This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-vaccinationist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I see an undefined term being bandied about. What is a "vaccine critic", as a definition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs) .
Someone critical of vaccines? Clearly, to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia it would have to be someone notable. Dr Yazbak is in favour of vaccination but he is critical of some aspects of current practice. The Invisible Anon20:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't think that merely being "critical" of vaccines is being anti-vaccinationist. That would be like saying that anyone who is critical of using antibiotics every time a child has an earache is "anti-antibioticist." I have to imagine that every physician under the sun believes there are limits to the cost/benefit of vaccines. I would imagine that this article is about people who are categorically against vaccines as a medical practice. Midgely? --Leifern20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree...but I suspect that this article would apply to websites like whale. to which seem to be categorically opposed to anything associated with modern medical practice. Andrew7320:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Me? Why would I know. Who preferred it? Who wrote a page about it? Whatever it is. Indeed, a reasonable question, what is the concept? John? Ombudsman? Midgley20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about the Anti-vaccinationists article - I would imagine Midgley has a view of what precisely defines and delineates an anti-vaccinationist from someone who isn't against vaccination per se but has misgivings about some aspects of it. I honestly haven't studied the ideological divides among those who oppose modern medicine, but it seems a safe assumption that those who are against all medicine would also be against vaccinations, but the converse is not true. --Leifern21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree, but the writings by some of the editors appear to be opposed to all forms of medicine...this probably plays a role in preventing constructive discussion about the limitations (and benefits) of vaccinations. Andrew7321:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is why we need to have articles that carefully delineate the topic they're discussing. An article titled Why western medicine kicks alternative butt might get popular support, detractors would have a strong case against it. We're seeing this in an article formerly titled HGH Quackery that is torn to shreds (and not by me) because it took on the form of a polemic. --Leifern21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And a vaccine critic would be what, precisely, before we lose sight of that question? THat is, if anybody can define the term Midgley00:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You were the one who started an article about a group of people rather than a topic. The term "anti" is typically used for someone who is categorically against something or another, and it's notable that most activist groups tend to avoid using the prefix as much as possible. If an anti-vaccinationist is someone who categorically opposes the medical practice of vaccinations, anyone who has a less rigid position must be skeptical, or critical, but I suppose anyone can be that given a given set of circumstances. I would imagine that you would be against vaccinations with a 10% mortality rate that was 60% effective against a disease that was 0.05% terminal but for which treatment as 99.9% effective. Would that make you an anti-vaccinationist, or merely a vaccination critic? Neither, I would think. --Leifern00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It has been forcefully suggested (see above) that antivaccinationist is a bad term since it is "not defined" and that "vaccine critic" is better term. It seems an entirely reasonable question to ask, presumably of those who have called for the use of that term (of which I think Leffern was not one) in that case, what is the definition of "vaccine critic". I don't see the contributions above as actually addressing ether that, or anything that has not been done to death above here. Midgley01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Any idiot can define that, even me. A vaccine critic covers anyone critical of a vaccine or vaccination in whole or parts. I think I first collected them together .org.uk/m/critics.html. Anti-vaccinists are a subset of that, obviously. Edward Yazbak is a vaccine critic, not an anti vax yet, for example. Neil Miller is a critic. Robert Mendelsohn was an anti-vax. If you delete all pages to vaccine critics, then they can't appear on this page, so where do you put them? john20:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
(I added the indentation above (just add one colon to the front per level of remark). I could cheerfully go with "apparent to any idiot", and nested sets (as well as overlapping sets and intersets) but Ombuds/Manon objected to it, causing a scholar nearby to dig back to the root of "anti-vaccinationist" - available for people to read, still. The problem wih the definition as given, once one actually igs down to it, is that vaccine critic turns out to include most of the articulate world, and yet doesn't quite manage to say whether it is a vaccination, vaccination or vaccinations that is being discussed. Convenient in some situations, and in others being able to look for "rough consensus and running code" is also handy, but less than fully defined. Midgley22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
