunnicutt 05:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Anti-vaccinationists are a group of people against vaccines. They oppose them because of a controversy. Merging the two articles would be like merging Libertarianism with the Libertarian Party. Sincerely, Sutjo. Sutjo-18005 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No they don't. Not because of. They seek to produce the appearance of controversy because they oppose vaccination. And they claim not to be a group, around this article and in other places. Midgley (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about the lead

I have two concerns about recent edits to the lead. First, mentioning (in the first paragraph, no less) a U.S. bill proposing to investigate a vaccine/autism link is a bit odd. This is not only recentist and U.S.-centric, but the bill has not even been voted on, so far as I can tell, and its prospects for becoming law are unknown. Mention it, sure, but in the lead?

Secondly, the final paragraph on the vaccine compensation fund has some of the same issues of U.S.-centrism, and it seems like a non-sequitur in its current position in the lead paragraph. Undoubtedly, the fund needs to be mentioned in this article, but again, I don't think it's necessarily lead material, especially since the fund itself does not seem particularly "controversial", and the paragraph doesn't make clear how it relates to the "vaccine controversy". MastCell Talk 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead was POV without those additions, MC, and basically read as though written by a pro-vaccination campaigner. We have to describe the dispute, not engage in it. Therefore, we must do two things in the lead: make clear (1) that the vaccination/autism issue remains unresolved, and (2) that no one denies that vaccination does harm people. The way the lead was written, the reader would be left with the impression that there was no truth whatsoever in the claims that vaccines can cause damage, whereas no one is saying they don't. What is at issue is which ones do, and to what extent they do.
The fund relates directly to both issues, because first it shows that govts do acknowledge that vaccination can cause serious damage to some children, and secondly because families are currently battling to have autism included in the list of diseases that might be compensated for, and the govt is resisting that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I admit that the lead was POV. I was frustrated by how awful these two articles are. They didn't even mention the alleged autism link in the lead. Yes, a certain number of people will become ill and some will die from compulsory vaccines, and this raises interesting ethical questions, and I agree that the fund is a good illustration of it. However, the bill is an absurd WP:WEIGHT problem. Carolyn Maloney proposed a similar bill last year, which went nowhere. She and Dave Weldon also proposed removing vaccination safety from CDC oversight and creating a new government agency for immunizations. That Carolyn Maloney proposed this bill simply means that Carolyn Maloney (and cynically, plaintiffs attorneys) take the link seriously. Cool Hand Luke 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
We do need to take care to respect WP:WEIGHT here, as well as try to avoid lede-bloating. Not every issue and every argument needs to be made in the lede. As MastCell has suggested, including an unpassed bill as the fourth sentence may be giving undue weight to an isolated factoid. (As well, the way in which the information is presented – "...require the National Institutes of Health to conduct an epidemiological study to determine whether there is a link [between vaccines and autism]" – leaves out any mention of studies which already exist on this topic, as well as prior U.S. government work (by the IOM and others).)
We also need to be careful to avoid presenting the issue as entirely black-and-white. I know of no responsible scientist or physician who would deny that any vaccination program carries with it a small (but nonzero) incidence of adverse effects, yet the lede implies that only vaccine critics/skeptics acknowledge safety concerns or adverse events. Among vaccine critics, there are those who believe (correctly or not) that there are specific problems with specific vaccines while still generally supporting most vaccination programs; there are also those who believe that all vaccination is a sham, that vaccines are the work of the Devil or the military-industrial complex, and that the germ theory of disease was cooked up by Freemasons. Some among the former can be engaged reasonably, the latter are wingnut conspiracy theorists who can (or at least should) be ignored by policy makers and the public. This problem is also mirrored to an extent in the article as a whole, which is divided sharply into pro- and anti- vaccination sections—any nuance or subtlety of position is lost, and we're left giving the impression that this is some sort of epic battle between two diametrically opposed sides.
Finally, the third paragraph about the U.S. compensation program is material that belongs in the article body, not in the lede. It's too specific and too U.S.-centric for an introduction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's U.S.-centric is irrelevant. What matters is whether it's informative, appropriate, and well-sourced. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, per WP:LEAD, it should be all of those things, plus "...the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." I don't see a preponderance of reliable, published sources on the vaccine controversy mentioning this proposed legislation, though perhaps I'm missing something. MastCell Talk 05:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't deny the lead was suboptimal before. I do think, though, that if we are to accurately characterize the dispute (again, without engaging in it), we should not pretend that the pro- and anti-vaccination camps are equally represented among experts in the field. We should also put the uncertainty re: autism and the harms of vaccination in much sharper perspective than the current intro does. Certainly the vaccine-autism link is an ongoing public concern which should be covered in depth here. But when a large number of scientific and medical organizations weigh in, stating that the currently available evidence does not support a link, then WP:WEIGHT demands we at least mention that. As to the vaccine injury fund, as you say, no one disputes that serious vaccine injuries do occur. The other side of the coin, though, is that such injuries are both exceedingly rare and orders of magnitude less common and severe than deaths and complications from the diseases prevented by vaccination. The "vaccine controversy" described in this article has very little to do with the known, rare complications of vaccination (which the fund addresses), and a lot to do with unproven harms such as autism, "immune overload", etc. In order to accurately characterize that debate, we need to draw a sharper focus. MastCell Talk 05:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute that the material about the U.S. compensation program is informative, nor that it's well-sourced, nor even that it's a valuable and appropriate bit of information for this article. However, I disagree that it belongs in the lede. It's too much space used for too-specific and too-detailed a piece of information. The reader is left to wonder what that factoid is trying to convey, floating all by itself there in the introduction. Are we trying to say that vaccines are dangerous? That vaccines are safe, in that only about 75 people per year have filed claims? That policymakers are anti-vaccine and want to publicize adverse events? That policymakers are pro-vaccine, and want to comfort the public by saying in the unlikely event of an adverse reaction their children will be taken care of? Does the trust fund have anything to do with the vaccine controversy at all, or is it just a way for the government to streamline a process that would otherwise involve costly and complicated lawsuits between injured parties, health agencies, state and federal governments, the CDC, and drug companies?
Do you see where I'm coming from here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the MMR controversy to it's own page

The MMR controversy takes up a disproportionate part of the article. It's longer than all of the separate Thiomersal controversy article. The MMR controversy is somewhat complicated with all the media aspects etc and thus essential information would be dropped if it were significantly trimmed down. I think it would be reasonable to move the MMR controversy to a separate article. --Jkpjkp 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This one makes sense to me. It has been proposed before, though, no? Have you looked into the history to see why it didn't happen earlier? If not, please do so. Eubulides 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename article to "Vaccine controversies" (proposal withdrawn --Jkpjkp 10:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

It would seem reasonable to rename the article to "Vaccine controversies" as there are many separate controversies - thiomersal, MMR/autism, vaccination and religion, the debates over the role which vaccines had in the decline of different diseases, the debate over how common adverse effects are, the debate whether vaccines cause diabetes, the debate whether vaccines cause other autoimmune disease etc. --Jkpjkp 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Andrew73 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. All other things being equal, it's (1) better to use a singular title than a plural one, and (2) better to stick with the name that has been long been used, rather than change it. Any major political, religious, or medical controversy is actually a collection of smaller controversies, and this one is no different. There is not a compelling reason to change the name, so let's leave the name alone. Eubulides 00:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Point (3) - I think there were more than a hundred links to "Vaccine controversy" and last I checked, there was no automatic way to fix them, and I tend to agree with your point (1) and I guess your point (2) makes sense as well. I withdraw the proposal; I think we can work with the article named as it's now, and the controversies in separate sections (or separate articles where warranted). --Jkpjkp 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is now breathtakingly biased

This article has been substantially rewritten by a single editor, and is now breathtakingly biased. Section title after section title present arguments against vaccination, without even a token effort to present the mainstream view. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox for minority opinion; it is supposed to prevent a fair summary of the consensus view. Eubulides 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article has not been rewritten, but the issues have been rearranged so the subject is handled in a more analytic way. The aim of the article is to describe the controversies, and section titles refer to the issues of controversy. I agree that the article needs to have more referenced content for the viewpoint defending use of vaccines in each controversy. The solution to this is simple - editors need to add that kind of content. --Jkpjkp 10:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the severity of the cleanup issues; familiarity with WP:MOS would help. Is there a better version that can be reverted to ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes the version of 2007-08-18T00:07:58 UTC is a better version that can be reverted to. This is the version just before Jkpjkp started a large series of edits that introduced massive bias. The old version is superior to the current version in overall quality, and far superior in neutrality of point of view. (I'm not claiming the old version is great; just that the current version is quite bad.) There are a few improvements made in the new version; they can be folded into the old one as needed. This would be the simplest way to restore quality. Eubulides 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the MMR controversy section, the version of 2007-08-18T00:07:58 UTC has severe problems and fundamental bias - rather than telling what each side of the controversy is saying, it reads like an attempt to try and list people's concerns (in a very biased way, like "anti-vaccinationist assertions") about vaccines and refute them. That is not what the article is supposed to be about; it's supposed to neutrally describe the vaccine controversies. --Jkpjkp 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, the old version of 2007-08-18T00:07:58 UTC had problems. But it is far superior to the current one in terms of avoiding bias. Here's just one example. The old version's lead gives four sentences to skeptics of vaccination, and two sentences to mainstream opinion. This is biased against the mainstream, which was bad enough, as Wikipedia guideline is to align with the mainstream (see WP:FRINGE). However, the two sentences were longer and were placed at the end, so it wasn't too bad. In contrast, the current version's lead gives four sentences to skeptics, and zero sentences to the mainstream. This is breathtakingly biased against the mainstream opinion. This is just one example of recently-introduced bias; there are many, many others. Eubulides 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The simplest way to fix the problems is to revert to the old version and start bringing in the few recent improvements incrementally. I don't like doing things this way (I have never done it in the past) but the current situation is extraordinary in my experience. The recently-introduced massive bias has also affected MMR vaccine controversy; most likely it has affected other subpages too (I haven't checked). Eubulides 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted. Honestly, when I encounter an article in such bad shape, I wonder if it's not time for a Request for Comment on the editor introducing so much deterioration. It's hard to know where to start, but cleaning up the basic violations in WP:MSH, WP:MOS and WP:CITE/ES would make the article at least more readable. It's truly hard to know where to start, so a return to an earlier version is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to the comment in #Quality issues about whether the theory that MMR vaccine causes autism is a "fringe theory". It's not as fringe a theory as (say) the theory that autism is caused by diabolical possession. But it is more of a fringe theory than (say) the theory that autism is largely caused by exposure to pesticides. All these theories are most likely incorrect, based on the scientific evidence that we have now. The MMR vaccine theory was briefly plausible but has been investigated and discarded. This is not a question of my opinion: it's a question of what the reliable sources say. Eubulides 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The bias issues seem to have been cleaned up by reverting and subsequent editing, so I removed the POV tag. Also, the OR and weasel tags seem to be obsolete, so I removed them as well. The article still neads cleanup big-time, though. Eubulides (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
When I wrote the first draft, the intention was an article about anti-vaccinationists. One of the anti-vaccinationist tactics is to disguise themselves as mere critics of some aspect or aspects of some vaccinations. Midgley (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_7910416 195.38.117.220 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality issues

