Talk:Anti-vaccinationist

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-02-03. The result of the discussion was keep.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Opening

Is bad again. I've taken the first line out as it could be misread as "anyone" rather than "one". Wrongly, but possibly. Midgley 23:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean someone can be against vaccination without being an antivaccinationist? I'm not disputing what you're saying, but I know nothing about this topic. If that's the case, I think it's important we highlight it in the article. (I'm not trying to stir up any arguments btw, I'm here to write the best encyclopedia possible.) Bodil 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOme people describe themselves ("self-identify") as "vaccine critics". In some cases this is a mask for being against all vaccines and trying to persuade others to not immunise their children. It has been asserted that in other cases this may be people who are against ("critical of") the use of some specific vaccine or component but by inference are in favour of at least one other vaccine, IE having a balanced view that includes criticising some specific vaccine for some specific defect. This is not of course to be be taken to include those who calculate the relative risk and benefit of a vaccine - Mumps was mentioned - for a whole population, and decide to provide it at some time, having not provided it previously, nor those who compare the risk and benefit of Japanese Encephalitis B vaccine to the risk of catching Jap Enc B on a 1 week trip to the coast of Sri Lanka and decide correctly not to seek immunisation for it. There is an absence so far, after rather a lot of requests, of any specific person and identification of their specific "criticism" who is specifically a vaccine critic rather than a lightly stealthed anti-vaccinationist. In 1798 and on to 1905 or so English was used more honestly and the anti-vaccinationists were clear about what they were about. John has muttered venomously about the ablation by an afd which I had no knowledge of of a page of his called vaccine critics which from that afd discussion was a list of historical anti-vaccinationists. After pointing out fof the first few times that it was within the power of any of the protagonists except "the invisible anon" to create a page I created it and there is an attempt at a definition there. Midgley 09:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that Midgley. This issue is obviously more complicated than I first thought! Bodil 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vaccinationist/Assertion table

is that deliberate, to cut the anti-vax assertions in half? john 09:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC) been month now Midg john 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Whale. to (&Vaccination .org.uk)

Have to laugh you have deleted the number one anti-vaccine site on the internet. Fear. john 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have no fear, the RFC is here. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have no fear already, truth kills fear. As for the rfc I can see you want to "legitamise" what you are doing already. john 16:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect antivaccinist to here?

Webster dictionary [1] refers you to "antivaccinist" when you search for "antivaccinationist". I'm guessing the two terms mean the same thing, so can I redirect "antivaccinist" to here? Considering the controversy surrounding this article I thought I better ask before I make a redirect. Bodil 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical. Fine by me. Who are you steering into here, or whence? Midgley 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I acted boldly and put in 2 redirects from antivaccinist and anti-vaccinist to this article. And Midgley, I don't think I'm steering anyone in here...? /me tiny bit confused. Bodil 08:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant whether there was anyone particualr inclined to spell it that way, or if they were coming from some particular article. I'd read it if there were. Midgley 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I googled for "antivaccinationist definition" in the hope of finding a good definition for the lead section (I didn't find anything useful) and the webster dictionary link above was one of the top results. I'm unfamiliar with the topic, so I've no idea if "antivaccinist" is in common usage. So, to answer your question, I'm not aware of any people/articles which spell it that way. Bodil 18:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

current use (NYT)

"On July 7, 1999, ... Stanley Plotkin, a renowned vaccine developer, said that it was fruitless to try to soothe vaccination critics. If antivaccinationists did not have mercury, they would have another issue, he said at one meeting. One cannot prevent them from making hay regardless of whether the sun is shining or not."NYT. Plotkin is of course remarkably reputable. Midgley 00:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He works for a vaccine company, so, he may be reputable but hardly unbiased to/a/plotkin.html. john 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still scope for improvement

In addition to being a rambling set of incoherent notes written in pretentious English, this article has made no advances to substantiate the allegation that today's critics of vaccination policy are equivalent to the historical anti-vaccinationists. Since the very premise for the article is in dispute, it must follow that the whole is disputed. In addition, "attacks against a broad front" is so misplaced a title that one might think it was ironic. ("Attacks against a broad front" would imply that people were attacking something on many counts, but all the examples relate to critiques on specific issues.) --Leifern 21:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently only one person who insists that the article argue that equivalence. The argument that attacks on a braod front are not made up of a number of attacks each against something specific passes me by - the alternative would be someone arguing that vaccination was bad, but being unable or unwilling to produce any coherent way in which it was bad. Perhaps much in the way that the undefined today's critics of vaccination policy would be assumed to be in favour of some specific aspects of some vaccinations for some people at some times but don't seem to get round to actually articulating them. The rudeness above is incorrect as well as unjustified and beyond the pale, and the article although not good has thrown off several which are. SOme have even met people whose wish is to improve the articles they comment on. Midgley 01:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the neutrality argument - the bit above looks like an assertion that the article is factually incorrect, not one that bears out a neutrality tag - unless we are actually writing about antivaccinationists in the present.