john, filibustering is a no-no on Wikipedia I am told, so maybe you might just want to note the details of this "dialogue" for future reference. Like you I agree, I think we all know what a vaccine critic is. I did not realise before reading this that Midgley accepted there were quite so many of them "vaccine critic turns out to include most of the articulate world". Instead we have this very determined attempt to resurrect and apply a term from the 19th Century "anti-vaccinationists" to the 21st. The likelihood of anyone taking your side if you complain about the way this dialogue is running is, on current form, akin to the snowball's in hell and this one will just run and run with no progress. However, if you think it worth persevering, do not let my comment deter you. The Invisible Anon00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That is a good example of a quality and type of argument, which might distinguish the anti-vaccinationist from a member of the Dutch Orthodox Reformed Church. Within an inch of my writing "The problem with the definition as given ..." this chap is saying I accept and advance it. The religious types are far more straightforward and honest, and say god told them so. I suspect that we should classify religions who deny themselves immunisation in order to trust in god's will in a different classification. I've not observed one demand that other people abjure immunisation, except as a tiny subsidiary part of their argument that everyone should accept their view of god and worship accordingly. And usually, quite a polite argument. Midgley19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any problem with the definition vaccine critics, only to vaccinators who want to keep their arguments out of the public domain, with arguments of the type above. I have had a page to them for 10 years .org.uk/m/critics.html or so, which I don't have any problem with. I haven't had a page to anti-vaccinationists. I don't think anyone is going to better my format. I did organise them into categories .org.uk/v/critics1.html but I haven't felt the need to do anything else. Vaccination can be demolished not by collecting critics, but by their arguments, which you can see on the bottom of this page you want to delete National Anti-Vaccination League. I bet you can't wait to delete that and put a few lines in one of your boxes. john09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Merging in ...
The organisations and individuals of whom it is known that they were formed in order to, or opposed, at some time, vaccination, and of whom no great detail of the rest of their lives has been presented would do well to occupy boxes or table cells on this main page. Those of whom there is a greater volume of material would do best as sub-pages, where their being almost but not quite completely unlike biographies would not be the slightest bit remarkable, and where if an individual one became long, complete, and notable in some other way it could be moved to a page in its own right. Midgley21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
Midgely, can you please let us know when you are done introducing content into this article? I would like to start editing it for clarity and style, but don't want to waste time until you are done putting in the material you want. I guess there are many ways to write an article, but right now it reads more like lecture notes than an encyclopedic article. In the future, please tag your articles with the cleanup tag while you are developing them. --Leifern21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm told there is much other material, don't you want others' contributions? I had in mind asking Acadian to have a look at it, having been impressed by his ability and thoroughness. The WP policy I was thinking of, which was applied to the article - speedy keep - was http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closings
I'm unconvinced that anyone expressing themselves in the tones Leffern did in the AFD, and moreover making assertions such as "no hits on a Google search" which turned out to be wrong by a wide margin can show an NPOV. Accordingly, it would be as well to leave the task of improving the article to someone who has not already decided it is unimprovable. Nothing stops people adding material, of course...Midgley01:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, while Leifern definitely seems to have a POV... two opposing POVs can in fact become much closer to NPOV than one alone. Besides, the most important thing to do to this article isn't even to NPOV it, it's to make it legible. Anyone from any POV or level of knowledge can do that - the skills required are decidedly non-domain-specific. Plus, I have seen Leifern make some perfectly good-faith edits to vaccination-related articles, even if it seems like it takes someone staring over her(his?) shoulder to achieve it (witness the eventual outcome of the Thimerosal Controversy - which I think we can all agree was superior to how it originally was.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added byThsgrn (talk • contribs) .