The article is marked for cleanup since June 2006, which was one thing which prompted me to start rearranging the article and making other edits. As can be seen on the page edit log, opinion has been expressed that the edits have made the article quality lower than higher. Could we be more specific, and discuss what the quality issues are? NPOV and weasel words are two which are tagged separately, but how about other issues. For example, the long list of external reference seems like quite a big portion of this article - while it gives references to the article subject, is it disproportionate? How about organization / subtitling? I think it still needs some work - maybe some grouping of the controversies, as there are quite many subtitles now at the same level. Also, the "Common arguments" for and against vaccinations seem redundant and repetitive after the Overview - how about ditching them and writing a Summary at the end instead? Maybe that would also alleviate the NPOV concern, since the summary could repeat the claims of each public health organization and government that their policy is the right one. --Jkpjkp 10:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The most important quality issue is the amazingly strong bias that has been introduced in the recent edits, discussed in #Article is now breathtakingly biased above. There are several other problems with the recent edits, but they are secondary. I am aware that other Wikipedia editors favor the fringe theory that vaccines cause autism, but that does not make the theory mainstream. Eubulides 14:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's obvious from writing (fringe theory that vaccines cause autism) that you think there is no chance that vaccines cause autism. However, the article is not meant to reflect your opinions, or be a refutation of peoples thoughts or theories you think are "fringe". There are a lot of controversies with vaccines - and sure, you can probably find some in which the suspection of the risk can be called "fringe". However, for example the question of whether there's enough evidence about the safety of MMR is not some kind of "fringe" question - the Cochrane Collaboration, reports that there were no studies good enough to fulfill their inclusion criteria. Thus, it appears there not that much hard evidence to support the safety. In any case, the article should be about _reporting_ the issue and viewpoints, not about _refuting_ the concerns as you seem to think it should be doing. See WP:NPOV - no viewpoint should be asserted as 'the truth'. --Jkpjkp 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I address the question of bias in #Article is now breathtakingly biased above. Eubulides 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The external links are a mess; I would favor getting rid of all of them now, and adding back one at a time as they are shown to add encyclopedic value per WP:EL. I think the quality issues were mainly in the layout, which has always been highly unsatisfactory; rather than juxtaposing "claims of the mainstream" with "claims of anti-vaccinationists", we should probably address these in a more synthesized fashion to avoid re-engaging in the debate. "Summaries" are a bit dangerous since they generally run the risk of improper synthesis.
I think a good first step would be to identify a number of solid, reliable sources on the vaccine controversy which we can draw from to create a better article. There are such sources; the controversy has been covered fairly responsibly by elements of the mainstream media, for example. We should remove the unsourced or poorly sourced stuff and add it back as we find supporting sources. Right now we have a bunch of unsourced arguments that editors (many of whom are no longer active here) wanted to advance, and we're trying to find sources to back up those arguments. That's back-asswards. MastCell Talk 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, in principle that sounds reasonable. However, if it means in practice that the viewpoints published in publications of organizations like American Physicians and Surgeons will be removed because someone considers the organization "political", it seems like suppresion of relevant information. --Jkpjkp 16:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons does have a primarily political rather than scientific agenda, as noted by the New York Times and other reliable sources. From a scientific standpoint, the use of any journal not indexed on MEDLINE is highly questionable; MEDLINE is how scientists learn about others' work, read about it, and cite it in their own work. A non-MEDLINE-indexed publication is essentially outside the sphere of mainstream scientific discourse and should be treated as such. What I particularly objected to, in this context, is that the JPandS studies were juxtaposed to "rebut" the Cochrane Library findings, which is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. The Cochrane Library is one of the most respected and conservative evidence-evaluation bodies in medicine (as you've alluded to); claiming that their careful analysis is somehow balanced by an article in JPandS is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. MastCell Talk 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understood what you meant by your edit comment. A couple of comments - first, the vaccine issue is political, and very political in USA, which (unlike most countries in the world) has compulsory vaccinations. Excluding reference from someone on the basis that the publisher of the journal is primarily something else than "medical" (in whose opinion?), doesn't seem to be warranted. Should we exclude all studies funded by vaccine manufacturers, on the basis that the manufacturers are commercial in nature? Should we exclude all studies with publishers who are commercial? Second, the JPANDS article reference in no way is presented to "rebut" anything, it's just one in a list of studies. The article editors shouldn't aim to rebut or refute the criticism presented, they should report it. WP:NPOV (Oh, and by the way, it appears JPANDS was already characterized in the article, so the relevant background of the journal/organization was clear) --Jkpjkp 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to include political commentary, but the politics of the issue should not be presented as if they're the science of the issue. The JPandS paragraph I removed was clearly designed to "rebut" Cochrane; I agree that it's inappropriate. Simply put, we should not present work from a non-MEDLINE-indexed "house magazine of a far-right group" as if it's the equal, in scientific terms, of more respected work. I'm fine with quoting JPandS as an example of a particular brand of anti-vaccinationism (motivated primarily by libertarianism and anti-govermentalism rather than religion etc), just not as a high-quality source of scientific information. MastCell Talk 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Should there be included a section on the goals of individuals and groups opposed to vaccination? Obviously, the section on compulsory vaccination is self-contained. But, if someone is opposed to vaccination, are they against everyone receiving a vaccine? Are they against all vaccines or just some? What if an individual wants a vaccine? Should they be prevented from receiving one? Or is someone opposed to vaccination just simply not willing to get on themselves. These seem like obvious questions that just aren't answered. Justin Custer 08:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit much for a whole section. I added a note to Vaccine controversy #Religion noting that religious objections are to all vaccinations, even when they are not compulsory; hope that clarifies thins enough. Objections based on individual liberty are obviously to compulsory only, as you mention. Objections based on ineffectiveness, safety, etc., apply to all vaccinations; surely this is obvious too. Eubulides 08:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements and adding back references

I had added references to many of the unsourced statements - all of those were wiped out by User:SandyGeorgia who did a massive wipe of the recent edits after very little discussion but with lots of shouting and handwaving by User:SandyGeorgia. Now I'm wondering whether there's a point in re-adding the references, or will they have the same fate again. Any guesses? --Jkpjkp 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good citations would be welcome. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources for advice about what sort of sources to use, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) #Citing medical sources for more advice about good citations. Briefly, the best sources are systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, and widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field. The source you relied on heavily, namely Halvorsen's new book (ISBN 9781903933923) doesn't qualify as one of these high-quality sources. Eubulides 23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of the controversies surrounding vaccines are not controversies inside the medical research community, and in those cases it's not rational to demands sources from the medical research literature. For example, when a sentence in the article provides an example of a criticism of vaccines presented by a medical doctor like Dr Halvorsen, it's not rational to demand that the article provides a medical journal reference for what Halvorsen said. Or, if the article describes a parents' organization's position on the thiomersal controversy, it's not rational to demand that a medican journal be provided to present what the parents' organization said. --Jkpjkp 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If all it takes to make something a reliable source is to prepend "Joe Shmoe said" to a controversial claim, then there will be no end to the sort of junk one could put into the lead. If that is all it takes, we could no doubt source a claim that vaccines are an invention of the Devil. However, I don't think that would be a fair summary of the state of vaccine controversies. If a criticism of vaccines is on religious grounds, then a reliable source would be a generally recognized religious body like the Vatican. If the criticism is on scientific grounds, then the usual scientific rules apply. The Halvorsen book is unrefereed, it is put out by a political publisher, and it was written by a doctor whose main expertise, as far as I know, is general practice and acupuncture. Surely stronger sources exist on the skeptical side. The Cochrane Library is much better, for instance. Again, please see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS for details about what constitutes a reliable source in the medical area. Eubulides 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The title of the article is not "Medical community's view on vaccines", but "Vaccine controversy" - the aim of the article is not to describe just what is the medical community's view. The aim is to describe vaccine controversies, not to resolve the controversies one way or another, and not to describe just the "mainstream medical view" (or major medical views) on vaccines but to describe controversies and other views on vaccines. Halvorsen's book does a good job of presenting recent concerns voiced by parents, researchers like the ones having written the Cochrane report, and thus is a perfectly reasonable reference to use in describing some of the controversies. --Jkpjkp 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not say Halvorsen should not be cited, just that more-reliable sources are preferable. I agree with you that the article should describe the controversy fairly using the usual Wikipedia rules. However, Halvorsen's book does not summarize the controversy fairly, nor does it meet the high standards that Wikipedia strives for in sources, particularly in sources for medical articles; so citations to it must be taken with a grain of salt. Surely there are better sources for the skeptical side. Eubulides 20:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to entry 23 does not seem to be valid

The following entry in the text:

* Secondary and long-term effects on the immune system from introducing immunogens and immunologic adjuvants directly into the body are not fully understood. Some autoimmune diseases, like acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis and multiple sclerosis, are known, suspected, hypothesized, or claimed to be connected to vaccines.[23]

Refers to reference 23:

  1. ^ GlaxoSmithKline. Prescribing Information—Energix-B® [Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant)]. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.