Midgley, we've been over this many many times before, and it appears that you are either unwilling or unable to address the logical flaw in the central premise of the entire article, namely that it is reasonable and substantiated to categorize organizations that exist at different times and operate under different mandates as "anti-vaccinationist." It all comes down to your opinion and your worldview, and that is simply not adequate. The lists that you create under "attacks on a broad front" are exactly the opposite - they are objections based on a single point, like them or not. An attack on a broad front would be an organization that threw everything but the kitchen sink at vaccinations, which these organizations do not do. In fact, the contemporary organizations you mention argue for informed consent, insisting that reasonable concerns about vaccinations are not brought into public attention. This is equivalent to any number of advocacy groups, but as long as they don't argue for abolishing or outlawing vaccination, you're hard pressed to make a good case that they are "anti-vaccinationist." In addition to which, we've I've pointed out several times before, the usage of the title is at odds with common practice at Wikipedia - "anti-vaccinationism" would be more common, but a descriptive terms such as "organization opposition to vaccination" would be more precise. But you insist on categorizing people. --Leifern 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have indeed, and all of the above is false. Midgley 02:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above? That's funny! --Leifern 02:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Anti-vaccinationism Not newly. Midgley 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine Critic

Vaccine critic (not new) I suppose could equally well be vaccine criticism. Midgley 02:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organised essential

"a 'unified' movement is not required for an "Anti-" article to exist. See Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Mormonism. Moreover, there is an entire category for anti-catholicism at: Category:Anti-Catholicism --Uthbrian (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

As remarked, we have been over this. As a particular note, the article, and the associated talk page, for the article on anti-catholicism is a model of sense and manners. Considering the history of religion and depth and width of feeling known to exist around it, it suggests there are reasons other than controversy that account for the unpleasantness of discourse here. It is a particular feature, noted since the days of vaccination and even inoculation of the opposition to therapeutically induced specific immunity and a rather clear pointer to the elements of continuity from then to now. Another rather clear pointer to continuity, visible above in this talk page and in others, and in various websites, are quotes from the earlier time. What has changed is noted in the article. Scholarship has affected the article, but abuse only amises those for whom it has become a facet of tehir way of life and associations. Midgley 02:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antivax liars

The Bowditch page is a personal attack, supported by Fyslee. Unless I can put a section in on lies by vaccinators, I suggest someone stop him doing so. john 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the link is nice or adds much and support its exclusion! InvictaHOG 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes: very useful as the anti-vax assertion page is completely useless

Quotes

"The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization. . .There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease."--Dr Robert Mendelsohn, M.D (Ref: How To Raise Your Child In Spite Of Your Doctor)

The WHO and almost all doctors point out that smallpox has been eradicated, and polio eliminated from most countries, as a result of a complex programme of activities of which immunisation, initially generally and latterly in rings around outbreaks, is an essential part.

"I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instances of these diseases you will realize that this is not so."--Dr Archie Kalokerinos MD (Interview International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995)

The national health services and almost all doctors ^{[citation needed]} point out that they have looked at the statistics ^{[citation needed]}, and it simply isn't so.

"The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors--and certainly not by vaccines.....the decline...has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvements and especially of improved nutrition.....the claim that vaccinations are the cause for the decline of infectious diseases is utter nonsense."--Dr. med. Gerhard Buchwald (Ref: The Vaccination Nonsense. ISBN 3-8334-2508-3 page 108.)

The WHO point out that the decline is multifactorial, that no credible agency has suggested that vaccination alone prevents epidemics, that the medical discipline of public health is intimately concerned with all those listed, and that vaccination is necessary to eliminate polio from a country, and was an essential component of the eradication of smallpox. Recent experience with haemophilus influenza B immunisation, with no changes in hygiene conditions, indicates that immunisation has the additive effect expected.

"Vaccination procedures are a highly politically motivated non-science, whose practitioners are only interested in injecting multitudes of vaccines without much interest or care as to their effects. Data collection on reactions to vaccines is only paid lip service, and the obvious ineffectiveness of vaccines to prevent diseases is glossed over. The fact that natural infectious diseases have beneficial effect on the maturation and development of the immune system is ignored or deliberately suppressed. Consequently, parents of small children and any potential recipients of vaccines and any orthodox medications should be wary of any member of the medical establishment (which is little more than a highly politicised business system) extolling the non-existent virtues of vaccination."--Viera Scheibner

The national health services point out the science is extensive ^{[citation needed]}, that few or no doctors have a practice limited to vaccination and obviously care for a variety of unimmunised illnesses and this slur is unjustified ^{[citation needed]}, that data collection on vaccines is greater than that for most medicines or interventions ^{[citation needed]}, and that vaccines are obviously as well as scientifically proven ^{[citation needed]} to prevent disease, although less than perfectly.

Sum up the views of anti-vax very succinctly. Too well? john 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS very useful as the anti-vax assertion page is completely useless. john 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone will improve it. Midgley 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the person who made it--you--will actually FIX it. You made it like that so it is disingenious of you to say it needs "improving". john 08:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

john PLEASE ASSUME GOOD FAITH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

Merging

I'm going to merge all this trash over to Vaccine controversy, which is almost as poor. I will not be merging the histories because these have been separate articles for some time. And then, some clean-up. If there are any good objections, speak up! Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]