The example is certainly correct. Minus the turbulence it would merit applause. The turbulence is the problem (Roy's phrase on the superseded RFA page is apt). Is it a week since I asked for assistance with what is now Anti-vaccinationist/Assertion_table ? Open season on that, then. How I think it should go, and there are traces in it of this, is to line up assertions, (those were kindly provided by John here), arrange them into a logical nesting order, such that those which depend on others could be tested in order rather than individually, and then test whether they are common or essential elements of a body of thought held by an identifiable or postulated concatenative assemblage of people. I suspect that the responses to them although surely they belong somewhere, don't actually belong there - for instance the law in Georgia...but that links to the pages they live on might. The first documented person to present them, and the date of it are encyclopedic, but perhaps the date and author of their refutation isn't worth tabulating there - it depends if it can be fitted sensibly in.
From the above description (diff [[1]]) this looks it will create the impression of an organised coherent "anti-vaccinationist" "movement" by making a mosaic of the views of vaccine critics from around the world. The Invisible Anon11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What is a "vaccine critic"? Are there as many as two who agree on as many as one thing in common? If so it wouldn't be a mosaic, although the Romans made many useful and interesting pictures out of mosaics despite each individual cracked ceramic piece being a different colour and shape and even some thicker than others - rather it would be a classification and description of the breadth of what might be called by some "vaccine criticism" if they can define the group who do it, and has been called anti-vaccinationism for 2 years less long than there has been vaccination, at least. One suggestion in discourse above seems to be that one group is an included group in the other, another possibility would be that the groups merely overlap but this would depend on the definition of "vaccine critic". Is it possible for the author of a previous page called vaccine critics to tell us what definition he used for his subject material? I'm sure we are agreed the groups are not disjoint. Midgley12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Vaccine critics is self explanatory, I don't know why you have to complicate it. But I will spell it out. Anyone who is critical of vaccination in parts or whole, a vaccine or vaccines, or vaccine ingredients eg mercury. Anti-vaccination folk are a small subset of that. john09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
So this is an article about anti-vaccinationists, who are a small subset of another group, about which a different article might be written. Midgley09:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Reinsertion of an article on Thimerosal
I think we came to something like a consensus on two things here:-
1. That there is a better place for an article on the Thimerosal controversy than this;
2. That extensive material on Thimerosal is out of place here.
I trimmed the Thimerosal paragraphs down to a very short indication and the pointer at the while page on just that...
and Ombudsman then reintroduced all the material, and more, all of which according to his own contributions on the talk and AFD discussion pages belongs not here but elsewhere. Why? Midgley01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This is badly wrong.
There is no ethyl mercury in the vaccines, it is a metabolite.
TCV is an abbreviation we really don't need.
"An example involves the debate over the the removal of mercury from thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs). Recently, but largely in the United States, it has been suggested that thimerosal in childhood vaccines could contribute to autism or the autism epidemic. This debate has escalated due to recent research indicating the chance that some individuals are less able to excrete heavy metals normally, and reports that the type of organic mercury used may be more toxic than other types for which exposure limits have been set. Government agencies and pharmaceutical companies clearly have an interest in denying this, and there are potentially gains for litigants if a connection can be shown in court."
"
TCVs are being phased out, although some TCVs (e.g., flu vaccines) are still routinely administered to children, as well as pregnant women and nursing mothers. Vaccines in use in the UK are largely free of it. There is no suggestion that it is required for the immunogenic effect of the preparations, therefore it is thought that TCVs will eventually discontinued entirely."
"
In 2004, an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel favoured rejecting any causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. However, critics allege that the statistical evidence upon which the IOM based its conclusions has been difficult to independently analyze, due in part the fact that access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink database has been restricted due to privacy concerns, and possibly because of the alleged secrecy surrounding the proceedings of the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference.
"
This is spreading out into yet another article that already exists and is reference from teh Thiomersal contro one.