The referenced article does not validate any of the above claims. It could be that there is no citation, or that the incorrect citation is being used. If anyone knows and could correct, that would be good... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.25.115 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I replaced that reference with a request for an on-point source. Eubulides 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the phrase "known, suspected, hypothesized, or claimed." Many of those are, in fact, "hypothesized or claimed", but it makes it sound like they might just be "known" to be connected to vaccines. We should probably be more specific. A better source, I agree, would be the place to start. MastCell Talk 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccination and liberty

About Vaccination and Liberty -- does anyone actually argue that vaccination is an infringement of some sort of right, besides conspiracy theorists? Do we allow baseless conspiracy theories to be repeated as legitimate on wikipedia? Can I delete this section?

Certainly the section could be improved, but the subject is not a conspiracy theory: there have been two U.S. Supreme Court cases on it. I added a couple of references to help clarify things a bit. Eubulides (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccination and schizophrenia

Removing for citation and interpretation according to medical sources, see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS:

  • Recent studies have linked prenatal exposure to maternal antibodies for influenza as a risk factor in the development of schizophrenia in children.[1] The vaccine for the flu causes the same antibody production, potentially elevating the risk of schizophrenia in children in the womb. Results are preliminary and scientist still recommend that pregnant woman receive the flu shot, since having the flu during pregnancy is hazardous both to the fetus and the mother. Shankar, Vedantam. "A Theory That Raises Questions Schizophrenia Risk May Start in Womb", Washington Post, November 27, 2007, p. HE01. Retrieved on 2007-11-29. 

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible sources (I don't have full access):

Brown et al. 2004 is an influential study, though the concern about prenatal infections and neurological disorders goes way back. Penner & Brown 2007 (PMID 17610387) looks like a great source, but it's not in my library. Brown's 2006 summary (PMID 16469941) is the best reviewish thing I could find (it's not really a review, but it does summarize his recent work well, it's free, and Brown is 1st-class). I added a section along these lines but am not particularly happy with it (especially the article organization; what a mess!). Perhaps someone can improve it? Eubulides (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I nominate MastCell :-) If no one else gets to it, I'll give it a try, but it's over my head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If drafted, I will not run... if nominated, I will not accept... :) I will try to get to this, though it will take some reading and time is a bit tight at the moment. Here's my first impression - there is a hypothesis that pre-natal viral infections may be a risk factor for schizophrenia or other mental illness, and this hypothesis is supported by at least some good evidence. However, we're talking not about viruses but about vaccines here. It's a major jump to say that vaccine-induced immunity will have the same (proposed) harmful effects as viral infection. Is there a reliable source directly linking vaccine-induced immune activation with schizophrenia? My first glance indicates that the sources above all discuss actual infection, not vaccination. Well, one source does discuss IL-6 as a mediator in rats, but I would think that IL-6 levels after vaccination are dramatically lower than after an actual influenza infection. MastCell Talk 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Eubulides had added a nice short blurb, but someone else deleted it. Greek to me :-) Shermanesque statements ... hmmm !!! I was thinking more in terms of how to reorganize the entire page. I've been tackling some of the less medically-oriented parts of the autism garden, but this one is hard for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Yes, I would really like for Wikipedia to have a good, solid, balanced, readable article on this topic, because it's fairly relevant. The organization of the article is suboptimal, but it's so entrenched that it will be hard to reorganize. Let me think about it... Ideally, I'd like to move away from a point-counterpoint style to a more flowing narrative (this is what I tried to do on AIDS reappraisal), but it will be tricky. MastCell Talk 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree on getting rid of point-counterpoint, but it's nontrivial to do so. User:Jkpjkp tried to reorganize the article that way in August (you can see the results here) but inserted so much bias into the article that the whole thing had to be reverted. Organization-wise I thought it was better than point-counterpoint (you might want to take a look) but it still needed work. Eubulides (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MastCell did you read the article from the Washington Post (linked above), where Brown who is one of the researchers in this filed is quoted? Its not the infection its self that is the problem but the immunological response the mother has to the infection and since the flu shot produced the same response. The incidence of mental illness from pre-natal infections is low, and the question now seems to be were the incidence is the same for a flu infection verses immunization. What percent of pregnant women will get the flu, and is it advisable for all pregnant woman to be immunized. If there is good chance of contracting the flu- one is better off being immunized. The sources from medpub are older papers that do not really propose a mechanism that harms the fetus, Brown makes the case that we can pin the problem on maternal antigens (antibodies) effecting the fetus during its early development. Hopefully a full pledged study will be published soon- but there was no indication of this in the Washington Post piece. The story went out yesterday over the wire servecs and I came across it in our local paper first. Hardyplants (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, to be honest I started reading from the PubMed ID's and didn't read the Washington Post piece until you mentioned it again just now. It sounds like Patterson is the leading exponent of the hypothesis that flu shots might also be a risk factor. As you say, there does not appear to be any experimental evidence to support the idea, though Patterson hopes to see such research in the future per the article. Perhaps we can work this in as pure speculation (albeit speculation by a researcher in the field), but without supporting scientific data it's hard to gauge its notability (especially as the Washington Post piece just came out, so it's hard to guess how much traction this will pick up in the popular press). Thanks for re-directing me to the Post article - I'd skipped over it. MastCell Talk 06:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I read the articles and they don't even slightly support the supposition that vaccinations cause anything but, let's hold our breath here, an immune response. I'm shocked. Just shocked! Anyways, everything I'm reading is that there is no evidence. The danger of these PMID articles is that they are only abstracts (unless you have access to the whole article, which some of us have). Most of the abstracts are written with very broad language. Some of them (not here) might say something like, "further study is required", meaning they haven't found crap, but sure go ahead and try. Anyways, this Schizophrenia and immunization theory is exactly the definition of fringe theory. I'm with MastCell. Speculation, at best. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify that speculation by an expert in the field, published by major newspapers, may be worthy of inclusion here. I'm on the fence about that. I'm just not sure whether we should put it in now, making clear the level of uncertainty involved, or wait to see how much popular traction the idea gets. If it leads to pregnant women declining flu shots en masse, then regardless of the level of medical evidence it will be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That seems prudent, my main concern is that people will draw the wrong conclusion from the news paper story and forgo vaccinations, this is a unique situation and its still safer not to get the flu while pregnant. I believe Orangmarlin is being to hasty in dismissing the issue though. A good number of leading researches seems to think it is plausible and the animal study illustrated in the story was very interesting. A formal paper would be more interesting to read thought. Hardyplants (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know of no reliable source directly linking vaccine-induced maternal immune activation with the child's schizophrenia, or with any other neurological disorder in the child for that matter. That's not to say there's no link. It's an active research area. Let's put it this way: I know of no reliable review where the authors say one way or another whether such a link is plausible. Eubulides (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prenatal infection

User:Hardyplants reverted the new section on the grounds that it "was a misunderstanding of the issue, Its the mothers imulogical response that is harmful to the baby, not the virus its self." I'm afraid this is based on a misreading of the new section. The new section does not say that the virus harms the baby. It says there is evidence that exposure to infection helps cause schizophrenia. This closely mimicks the cited source (Brown 2006), which says "Accumulating evidence suggests that prenatal exposure to infection contributes to the etiology of schizophrenia." I see nothing incorrect about the new section, as far as it went; it was deliberately vague about exactly how an infection might cause schizophrenia. But I sense that Hardyplants also wants the article to contain something about a possible link from flu vaccine via maternal immune response and schizophrenia. Here the scientific case is much more speculative, but I made a further change to try to address that point. Eubulides (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin then reverted the further change, on the grounds that "Neither reference supported this silly piece of original research." I don't see how Orangemarlin could have come to that conclusion. The new section is not original research. Here are all the sentences in the new section, along with quotes from the cited sources that directly support these sentences.

  • "There is evidence that prenatal exposure to infection helps cause schizophrenia." This is directly supported by the first reference (Brown 2006, PMID 16469941) which says, "Accumulating evidence suggests that prenatal exposure to infection contributes to the etiology of schizophrenia."
  • "Associations have been found between schizophrenia and rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis." This is directly supported by Brown 2006's "Prenatal infections that have been associated with schizophrenia include rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis."
  • "For example, one study found a seven-fold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation." This is directly supported by Brown 2006's "first trimester exposure to influenza conferred a 7-fold increased risk".
  • "This may have important public health implications, since there are several strategies for preventing influenza and other infections, including vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygienic measures." This is directly supported by Brown 2006's "This may have important public health implications, given that there are many available preventive strategies for influenza and other infections, including vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygienic measures."
  • "When weighing the benefits of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia, influenza vaccination for women of reproductive age still makes sense, but it is not known whether vaccination during pregnancy helps or harms." This is directly supported from the following quote from Arehart-Treichel 2007: "'Vaccination against influenza for women who are of reproductive age and sexually active makes sense. It isn't clear yet whether influenza vaccination during pregnancy could be helpful or harmful,' Brown added. 'One needs to weigh the benefit of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of a vaccine-induced antibody elevation that could conceivably predispose to schizophrenia.'"

