Talk:Vaccine injury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] See also

I guess this is revisiting the age old debate about what to include in the "see also" section. I thought this was settled with the inclusion of the vaccine template. Andrew73 13:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the ones that focus on autism. It is extremely controversial to suggest that vaccines cause autism, even more controversial that it is the cause of the "autism epidemic" and more controversial still that every vaccination article needs one of Ombudsman's laundry lists. JFW | T@lk 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the medical establishment's willful insistance in casting a blind eye upon its role in causing the autism epidemic, the neurological and GI tract pathologies evident in vaccine injury claimants is central to the potential liabilities faced by the pharmaceutical industry. Pretending the connection does not exist in order to excuse deleting links, despite the tens of thousands of legal claims being made by the parents of children with autistic spectrum disorders, clearly equates with suppression. Ombudsman 04:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Far from a blind eye, the question of a link between vaccines and autism has been extensively researched, so there isn't any pretending of a connection when it doesn't exist (of course perhaps additional research will prove me wrong. Furthermore legal claims do not necessarily equal causation (or do you believe Anna Ayala's claims about the finger)...perhaps there are other motives (e.g. financial gain, exploitation of parents, etc.) involved.

From a different stand point, I don't think it's necessary to include autism, etc. in the "see also" section when they are already mentioned in the text. Andrew73 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew, for setting a professional tone for this talk page. And thanks for catching the fact that the links were already integrated into the text. The unusual lack of scientific curiosity within the medical community about the apparent link raises plenty of red flags about what is really happening with regard to the likely link. Fatally flawed epidemiological studies have not even begun to prove there is no link, especially since the primary value of such studies is simply for drawing inferences. Clinical studies, as yet lacking funding, have unquestionably supported the evident link. Additionally, the growing evidence of a cover-up by the pharmaceutical industry of vaccine injury rates, and frantic efforts to enact legislation protecting vested interests, indicates that the industry is fully aware of the vast tragedy that has unfolded. Neither has the link escaped the attention of many among the millions of parents who may eventually file vaccine injury claims (two million potential claimants, minimum, in China alone, supposing access to legal remedies is not denied). No vaccines = virtually no autism. Period. The goal here at the Wiki is supposedly to build an encyclopedia, and thoughtful discourse such as you have displayed hopefully heralds an improvement toward productive use of talk pages for related articles. It has taken nearly eight decades to begin serious research on the effects of thimerosal, and perhaps the Wiki itself will be at the forefront of fostering more rapid investigations of similar dangers, like the MMR vaccine. Your example above is a good indication that the communication barriers hampering the advance of research can be overcome. Ombudsman 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman, I think this is a situation where we'll have to agree to disagree! I agree that the pharmaceutical industry isn't perfect and that financial motivations may influence decisions. And I agree that vaccinations aren't perfect, but neither is anything else in medicine. And I agree that it may be more difficult to "prove" a negative (than a "positive"). But I give greater weight to the published epidemiology out there refuting the link between vaccinations and autism.

One thing that hasn't been touched on in these discussions is that I wonder if this focus on vaccinations may up being a red herring and distracting autism research. Andrew73 13:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Ombudsman, you have included numerous external links, but it is unclear which of these are sources that support the content of this article. Could you revisit the content and add footnotes to facilitate WP:CITE? JFW | T@lk 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another newspaper article. Is it useful? It doesn't seem to add any new information, nor anything that is not contained in more primary sources. Is Milford noted for the quality of its coverage of deep medico-legal issues? Midgley 09:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)