Midgley01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Subpages
There are many subpages, some done, some not, linked from this article. As I've only passed by and touched up a few things, I didn't want to change that, but subpages are not allowed for articles (they are OK for talk pages and user pages). See Wikipedia:Subpages. Wikipedia is not a hierarchical collection of information. I'd rather have very short sections merged into the general article, and empty sections deleted outright until there's some content to put into them. The last part of the article is still in need of cleanup, BTW.
I didn't understand why the potato thing had any relevance, so I took it out. It's sufficient to say that religious leaders had opinions against, or doubts about, vaccination, without making an analogy that requires an extra explanation. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)17:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone seen a moderately-sized table in a sub-page as was linked from the specific people section and containing a moderate amount of them? Midgley18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Time to reconsider renaming article?
Now that this article is no longer being considered for deletion, perhaps it may be worthwhile revisiting the idea of renaming this article. I agree with some of the other editors that this is not the best title for the article. It seems overly narrow, and now there are additional articles like Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes! A title like "anti-vaccination movement" may better capture the spirit of the article and be more inclusive. Andrew7314:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Anti-vaccinationism would be OK too. The additional articles should really, really be condensed and merged. One doesn't need to take every bit of information; an encyclopedia is not supposed to be so thorough. If sources are given, the interested reader can go there.
I've replaced the two equal signs == in the wikicode of this section, since the single equal sign is not to be used like that. The first level heading uses two equal signs. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)15:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking at the first paragraph, and considering "In 1798 a group of people announced themselves as the Anti-vaccination Society. Since then, anti-vaccinationists have continued to ....". It doesn't seem to me ridiculous to call a page that starts off with that, and is about the people and actions from then to now, and their consequences, what it is called at present. Admittedly, the pre-Raphaelites didn't think up their own name, but there is a reasonable impediment to that... Picking a different form of the word - with -ism or whatever does no harm, but I'm not convinced it does much good. Nor terribly bothered, really, it is just etymology and we have seen the assertion that there are no such people, never were, different now demolished rather thoroughly Midgley15:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's just that the term "anti-vaccinationists" seems rather dated. When I think of anti-vaccinationist, I think of people in the late 1800s and terms like "consumption." A new title to reflect what is going on with the modern day controversies (or perhaps hysteria!) surrounding thimerosal, etc. may be more appropriate (though I agree, the arguments being advanced now are not that different from a century ago). Andrew7315:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
With numerous publications showing the similarity between modern-day "vaccine critics" and earlier-day "anti-vaccinationists", I'm not sure how dated the concept is. But I'm all for using present-day terminology. The world is indeed watching, 86.10.231.219. Like Big Brother. JFW | T@lk17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Orwell's Big Brother would prefer they din't exist, ie were ignored, but if that breaks down then demonise them. john21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Big Brother watcher
Got it. There is a point to tabulation. I didn't understand how the various names of the organisations - or perhaps orgnaisation - related to people and to the org through time. After tabulating it, I did. Deeper and more information reasonably belongs on a page devoted to one org, if it is notable, but if a putative reader has only a minute to get the gist of the history of a movement, then looking at a table is a good way to do it. Midgley22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Your 1 minute reader can see your table, and the 2 or more minute readers can see the NAVL page. You do the pocket version for vaccine critics, while your vaccine pages get the full works. Have you done any research to prove Wiki is designed for 1 minute readers? john20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
At last look, it had five organisations entabulated. I'm minimally surprised there are no more. I worked on an electronic library project of very large scope, and we evolved a canon on information organisation which seemed to us good for people needing healthcare information for serious purposes. How far that extends to WP is a reasonably debatable point, but the key thing about tables is that they allow comparison of some salient features of several entities in a small space. I am surprised to be laying _that_ out for someone with a collection of information. Midgley22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't have a valid case for deleting NAVL page. You can keep your table, I agree somewhat with that. I collect information on vaccination and my site is the best source of information on vaccine criticism, which your Wiki actions will ensure it remains that way for the foreseeable future. My page is alreday better than the one you want to delete to/a/navl.html. 09:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That page is a list, giving no comparative information on the people listed. For someone who for instance wanted to compare the sort of criticisms that Alan Yurko makes with the criticisms that Dr Bayly did would have to read both pages and make their notes... the next person along would have to read both pages and make their notes... the next person along... the next... Tabulating the nature of criticisms, given the assertion that there are critics who are not all of one piece and do not share all criticisms and are in favour of some vaccinations but not of others - the one listed who is in favour of all vaccinations except those preserved with Thiomersal, for instance, would allow anyone trying to analyse objections or observe what others had said about a topic that bothered them to pick out the relevant ones.