I suppose one could argue that the new section relies too heavily on Brown, but Brown is one of the most important researchers in this area, and I don't detect any sign of him being on the fringe. So, unless I hear good arguments otherwise, I'm inclined to put this material back in, in one form or another. Eubulides (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps OrangeMarlin hasn't encountered your editing before or hasn't separated your editing from those he usually reverts. It's certainly ... interesting ... to see your edits being associated with "fringe theories". The danger of these PMID articles is that they are only abstracts (unless you have access to the whole article, which some of us have). Most of the abstracts are written with very broad language. OrangeMarlin, Eubulides reads the research, and not just single studies; he seeks out reviews. He is not in the habit of 1) basing his edits on PubMed abstracts or 2) basing his edits on the popular press. Please discuss, and try not to use words like "original research"[1] in your edit summaries about serious Wiki editors who have authored multiple featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is an active research area, but it does appear that prenatal immune events do affect the adult nervous system and can contribute to schizophrenia. Plausible mechanisms have been proposed. See, for example, Romero et al. 2006 (PMID 17180123), Lencz et al. 2007 (PMID 17522711), Waddington et al. 2007 (PMID 17720028), Edwards 2007 (PMID 17688466). However, we don't know which (if any) model is correct. Most likely none of them are; the actual mechanism, whatever it is, is likely to be complex. We lack epidemiological data that would indicate either cause for concern or cause for unconcern about flu vaccination in pregnant women helping to cause schizophrenia in children. All that being said, the CDC recommends that pregnant women get flu shots, and we should definitely mention that. Eubulides 18:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree completely with your summary of the matter. MastCell Talk 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I added stuff about the CDC's recommendations and re-added the section. A few points. First, this time I put it under "Arguments against widespread vaccination" since that seems a bit more logical place for it in the current (poor) organization. Second, the CDC's 2007 recommendations (which are not yet in Pubmed; that's too bad, as they've been out since July) have a lot more on pregnant women and flu vaccines than the 2006 recommendations did. This topic is clearly of some concern to the CDC, and rightly so. Eubulides 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm on my way to leave a note for OrangeMarlin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Orangemarlin's comment in the change log was "Read the citations. One citation is a great reason to get vaccinated, since rubella exposure might lead to lowered IQ." For the record, I had read the citations. (:-) Obviously rubella exposure is bad news for the fetus; nobody is disputing that. But the section in question is primarily about flu vaccine, not rubella, because that's where most of the professional and public concern is. In writing the section I attempted to give plenty of space to the mainstream position that flu shots are recommended for pregnant women, without giving undue weight to the theory that there might conceivably be a schizophrenia-related problem. No doubt the section could be improved, but I think that the article will be stronger if it addresses this topic. Eubulides 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, you just can't invent what I say or mean. I read the article, and it clearly makes no mention of your claim. "Conceivably" is a weak word. I can conceive of lots of stuff in medicine, but that doesn't mean it actually happens. And I disagree that added this topic strengthens the article. Why do we encourage crap science on Wikipedia? The very last thing we want is someone who types "Vaccine" into google, and finds this article, making an insanely bad decision on vaccination. I run a medical products company (and am a physician with a strong science and medical research background), and I hate urban myths. I'm not opposed to inclusion, but it's got be one sentence, and it's got to be iterate that it is speculative. I can see some shyster with the 1-800-SUETHEM, putting an ad on late night TV with this kind of stuff. It's bad news. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Which article does "I read the article, and it clearly makes no mention of your claim." refer to? And which claim? Currently "conceivably" is used in Vaccine controversy in the phrase "the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia". Is that the claim you are referring to? But this phrase is taken nearly directly from the cited source (Arehart-Treichel 2007), which quotes Brown as saying "One needs to weigh the benefit of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of a vaccine-induced antibody elevation that could conceivably predispose to schizophrenia." Eubulides 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the "one sentence" limit; that's too strict, and it would eviscerate the purpose of this article, which is to describe vaccine controversies. Other sections (e.g., Vaccine controversy #MMR vaccine) do not conform to the "one sentence" limit. But even if there was such a limit, the "conceivably" phrase quoted above is part of the only sentence that casts doubt on the safety of flu vaccines, so the new section is already conforming to the "one sentence" limit. Eubulides 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In my experience with accurately citing medical articles, the best defense is a good offense. Putting out accurate info now will forestall problems later. The information is already in the mainstream media; why should we ignore it rather than address it reliably? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Valid point Sandy, but I would hate crossing the line from being accurate to encouraging it. My problem remains that just because someone is whining about it publicly doesn't make it real. MastCell pointed me to Duesberg hypothesis which is one guy pushing a bad theory. Anyways, can we write it in a way that states that it is far from causal? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Eubulides is usually able to accomodate discussion and dig up sources that help; I'm confident he can work out the text in a way that everyone can end up happy; the reason I pulled the text out of the article to begin with is I was counting on him to investigate thoroughly as he usually does :-) I'm trying to figure out if I got the football analogy backwards, since I'm really a Lowell/Beckett person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

[[Image:August Hirt.jpg|thumb|150px|right|August Hirt dissecting a corpse.]] There are several aspects not adequately covered. Not all vaccine critics are hysterical pseudo-scientists. For example:

  • Some critics are opposed to just one vaccine or another (e.g., Chicken Pox, which does not directly kill infected children, although it may end in death due to complications such as Staph infection or end in death due to a suppressed imune system.) This vaccine may be dangerous to children who are not vaccinated because it may delay the onset of chicken pox infections until a later age, when it may cause sterility and other problems. I personally hold the view that Chicken Pox vaccine causes more harm than good, unless or until it is shown as a safe and effective prevention of shingles. (Currently, there are rumors that this is likely the case, but no FDA submitted studies that I know about).
  • Some critics are opposed to mandatory vaccination (e.g., against diseases that are sexually transmitted) on civil rights grounds.
  • Some critics are opposed to mandatory vaccination on religious grounds (E.g., Amish, mennonites, Jehovah witness).
  • Some critics are opposed to certain vaccines on fruit of the poisonious tree grounds, e.g., because they were developed using aborted fetuses. This would be akin to Asian medical school students refusing to benefit from NAZI dissections of unwilling Asian and other subjects.
  • Macro benefit versus micro benefit: as the percentage of a society that is vaccinated increases, the marginal risk of getting vaccinated is essentially constant while the marginal benefit of getting vacinated decreases. That is, at the micro-level, the risk/reward ratio increases as vaccination rates approach +90%. In this case, it may be rational at the micro level to not get vaccinated, while at the same time it is rational at the macro level to suppress the affect on the risk/reward ratio, in that it may lead to lower vaccination rates. (Hence, the need for propaganda on the part of government organizations).
  • The uncompensated paperwork involved in reporting adverse reactions leads to under reporting.
  • And, of course, the nuts who think vaccines are a communist plot to pollute their precious bodily fluids.

That's all for now. CM (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of these points are already covered by the article. Some of the topics are so large that they have subarticles (e.g., Vaccination and religion); in such cases the usual Wikipedia policy is to have a short section in this article, and refer to the subarticle for the bulk of the discussion. Specific suggestions for improvement are welcome, of course. Eubulides (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this seems to be censoring (via marginalization) information.[2] CM (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The practice of using subarticles to handle large topics is widespread on Wikipedia and is hardly "marginalization". Vaccine controversy gives more space to anti-vaccination arguments than to pro-vaccination. Adding lots more detail about relatively minor arguments against vaccination (such as disputes over paperwork or filing fees) is out of place here; if included its sheer volume would make for a POV that is out of place in Wikipedia. That sort of detail belongs in the subarticles. When there is a subarticle, only its top-level big ideas belong here. Eubulides (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Column inches is one measure. The placement of the column inches is another. This article might be better organized in a pro/con section by section, instead of pro (multiple sections) con (multiple sections) remedies (one of the smallest and latest sections). CM (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you on the organization issue. It'd be a lot of work, though. It's been tried during the past year, but that effort failed; please see #Vaccination and schizophrenia above and search for "point-counterpoint". Eubulides (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, good. Maybe we can collaborate later. CM (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Injured persons are usually referred to as victims in tort

A recent change was made on the grounds that "Victims is a bit POV.". The word victims was replaced with "claimants," which seems a bit double-speakish to me.
See also:

Injured persons are usually referred to as victims in tort. CM (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The cited source says neither "victims" nor "claimants". It says "people". I made this change to have the article match the source more closely here. Eubulides (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The source above use the term "victim". CM (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Victims is a pejorative term. I would submit that these families ought to be thankful that their children aren't dying of any number of diseases. Just because ONE source uses that term, doesn't mean a thing. In a strictly legal sense, it is a claimant. They've won nothing (and I submit they deserve nothing, but who cares), so they are nothing more than claimants. But people is fine too, although reads kind of weird. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Victims is a legal term for those who are injured--although, until they are successful, they are probably claimants or plaintiffs.
Stating that "I would submit that these families ought to be thankful that their children aren't dying of any number of diseases" is extremely provocative and insensitive, considering many of the victims are probably dead, killed by lethal vaccine: A payout of $1.18E9/1500 victims is over $750,000/victim--an average payout that does not indicate mere temporary discomfort due to high fevers and rashes. CM (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, it is provocative and insensitive and highly POV, so I don't write it in the article. But I'll say it here. These people ought to thank me, manufacturers, their physicians, the researchers, everyone that their kids are alive. They should shut their mouths, and quit trying to suck money out of the pharmaceutical companies. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The MDs, manufacturers, and researchers want the glory (thanks) but not the financial responsibility, preferring "no fault". I am thankful for pool chlorination, personally. CM (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There should be no fault. Tort law makes it difficult for vaccine manufacturers to get product to the market. Furthermore, it adds significant cost. The system should be if the pharmaceutical company takes the risk to bring it to market, it must comply with the laws of the local jurisdiction (in the US, that would be the FDA). If they lie, take them to prison, as what happened with CR Bard when they tried to cover up the fact that radiopaque tips of their angioplasty catheters broke off in the coronary artery. Like I said, if they don't want the vaccine, don't take it. They'll die or become seriously ill, it doesn't matter to me--perfect Darwinian selection. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The odd thing is that the Vaccine Injury program is being presented as if it were proof that vaccines are harmful or deadly. In fact, the opposite is true. The program exists because universal vaccination is undisputably a societal good. We've replaced thousands of cases of disease or disability due to disease with a handful of cases due to vaccination. Still, many ethical readings (including my own) suggest that we as a society owe compensation to individuals injured by vaccination, regardless of the unanswerable issue of whether they would have gotten sick if they hadn't been vaccinated, and regardless of the undeniable fact that vaccination saves countless lives. The Vaccine Injury program is a recognition that vaccination is of huge benefit to society as a whole, though associated with harm in a handful of cases which we as a socity are obliged to try to mitigate. MastCell Talk 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vaccines are in fact deadly in some cases. The diseases they prevent are not always deadly. See chicken pox, for example. Chicken pox does not kill children. A very small number of children do die when they have chicken pox, or due to pre-existing conditions exacerbated by chicken pox, but as far as I know, no child with an intact immune system has died from chicken pox. The Chicken pox vaccine's value is mostly economic—enabling parents to work instead of tending to polka dotted children. Meanwhile, the medical profession which is silent on the over prescription of chicken pox vaccine is vocal when it comes to the use of anti-biotics to treat ear and sinus infections in children warehoused in daycares. The issues are far more complicated than Vaccine always good, vaccine skeptics always nutty. Also, I don't think anybody denies that it is a societal good. However, think about the differential effect on the risk/reward ratio as the percentage of the "herd" that is vaccinated increases, and you may see that in some cases it is rational for an individual to quietly decline vaccination. (See my comments in a previous section on this topic). CM (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, chickenpox is not merely a cosmetic or economic issue. Varicella is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death in the U.S. Prior to the introduction of the vaccine, about 40 children died of varicella annually, and most were immunocompetent and did not have pre-existing risk factors for severe disease (PMID 9603627). The varicella vaccine does save lives and not just get parents back to work (PMID 15689583). Adults have it worse: the rate of varicella pneumonia among healthy adults with primary infection is about 1 in 400 (PMID 3763290), and this complication carries an overall mortality rate of 6-19% (PMID 12765439). "Chickenpox does not kill children" is incorrect, as is "no child with an intact immune system has died from chickenpox". I'm not sure where you're going with the antibiotics thing, but perhaps we're already off-topic enough. MastCell Talk 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks MastCell. I'm not sure reliable sources are going to help. BTW, YOU talked me into coming to this article. Grrrrrrrrrr. Back to drinking. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
edit conflict: "40 children died annually." Is that in the United States? Annually? By way of comparison, about 260 children under the age of 5 die each year in the United States by drowning.[3] 1.3 million children are aborted yearly.[4] That is 148 children per hour.
I am skeptical that "most were immunocompetent and did not have pre-existing risk factors for severe disease." Did they die from Chicken pox or staph infection? With the vaccine, the number of adults who die from chickenpox will go up in the future (my speculation but seems logical enough). CM (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how much one values a child's life. If children's lives are not worth much, then Cagey Millipede is correct that the biggest economic benefit of childhood chickenpox vaccination is letting parents work; see the economic analysis in Preblud 1986 (PMID 3093966). However, if the children's lives are considered to be valuable, then those calculations are, shall we say, incomplete. Preblud reports two deaths per 100,000 varicella cases among otherwise-healthy persons; the rate rises to 7.2 deaths per 100,000 for babies (under age 1), and 30.9 deaths per 100,000 for adults (above age 19). Speculation and comparison to abortions etc. is out of place in this article: we need reliable sources and we need to stick to the topic. Eubulides (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, somehow I was led off track. My main point was that it was not POV to call a person injured by a vaccine a victim. It is nuetral. So, I guess this concludes the matter. CM (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, thanks for this refernce, as it seems to be in agreement with a lot of what I was arguing. I am impressed that you shared the source. CM (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Except for the fact that a child who develops Chickenpox is at greater risk for Herpes zoster, which can be debilitating and extracts a high cost to society. Once again, cutting off the argument without discussing all consequences lessens the value of the vaccine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we agree. Previously (in the previous section) I wrote: "I personally hold the view that Chicken Pox vaccine causes more harm than good, unless or until it is shown as a safe and effective prevention of shingles." Should we take this to a Talk page? CM (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my contribution to dragging this thread off-topic. As to its original issue, I like Eubulides' edit ("people" vs. "victims" or "claimants"). MastCell Talk 06:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A summary of the controversy is not a lie

This change removed the following text:

Two recent major vaccine controversies occurred in the U.S. and the UK, concerning hypotheses linking vaccines to autism spectrum disorders: the vaccine preservative thiomersal controversy, and the MMR vaccine controversy. These controversies are independent, as the MMR vaccine has never contained thiomersal.

with the comment "Per WP:WEIGHT. Let's keep the lies out". I don't see any "lies" in the quoted text; on the contrary, the quotation contributes the useful information that the two vaccine controversies are independent. Furthermore, the controversies are indeed major ones: if you visit Google News right now, both the MMR and the thiomersal controversies have seen dozens of articles in the past month, far more than any other autism-related story. This article is about vaccine controversies; it is not neutral to summarize the controversy merely with a statement "There is no evidence that any childhood vaccine contributes to autism.", as the above change does.

The newly added claim is also incorrect in its own right. There is some evidence that childhood vaccines contribute to autism. The problem is that the evidence is not scientific. Furthermore, the citations given in support of the claim do not, in fact, support it. The first citation (Baird et al. 2008, PMID 18252754) merely gives strong evidence that Wakefield's MMR hypothesis is wrong. The second citation (Fitzpatrick 2007, PMID 17688775) is also about MMR. Neither citation suffices to prove that there is no evidence that any childhood vaccine contributes to autism; they are both talking only about MMR.

For now I have attempted to work around the problem by removing the "Autism" section header entirely, but I think this has removed useful information (such as the independence of the controversies mentioned above). Eubulides (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In an article about the controversy, I'd expect to see definitional summaries of the controversy, so I can't agree with the removal of that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if we put in every little nutjob insinuation with every medical article, we're going to have a HUGE project going. They are lies, they have been disproven in current literature. It's like the Dinosaur article keeping information in that T. rex was carried on Noah's Ark. I don't think we should keep crap science in these articles. But Eubulides, do whatever you want. I'll revert if it continues to promote out and out lies. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think so long as the mainstream view is properly presented as such, we're OK. It's acceptable to note that there is a controversy, just as it's acceptable to note that there is a controversy surrounding intelligent design and evolution. That doesn't mean ID is right, just that there is a controversy. Science comes down quite heavily on one side of these controversies, and we need to make that clear, but that doesn't mean there's no controversy. I'm all for excluding tiny-minority or "nutjob" views from the encyclopedia, but the idea that vaccines are harmful is, unfortunately, not a tiny-minority view in the general populace, though it is such in the scientific community. I don't think Eubulides has an agenda here beyond making the article better - certainly I've been impressed with his work on other vaccine/autism-related topics - so I think we should be able to find common ground. MastCell Talk 19:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
But there isn't one reliable source that states that autism has anything to do with vaccines. The controversy is manufactured. The way the section read was that essentially vaccines caused autism. If it were written "some dumb-ass lawyers tried to mind-fuck the American populace with bullshit research that was refuted by about 1000 articles published in peer-reviewed articles," ok, I'd be fine with that. We can probably edit my commentary down a few notches, but my point is why given the autism POV-pushers any latitude at all? It has to be definitive, in that we're giving undue weight to a LIE, so let's give proper weight to the vast bulk of research that states vaccines and autism are unrelated. Let's call it a lie, a manufacturing of evidence. To claim otherwise is just plain wrong. And by the way, don't know anything about Eubulides, but he appears to be an POV pusher of Autism and vaccines. Just calling it how I see it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That certainly hasn't been my experience; he's done excellent work cleaning up a walled garden of autism POV forks created by one of our worst offenders on the subject, for example. While most of the medical sources alleging a link are questionable (Wakefield and Geier's work, Medical Hypotheses articles, etc), the issue has achieved enough prominence that medical science (in the form of the IOM and others) have taken the time to address is quite extensively. And as you point out, the battle has moved from the scientific to the legal arenas, where the standards and operating assumptions are quite different. All of this is evidence that a controversy exists. If the section is written to suggest that vaccines cause autism, I will be the first to object, as there is a scientific consensus that there is no convincing evidence of such a link. If the article simply says that there have been recent controversies regarding the vaccines and an alleged link to autism, then I think that's a verifiable statement of a notable fact. So long as it goes on to provide context, I don't have a problem with it. I also agree that it's important to point out that MMR and thiomersal are two separate issues, as this is not intuitively obvious. The controversies surrounding specific pieces of evidence produced by specific researchers are probably addressed at Andrew Wakefield, Mark Geier, etc.
I should add that my personal views are probably closely akin to yours, particularly with regard to the shift to the legal arena. Drug companies can be justifiably accused of a lot of things, but vaccine development is one of the undeniable societal benefits that they provide, and it's very unfortunate that the already-meager resources allocated to vaccine development will likely be eliminated by this legal action at a time when we've got problems. At the same time, this controversy is not really "manufactured" in the sense that the tobacco industry manufactures controversy about secondhand smoke. It arose organically, in concert with other issues (increasing number of recommended childhood vaccines, increases in autism diagnoses, declining prevalance of vaccine-preventable disease) though it has certainly been exploited by a variety of groups. MastCell Talk 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin, I've worked with Eubulides on many articles, and that is not at all my experience with or impression of Eubulides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My experience with Wikipedia is that I give good faith, I get screwed by sockpuppets, POV-warriors, etc. He doesn't appear to be an NPOV editor. I call it how I see it, even though you two are two of the probably 20 editors I actually trust, so I'll be nice. But let's just say I need some convincing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, see this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to apply AGF wrt Eubulides: I've edited in conjunction with him for almost a year, and the proof is in his work. He is also strictly professional and has a calming influence on difficult talk pages. My experience with AGF is different than yours. I've learned (through trial by fire) that if I edit civilly and with good faith, I will prevail against injustice in front of ArbCom; those who don't, are likely to be sanctioned by ArbCom in addition to finding themselves in constant imbroglio. I'm proud to be in the company of editors of Eubuldes' caliber on numerous article talk pages, where AGF, civility and patience have consistently produced improvement in Wiki articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I second Sandy's assessment. I've yet to come across an editor more committed than Eubulides to using (a) the very best sources and (b) basing the text on them, no more no less. An article on "Vaccine controversy" must cover significant controversies, whether they have any scientific foundation or not. An encyclopaedia must document the world as it is, warts and all, not as we'd like it to be. I see no lies or harm in the text that was removed. Colin°Talk 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And I don't? I'm like the most anal retentive editor for references. I dug up the one that basically said the autism story was big fat lie. I'm fairly committed to this project, but Eubulides gets to work on the easy articles. I work on the crap articles. I used to be in the Navy, and because I'm an MD, I got to wear nice pretty uniforms, unless I was in scrubs. But I knew that there were men and women getting their fingernails dirty, getting killed, and standing on the line. I'm standing on the line, and I don't get the luxury of AGF, NPA, etc. Whether Eubulides is a great editor or not, matters not to me. There is a weight issue by pushing a POV that includes a completely discredited statement. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
They aren't easy articles, Orange; they're subject to canvassing and POV and off-Wiki attacks on our good names just as ID et al are. You might not realize that both Eubulides and I were the targets of off-Wiki attacks on the largest autism forum, earning us scrutiny and watchers,[5] and where I was also falsely accused of being a drup rep, and it was claimed that I have TS and OCD (false). Because of that, I spent my holiday in front of ArbCom, and it was hellish. I prevailed because there is and never will be any evidence against me of any violation of Wiki's etiquette and civility policies. If we give POV pushers the upper hand by failing to AGF, they win in front of ArbCom. Contrast my case to another recent case of a now-departed editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) SandyGeorgia gets 1000 times the grief that I do, despite being a much better editor. (Or perhaps that's because editor quality is correlated with grief-getting?) Changing the subject slightly, I recently discovered that many chiropractors oppose vaccination and added a note to this effect to Vaccine controversy without (ahem) controversy so far, but when I made a similar addition to Chiropractic it was almost immediately reverted with the comment "We need to discuss this on Talk first." The discussion there has not been conclusive yet; I hope that something will go in, but given the mess and controversy surrounding that article I'm not sure it's worth the effort to try to clean up the stables there. Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, hopefully it is worth the effort. Please come on over to chiropractic. There are a number of issues at the moment that need you. Mccready (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, don't piss-off your allies. Calling Eubulides a "POV pusher of Autism and vaccines" or saying he just works "on the easy articles" doesn't help and the only reason it isn't offensive is that it is so laughably untrue. Perhaps Eubulides doesn't wear a pro-mainstream POV on his sleeve quite as prominently as you, but that is because we are all supposed to be discussing the article, not the people, and trying to write what our sources say, not what we want to say. The controversy may well be based on a 100% false hypothesis, but it still exists and has been on the front page of many newspapers for years. Trying to suppress that is a book burning attitude that won't help the battle to produce a NPOV article. Colin°Talk 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic and the vaccine controversy