The difference between a table on WHale, and a table here, which I suspect would arise after a period of collaborative editing, would be that the WP article would attempt to note why (or at least following what) the objections were elaborated and the reason they were published. THis is something which passes many people's test of interestingness, being about actual people rather than a single aspect of their behaviour. Midgley12:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered improving the Wikipedia page? Or alternatively, if it is less good than other resources, perhaps we should not bother to keep it at all. Surely there are several organisations as yet unrepresented in that table? Midgley14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Leicester
Perhaps you could help. Leicester was clearly interesting in the mid-19th century. There is an awful lot to to/a/biggs.html but I wonder if you could either boil down to a couple of paragraphs, or point to the right chapters to read first to get the answer to this question: Why were Leicester more able to do sanitation than other places? Who were the people who made a difference? What was it about the area that was different? Midgley22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I mean of course, Leicester which curiously seems to have nothing in its main article relating to sanitation, smallpox, vaccination, being a beacon of freedom in the C19 or indeed the health of the populace. What I remember it for is the 33degree banked wooden track, that and th rain that fell upon that track... Midgley22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No surprise there, vaccine truth is rare on Wiki. I think Lily Loat put it best: "The town of Leicester rejected vaccination in favour of sanitation. Her experience during the past fifty years makes nonsense of the claims of the pro-vaccinists. When her population was thoroughly vaccinated she suffered severely from smallpox. As vaccination declined to one per cent of the infants born, smallpox disappeared altogether." As William White said: "It would seem that when the human mind acquires a certain set, something like a surgical operation is requisite to reverse it." I can try and remove your vaccination mind set, but I think I'll have to use my chainsaw. john09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd read that, the question, which perhaps I didn't make clear enough, was why Leicester was able to do it, where other cities didn't or couldn't. There was a bit about who was involved and so on... Midgley12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It was perfectly clear. John, you've been asked many times previously to respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please provide the information without the cocktail of abuse, preaching and presumption of bias. Here is all that was required:
See to/a/biggs.html, Chapter 69 onwards. The Leicester Sanitation Committee, particularly under the Chairmanship of Alderman Thomas Windley (date?) had adopted a policy of strict notification and quarantine. If someone contracted smallpox, the householder and physician diagnosing had to report it pronto, on pain of penalty, then the smallpox van would come round and cart away all concerned (patient to isolation in hospital, contacts to quarantine) and the house would be disinfected in their absence. Tearlach12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That is toward where I am getting. SO was the reason it worked in Leicester that Mr Windley was a hero (and if so how about a bio) or that Leicester, not now specially noted for fraternal comradeship, was then a very cohesive social grouping. Why were other towns less able to organise such effective measures? Was the Policing particularly good for instance? Out of the number of towns in England, would you expect that there would be a range of effects from a disease with some almost wiped out, and some hardly affected - a statistical fluctuation? It is like school history - that something happened is perhaps to be noted, but to whom it happened, how they were different from elsewhere - that is interesting.