Hi all, I just stopped in after Eubulides stopped in at the chiropractic article making some perfectly valid points concerning chiropractic and an anti-vaccination stance. There is a colorful history associated with this that was probably at the heart of the medicine/chiropractic turf wars from the 1920s to the 1950s. Yes, it was heated and hard fought as medicine worked very hard and basically succeeded in getting enough people vaccinated. The efforts of chiropractors to stop the process may well have been the impetus that caused chiropractic to lose face with the public health machine that was reacting to the very frightening polio outbreaks. In 1963, BJ Palmer died and chiropractic began a different path; increasing education standards and so much more. My point here is that the statement about chiropractic in the first section concerning the controversy is a little over the top:

  • Traditional chiropractic opposes vaccination on the grounds that all diseases are traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore cannot be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, likened vaccines to "filthy animal poisons", and they remain controversial within chiropractic. The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws. The Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination, but even in Canada, surveys have found that over a quarter of chiropractors oppose vaccination and advise patients against vaccinating themselves or their children.[2]

While it probably won't make too much of a difference, I think we have to go further in describing 1) what "Traditional" chiropractic is (a small but very vocal group).. 2)clarify why the ACA and ICA statements currently support exemptions. The way we have it written makes it sound like they are against vaccinations, but really they are pro freedom of choice. I think it is important to give exactly the weight that chiropractors do play in this debate. In other words, if we state that ALL chiropractors are against vaccination that empowers the anti-vaccinationists too much because we are talking about 70,000 chiropractors out there preaching "no vaccines", which I am sure we all agree would be quite a force to reckon with. But, if we say that NO chiropractors are against vaccination, that would be wrong, too. If it is okay with everyone, I can try to reflect this in the article. I would consider this to be a good neutral source [6]. I would also need that survey that is mentioned in the paragraph above. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The source looks good - Pediatrics is definitely a solid journal. Interesting article, by the way. MastCell Talk 04:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think it gives a thorough evaluation and is my understanding from all the history research I've done on chiropractic. If only we could get it all in one paragraph! -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions and for the pointer to Campbell et al. 2000 (PMID 10742364). I made this change to capture the suggestions as best I could. Further comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I would also suggest that having the chiropractic section under 'Effectiveness" seems out of place. Maybe a new section called "The culprits" :-) or something less POV I suppose, you know what I mean. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. We've been meaning to reorganize the page, and I'll try to remember this suggestion for when that actually happens. In the meantime, the core of the chiropractic philosophic objection seems to be that vaccines are ineffective, so why take the risk? In that case, Effectiveness seems a bit more apropros than Safety. Eubulides (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of the topic is that philosophic objection doesn't come from a lack of effectiveness, but rather it is inserting a pathogen to boost immunity as opposed to strengthening the host from within. Straight DCs would suggest that spinal manipulation can boost immunity and there is very limited but interesting research that suggest neuro-immunological improvements in asymptomatic subjects (Injeyan et al. 2006) following manipulation. I would agree with Dematt suggestion that a separate section dealing with this might be more appropriate, but will defer to you as you're more familiar with this article. EBDCM (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
But we have a 1995 survey saying about a third of U.S. chiropractors believe that there is no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease. This very much sounds like an argument against effectiveness. There is undoubtedly a safety argument too, but the effectiveness argument seems to be the core: if vaccines don't work, why take the risk of using them? Eubulides (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that was 13 years ago. And that is 1/3? So 2/3 did think there was proof back then. I'm willing to believe that these new guys graduating since the advent of HMOs and integrated healthcare are less likely to feel that they don't, but I also realize we have to go with the V and RS. EBDCM, didn't the CCA just recently make the statement concerning vaccinations? Basically, there are an aweful lot of people that respect their chiropractors and I don't think we should give those that read this an erroneous reason to not get vaccinated. We need to be careful to get it right. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The 1/3 is just one example from the survey. Here's another: more than half of those surveyed thought that the risks of pertussis vaccination outweigh its benefits. And more recent surveys (in Canada) show a similar pattern. For example, a 2000 survey in Canada (cited in Busse et al. 2005) found that about 30% were anti-vaccination, about 40% were pro-vaccination, with the remaining 30% unsure. The CCA statement is motion 2139/93, which I guess means it's dated 1993. The ACA statement (which opposes mandatory vaccination) is dated 1998. As Campbell et al. 2000 make clear, the ACA officially recognized that vaccination was cost-effective and clinically practical in 1993, but withdrew this recognition in 1998. So the official statements of chiropractors turned more against vaccination in 1998. I see no evidence from reliable sources that chiropractors have become more pro-vaccination in the past decade; this is not to say that no movement has occurred, just that we know of no reliable evidence that it has. Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Pertussis is interesting, since in 1995 there was still a significant residual scare over the whole-cell pertussis vaccine (e.g. PMID 9652634) - I'd be curious to know if this view has persisted in the chiro community since the advent of acellular pertussis vaccine, but without a good source we could only speculate. In terms of actual content, I think we're on the right track by citing position statements of major chiropractic organizations and surveys of opinion on the ground, though I agree we should carefully contextualize when these surveys were done. MastCell Talk 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did find another survey, but this was published in a conference and not a refereed journal so I don't think it's worth citing in the article. It was done in 2005 and surveyed chiropractors in Kansas. Some results:

  • "Immunizations are effective in the prevention of disease." strongly agree 12.0%, agree 30.7%, neutral 12.1%, disagree 19.3%, strongly disagree 19.9%.
  • "Encouraged patients to be immunized." yes 16.3%, no 54.2%, under certain circumstances 29.5%

So it sounds like, as recently as 2005, anti-vaccination sentiment continued to be strong but not dominant. The source: Holman S, Nyberg SM (2006). "Attitudes and beliefes toward routine vaccination: a survey of Kansas Chiropractors" (PDF). Proceedings: 2nd Annual Symposium on Graduate Research and Scholarly Projects, Wichita State University. Retrieved on 2008-02-13.  Eubulides (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So far so good. Of course there are likely differences in those numbers depending on which vaccine they are thinking about, i.e. polio, flu, cervical cancer, etc. I would expect opposition to the flu vaccine to be much higher, yet childhood vaccines lower, except perhaps the chicken pox vaccine. Basically, though I think you are close. I still think that it is in the wrong column. It needs to be in a section of 'Who are the anti-vaccinationists' and include all the holistic groups, and whoever else you find. I am sure that each antivaccinationist group uses the same arguments, of which 'effectiveness' is only one. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I too think it's in the wrong section. Would the "History of anti-vaccinationism" section be a better place? Dematt's suggestion of a new section describing "Who" are opposed might be another good possibility. I see that there is no specific mention (by name) of the many anti-vax websites, some with impressive "national" titles. That's probably a good idea as they are major suppliers of extremely deceptive information that causes death, especially of children. -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, the history section talks about ancient history (19th century); it's a bit of a stretch to put into it current opposition by a substantial minority of chiropractors. I still think the whole article needs reorganization . In defense of putting it under Effectiveness, most of the citations and discussion (including the new Kansas survey) are related to effectiveness. Eubulides (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe a separate section, as suggested by Dematt, might be the best solution. To the best of my knowledge, chiropractic represents the largest organized anti-vax group from any single profession, with centralized resistance being maintained until rather recent times, and still maintained by the International Chiropractic Association and World Chiropractic Alliance. There are various anti-vax groups composed of all types of people, but organized resistance in chiropractic is an old phenomenon with a substantial number of chiros still maintaining such views. Both DD Palmer and BJ Palmer were vehemently opposed to vaccinations, surgery, and higher educational standards, so it can take time for such resistance to subside. -- Fyslee / talk 15:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness to chiropractors, one of the best pro-vaccination information websites that deals with the controversies is run by a chiropractor, Lon Morgan. Even if it might not be deemed a RS, it contains excellent information and can be used as a metaresource:
I think the Kansas survey could be included and attributed as results from Kansas. It is a professional piece of work, and since such surveys are uncommon, we need to cite those we have. -- Fyslee / talk 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, you talked me into it; I added it. Eubulides (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Just an observation, but is chiropractic the only CAM profession which is ambivalent towards vaccination? What about naturopaths, homeopaths, acupuncturists or other providers? If so I would like to see some kind of mention of this to provide better overall context. EBDCM (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just now checked for that, and there are others. Here's a citation but I haven't had time to read it. Ernst E (2001). "Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination". Vaccine 20 (Suppl 1): S89–93. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00290-0. PMID 11587822. 
There are definitely others, most notably among naturopaths. Many mixer chiropractors practice with a naturopathic mindset, sharing many of the methods and philosophies found in naturopathy. -- Fyslee / talk 03:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting citation from Edzard Ernst you have found there! He is quite discerning when he writes "...many people (are led to) believe..." The part in parentheses is very correct, and he knows it. Many think that CAM is just a collection of various practices and philosophies, little realizing that it encompasses a mindset characterized by intense competition with the established medical system, and one of the tools used is to discredit the medical system by spreading false information, conspiracy theories, exaggerations of faults and mistakes, and generally failing to assume good faith. There is little genuine attempt to establish a cooperative relationship. Hence Ernst's formulation "are led to". It would be nice if we could get access to the full text. -- Fyslee / talk 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as an observation, my impression in the UK is that homeopathy is far more widely practiced than chiropracty here and more influence on vaccination issues (what do I know, [7] states it is the the 3rd most popular CAM in UK). Whilst the small medical-qualified homeopath group does support vaccination (precisely because they feel it proves the Homeopathic principle of a little of what causes a disease acts to prevent it), the main non-medical Homeopathy organisations are anti-vaccination.[8]
In 2002 "More chiropractors than homeopaths displayed a positive attitude towards the MMR vaccination"[9]. See also 2003 response of "Society of Homeopaths does not advise against vaccination" http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7381/164 David Ruben Talk 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a few problems with the current passage on chiropractic on vaccine

Chiropractic originally strongly opposed vaccination on the grounds that diseases are traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore cannot be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[24] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic. The ambivalence towards vaccination is seen by the opposing views of chiropractors and their associations. The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws on the grounds that vaccines have risk; a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease,[25] and a 2005 survey of Kansas chiropractors found them nearly evenly split over whether vaccines are effective.[26] In contrast, the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination; however, surveys in Canada in 2000 and 2002 found that only 40% of chiropractors supported vaccination, and that over a quarter opposed it and advised patients against vaccinating themselves or their children.[24]

1) the palmer quote appears gratuitous, out of context and as mccready would say is 'puff' 2) an apparent cherry picking of the evidence and finding surveys that does not represent the profession as a whole (i.e. Kansas DCs) 3) The inclusion of precise statistics as opposed to generalizable trends. Stats can easily be manipulated to a POV, trends, not so much. I would like to see the specifics here condensed into more generalizable statements. 4) this is in the wrong section; chiropractic opposition does not necessarily stem from lack of effectiveness, but differences in philosophy as to what is the right approach towards prevention of illness 5) lack of inclusion of other CAM professions who share a similar viewpoint re: vaccination.EBDCM (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To address the points one by one:
  • The Palmer quote was originally just "filthy animal poison"; this was criticized for being out of context so more context was added and it's now a longer quote. Apparently this is not the context that was desired, so what exactly is meant by the criticism that the Palmer quote is "out of context"?
  • I don't see why the Palmer quote is "gratuitous". It provides motivation for chiropractic's early strong opposition to vaccination. We can't expect the casual reader to be familiar with this motivation.
  • I was originally opposed to putting the Kansas data in on the grounds that it wasn't published in a refereed journal, but Fyslee liked it on the grounds that it is a reliable source. Fyslee talked me into it so I put it in. I disagree that the Kansas data is "cherry-picking"; it's the most recent survey we have and its results are not hugely different from other surveys. However, it does appear to be two editors to one right now, so for now I removed it. We can revisit this issue if Fyslee chimes in again.
  • While it's true that statistics can be manipulated, these statistics (except for the Kansas data) are taken from reliable reviews, not from primary sources. When reliable reviews are reporting numbers, I don't see why the Wikipedia article should settle for vaguer statements.
  • As mentioned above the article could use reorganization, but that's a big project; for now many chiropractors do argue against the effectiveness of vaccines (unlike most other skeptics, who focus on safety) so this is the most plausible location for the material now.
  • Mentioning other CAM professions would be welcome, obviously supported by a reliable source. I suggest the Ernst 2001 source mentioned above.
Eubulides (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I made a bold edit that encompasses the discussion above, mostly that the chiropractors that do oppose vaccination, do so for more reasons than effectiveness. I think it woul dbe fair to add naturopaths and homeopaths to this same section to give the reader an overall picture of who the anti-vacc people are. Feel free to revert, I'm just trying to help get it organized. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I made these further changes to create a new section to talk about the alternative-medicine opposition to vaccination, and move the chiropractic material into it, along with the new material. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Good move. This first sentence:
  • Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies opposed to mainstream medicine, and have substantial proportions of practitioners opposed to vaccination.
'substantial proportions' sounds like more than half which feels misleading. Maybe something like 'vocal minorities', although that might be considered POV, but you know what I meand.
'opposed to mainstream medicine' probably should just be 'contrary to interventions such as vaccination'. The result would be something like:
  • Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies contrary to interventions such as vaccination and voice their opposition.
Also, with the formulation that you have written, I think it is appropriate to narrow the chiropractic anti group to straights, so I'll go ahead and put that in the article. I think the percentages are probably similar and that group deserves the credit/blame while others do not, such as reform and most mixers.
-- Dēmatt (chat) 00:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I made [ this change] which substitutes the even-simpler "Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition." Eubulides (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's perfect! I made a few other simple changes that did alter some meaning, so take a look. We apparently were editing at the same time, so I'll back off and let you take a look. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I made a few more changes. The inserted "straight" is plausible but is not supported by the cited source, so I removed it. The scholarly-works stuff was a bit long and weaker than necessary, so I abbreviated and strengthened it. Eubulides (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The Ernst source did narrow the field of chiropractors to 'sections of chiropractors' and homeopaths to 'lay homeopaths'. I still think we would be more accurate to leave it at 'straight chiropractors' and even link it to that section of chiropractic so that we do not unintentionally fault/credit the reform group. These are real differences within chiropractic. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If I had to guess, I'd guess that most of the straights, some of the mixers, and few of the reforms are antivaccination. But we shouldn't guess. The general Wikipedia rule is that it's better to say nothing than to say something that's not supported by a reliable source. Eubulides (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a cop out, Eubulides. Your outright speculating (first NO reformers would be anti-vaccination, they're evidence-based and the evidence favours vaccinnation and immunization) and clearly Ernst knows which faction it is (as you do). I support Dematts edit for many reasons and you're mainly playing a technicality here; there are many, many edits on wikipedia without reliable source far, far worse than this case. This IMO, this type of edit is petty and goes against the spirit of editing here at Wikipedia. EBDCM (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not really a helpful comment, for several reasons. Eubulides isn't "playing" anything here. Characterizing his editing as "petty" and against the spirit of Wikipedia is presumptious and misguided, as he's done excellent work bringing a number of thorny articles into compliance with policy and is quite scrupulous about sourcing. The fact that other articles are poorly sourced is not a good reason to drop the bar on this article; it's an argument to improve those others. Let's talk about the edit without imputing motivations and strategies to the editor, particularly as your charges here are groundless. MastCell Talk 06:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I was speculating. That was my point. It is OK to speculate in talk pages. However, unsourced speculation should not appear in the article itself. Admittedly Wikipedia is not perfect and much unsourced material appears in it, but the WP:V#Wikipedia policy is quite clear: all material must be attributed to a reliable, published source. This is true regardless of the editor. Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your mostly right as well, though I do agree that there would be no reform chiropractors, but that, too would be speculation. I think we may have it as close as we can get it until we have a source that can reliably tell us differently as far as chiropractors go. If I see anything that helps, I'll drop it by. Thanks for working with me. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[undent] This is a fair compromise, sections of chiropractors. I apologize for my non-constructive post; I was a bit cranky and apparently needed some food (have noticed a strong correlation between those 2). Anyways, MastCell is right but I'm glad this was sorted out in the proper way. EBDCM (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graph

Shouldn't there be a graph that shows the decline of diseases before the vaccine's introduction to get an to put the decline of diseases in context? This is the basis for some of the controversy, and it should be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.9.224 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice, but graphs from reliable sources don't appear by magic; someone has to create them and contribute them to Wikipedia. Do you have one in mind? Eubulides (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] individual vs. group good

In many cases, the "best" for each individual would be for everyone else to be vaccinated, since indeed there might be some risk from the vaccine. This situation presents a basic tension between the individual and society. The existence of the dilemma is not very controversial, and deserves to be clearly laid out in the article.

The same applies also to quarantines etc. -69.87.203.171 (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; that tension is a central issue in many disputes or discussions related to vaccination. The challenge is to cover it in a manner supported by reliable sources, rather than by arguing the positions ourselves. MastCell Talk 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I gave it a shot, with this brief change here, and this longer change in Vaccination policy. Eubulides (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable secondary source about the autism link

This a a credible reference that can be integrated in the article: [10] MaxPont (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That story is summarized in a subarticle, Thiomersal controversy #Court cases, and in more detail in a sub-subarticle, Vaccine court #Proceedings. It's not clear it's worth bringing up at the higher-level of abstraction here. Eubulides (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
More RS: [11] [12] MaxPont (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, the subarticles are a better place for this single court case. The first source is not reliable. It claims that the government conceded that mercury causes autism, which isn't true for two reasons: first, the government did not concede that autism was caused; second, the government did not concede that mercury caused the symptoms in question. The second source is more reliable, although it's duplicative of the NPR and AP sources already cited in the subarticles. Eubulides (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem #2

The "Events following reductions in vaccination" section seems to be way to welcoming to cherry-picking, and there are no corresponding sections on the "against" side of things. The section should either report opposite findings, demonstrate that the pattern is absolute, or not be given such a prominent part of the article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Are there any examples where vaccination rates dropped significantly, followed by a significant decrease in infection rates? If so, these would be worth citing: the material is in the Vaccine controversy#Arguments for section, and under the article's current organization these counterexamples (if they can be found) should appear under Vaccine controversy#Arguments against.
  • Demonstrating that the pattern is absolute would require proving a negative, no? That sounds like it's asking for a bit much; I doubt whether anybody could do that.
  • It might be reasonable to turn this section into a sub-page, if it's too long, and just briefly summarizing it here.
Eubulides (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, at Leicester got rid of the vaccine and managed to eliminate disease through the oft-repeated "just need better sanitation", and according to "Dr. Beddow Bayly", Australia had almost no smallpox deaths despite not using vaccinations. While vaccination is almost certainly a good thing, there have been examples provided by the opposition where vaccinations were gotten rid of and occurrences of sickness decreased.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sources would be helpful. MastCell Talk 04:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, sources showing a causal link between cessation of vaccination and decreased incidence. Coincidental examples would also be interesting, but should be cited in terms of 'epidemiology research is messy' or of historical impact. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
....it seems to be exactly the same format as the cases "for" - merely that incidences dropped when vaccinations were supported/eliminated. I don't actually have ample sources on the subject - I'm just commenting that there seems to be a blatant imbalance, and that from personal experience, parallel instances have been put forward.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You're not giving us much to work with. You're saying that the section is cherry-picked, but not providing any sources which have been overlooked. The examples of disease outbreaks following a decline in vaccination are sourced to good-quality peer-reviewed medical literature and mainstream media (BBC). It's all well and good to complain about an "imbalance", but I'm not aware of any literature suggesting that disease rates go down after vaccination is stopped, and you've not provided any, which leaves us unable to verify or address your complaint. MastCell Talk 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The section is, by nature, cherry-picked. There are no examples where increasing vaccinations either had negligible or adverse effects, and it provides only a few examples that support it's case, without only implication through these, instead of solid proof, that the claim is correct, and that the pattern is absolute. That is the main problem, and it either needs to be solved, or the section needs to be given less prominence (something that can be done even without sources). This is more of a basic problem, rather than a details one.
As for details, I don't actually have access to most of the relevant data, as I previously explained. However, you have the Leicester info in the article itself (just set very small, and hard to find, in the "history of anti-vaccination" section), so I don't understand how you're having trouble understanding my counter-examples - you already have them! The problem is that, instead of being set as a counterpart to the respective pro-vaccine info, the Leicester case has been minimalized on this page. (Oddly enough, you have a section with nothing to do with anti-vaccination right after this paragraph, doing more to extoll vaccination).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The Leicester case is an interesting one. I'd suggest looking at PMID 1357411 (Lancet 1992 Oct 24;340(8826):1019-21) - many libraries (certainly all medical libraries) will carry it, and it's a useful summary. The Leicester case dates to the late 1800's, and suffice to say it's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. The town largely declined mandatory vaccination - but instead relied on strict quarantine of affected individuals, the effects of which were far more harmful than those of vaccination. Additionally, the town actually did vaccinate all contacts and caregivers of infected persons. Finally, as the Lancet makes clear, the town did benefit heavily from high vaccination rates in surrounding communities. At best, the Leicester case demonstrates that a policy of strict quarantine and targeted vaccination, in the setting of a high background rate of vaccination in the surrounding community, can effectively control smallpox. As the idea of mandatory quarantine of the ill is generally considered more distasteful than the idea of mandatory vaccination, I see little applicability of the Leicester case to the modern debate over vaccination, though it remains an interesting historical event. MastCell Talk 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, we can only cite a subset of all available research and opinion, but we can do our best to make sure that these references reflect the full body of data and the scientific consensus. For instance, the CDC seems pretty certain that decreasing vaccination rates would have adverse public health consequences. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes re Boenhoeffer&Heinenger and White

This change contained some good points, but some problems:

  • In Vaccine controversy#Arguments for, it replaced "benefits of saving children from tragic outcomes of common diseases" with "benefits of the immunization". But the cited source (Bonhoeffer & Heininger 2007, PMID 17471032), says "Immunization safety concerns have existed since the day of the first available vaccine. Since the introduction of Jenner's cowpox vaccine, however, the benefits of saving children from tragic outcomes of common diseases outweighed the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization (AEFIs)." This is the Arguments for section, and personal disagreement with an argument is not sufficient reason for toning it down, particularly when the argument is made by leading experts in a peer-reviewed journal. Whoops! it was the Arguments against section. My mistake. I revised it to omit the "tragic effects" phrase.
  • The citation to White 1896 was removed without explanation. But that citation supports the claims made. The article says "Early Christian opponents argued that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God's will via vaccination." White 1896 writes of the Rev. Edward Massey, who in 1772 opposed smallpox inoculation with the argument "that diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin; and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is 'a diabolical operation'." The article says "The first arguments against vaccination were theological." and White 1896 writes "Early in the last century Boyer presented inoculation as a preventive of smallpox in France, and thoughtful physicians in England, inspired by Lady Montagu and Maitland, followed his example. Ultra-conservatives in medicine took fright at once on both sides of the Channel, and theology was soon finding profound reasons against the new practice." If there is some concern that the wording strays too far from the source let's see it, but in the meantime it seems to be a mistake to remove that citation, or to change the wording to say "The first arguments against compulsory vaccination claimed that they were violations of individual freedom." (the vaccination in question was not compulsory).

I made this change to accomplish the fixes suggested above. Eubulides (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did explain why the White 1896 citation was removed - as it is written, it is blatantly biased. It provides no basis for it's claims, on its own, and is blatantly written as an attack piece. Furthermore, as explained before, I rewrote the final paragraph because it seems to claim that modern objections are based on religion, which is opposite the claim of the reference.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The result of that change removed the citation to White 1896 from Vaccine controversy#Religion without otherwise changing the text. But the text itself is NPOV, regardless of whether White 1896 is biased. The change also removed the sentence "The first arguments against vaccination were theological." (citing White 1896); I don't see how that can be interpreted as claiming that modern objections are based on religion, but to avoid any ambiguity I rewrote it to give an example from 1772, and (while I was at it) gave a new citation (Noble 2005, PMID 17142878) that says basically the same thing that White 1896 does about this particular topic. Let's keep White though, since it is freely readable whereas Noble is not. Eubulides (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
To explain, for the third time' - the paragraph as a whole lends that interpretation when it puts "religious reasons" as the original objections, and then later claims that modern objections are much the same. This is patently false, as the source for the final line instead quotes that, while they have similar objections to the originals, these originals are concerns over individual freedoms, not religion. I've explained this every single time I changed that section.
A text cannot be NPOV if it is derived from a POV work. I removed the ref, because it was inappropriate, but left the text so that you could find a more appropriate source - as previously explained.
"While I don't doubt that religious objections were given, this is not an appropriate source to use."
See?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Some modern objections are religious, and some are not. The text in question does not claim that all modern objections are religious. I'm afraid I still don't see the problem.
  • The final line is comparing modern objections to 19th-century objections, not to the earlier 18th-century objections (which were more religious). Admittedly this is confusing and the wording should be cleared up.
  • This edit removed the claim that the first arguments against vaccination were religious, and replaced it with a claim that the first arguments against compulsory vaccination were based on individual freedom. However, those are two different claims. The article can make both claims; neither trumps the other.
  • In reviewing the Vaccine controversy #History I see that part of the problem is that paragraphs are in somewhat random order chronologically, which adds to the confusion.
  • NPOV texts can cite POV work. NPOV sources are preferable, of course, but in this particular case the source is freely readable and is accurate about the points being sourced. If a better freely-readable source is available then by all means we can use that instead.
  • I made this change to address the above issues.

Eubulides (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. The referenced text specifically claims that modern objections are still based on "individual freedoms".
  2. "Arguments made against the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in the 21st century are similar to those of the early anti-vaccinationists." - I see nothing in there limiting it to 19th-century objections, and when I first edited the section, it said nothing about the concern over individual freedoms - which is the main thrust of the ref for that sentence. I explained EACH TIME that this is why I reworded the section.
  3. I never removed the claim that early arguments were religious - if you actually looked, instead of reverting each time, it was in fact the very next sentence:
"Some anti-vaccinationists also based their stance against vaccination with reference to their religious beliefs."
No. The source being used has nothing to back it up, and is blatantly an attack piece. What you are arguing is analagous to suggesting a Hamas or Al-Jazeera site for information about Israel - while certain points in it may, in fact, turn out to be true, the source itself is blatantly unreliable, and cannot be used. I will not demand that the text itself be removed, but surely such a "scientifically-supported" view can find better sources, neh?
Your edit seems to solve most of the problems - I will add in a slight clarification to the final sentence, but I trust it should be acceptable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestions for better sources are welcome. In the meantime this is what we have. It is not like present-day Israel, where there are lots of sources. There aren't that many freely-readable sources on 18th-century anti-vaccinationists.
  • Thanks, that last change was an improvement, but it still has a couple of problems. First, it causes the last sentence to imply that modern criticisms are based on individual liberties but 19th-century criticisms were not. Second, there are several other criticisms common to 19th and 21st century criticims (e.g., unholy alliance for profit) and it is not clear from the source which criticisms are typical. Perhaps it's better to simplify things by omitting the criticisms; I did that. Eubulides (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, at the least, the criticisms specifically mentioned in the source should be presented.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This change is misleading. The source does not justify mentioning a focus on individual freedom. It mentions several concerns, of which individual freedom is only one (it mentions "focus" on that one only with respect to an 1867 law). The source does not say that 21st century critics are focusing on individual freedom, or on any particular one of these concerns. In reviewing the article, it's easier to just wikilink to those concerns rather than highlight one or a few of them here; also, I noticed some concerns were missing, including coverups, profit motive, and temporariness. So I made this change to try to address the issues. Eubulides (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time article: "How Safe Are Vaccines?"

I have added a comment from a new Time article. The article probably contains other good information that can be used in this and other related articles. -- Fyslee / talk 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the bits of info there (the $10 billion figure) the article already mentions, supported by the original source for that figure (Zhou et al.). The TIME piece is merely citing Zhou et al., and there's little point in citing the middleman when you can cite the actual source for that figure. The other bits of info are relevant and I put them into the life-saving section (though this section is no longer strictly about saving lives, alas). Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)