A little problem here, early on in that chapter given above... "a theory hardly consistent with the observation that the commencement of the decline is usually at the period of highest development and spread. " Does anyone else have difficulty seeing that crushing dismissal of the germ theory of infection (presented in the context of discussion of quarantine) as a bit like the Daily Mail? "Shock horror: 50% of British teachers found to be below average We demand action!. " Or is there some other explanation than the fact that the descent from every mountain, oddly, commences at the peak. Midgley00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
And the other obvious question is - as a citizen in a town unable to do whatever it was that Leicester did to make this work... what is the best plan for your town (second best if you like). Midgley13:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
and their power in Leicester (not a big place) failed because ...? Answering only one of a set of questions is a very political approach. I suspect that there may have been more going on in the UK in the 19th century than that, but if so, what was the source of the vaccinators power, and why wasn't it in Leicester? Midgley13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Political factors would certainly be in the mix. If you have a district where one faction is heavily in charge - for instance, factory owners - that faction can set the agenda. For instance, to this day Bournville has no pubs due to its origins as a factory village of the QuakerCadbury family. In 19th century Leicester, the Biggs family (who owned the hosiery factory that was a major, if not the major, employer there) had similar pull, with reformist interests in a number of sectors [3][4][5].
That approaches very interesting. Did he use it? (Or alternatively, being recognised as an effective organiser of the whole for the benefit of the whole, was he attended to when he made suggestions) Midgley22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Attacks on a broad front
Unless you can prove that these objections to certain elements of vaccinations is part and parcel of a general rejection of vaccinations, the section must go. It is original research, opinionated, and frankly offensive. --Leifern02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It is referenced in the article. It is not original research. At least one other contributor to the article has displayed the opinion that more should be included on at least one of the topics exampled. It is not offensive. It isn't even unusual, a part of the political process has commonly been to seek avenues of attack in order to eliminate a government for instance where the aim has little to do with the actual attack. Midgley13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The article now commits a serious fallacy, namely to assume that the motivations of a few who make an argument can be projected onto everyone who makes them. Actually, the article commits many rhetorical fallacies, but we'll have to take them one at a time. I'm going to wait things out a bit, as the article is barely readable at this point, both because it appears to be written in Victorian English and because it is incoherent. --Leifern14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is far from perfect, and being about rhetorical fallacies, in part, no doubt it also contains some. The particular one mentioned though, no, it does not. The objection above moves steadily from an association (which is what is asserted int eh article and references, and is visible on the Web and possibly on this page) to an assertion in its turn that this is tantamount to asserting the sets are identical - it isn't, it is an assertion there is an overlap in sets, and that some of one set adopt arguments of another not because they believe them (although they might believe them) but because they see them as "legitimate tactics in the struggle against repression". I suppose I may be wildly wrong, and by all means correct me if so, but I suspect that English, of the relevant period or the modern one, is not Leifern's first language. It is mine, but I agree, on a good day my language betrays a commonality with a tongue spoken and written by Mr Shakespeare, and indeed Austen et al. They were both better at it, but a man may learn.
Ah, I love these ad hominem attacks - if you're interested in what languages are native to me, you can simply go to my user page. You might want to read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" for a good introduction to writing. --Leifern15:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And if I wanted to see what language is Leifern's first language, going to the user page would not tell me, although it looks like a Scandinavian one. The difference between "first" and "native" is subtle. I suppose one can have more than one native language, but hardly more than one first language. The English, it is very good, lefiern. Midgley16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Imagine, so many people who have not edited this article, and not had such good reasons to share with us. What admirable reticence as to their motives they have shewn. Midgley15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. All you have to do is go to my page, click "User contributions," and you can see my work. Your charientism needs some work. --Leifern23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"However, recent evidence suggests that is not necessarily the case. "
POV
In October, 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review [[6]], [[7]] of 31 epidemiological studies of the MMR vaccine. The Cochrane press release [[8]]
I suggest considering the report, written by scientists, rather than the press release whcih is of a lower order of information.
used to announce the study stated:-
"MMR is an important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death .... "
"However, in the same week the Cochrane team was contradicted by the science journal "
It isn't a contradiction. Not even as written here. Driving at 100mph is risky. Many people have driven at 100mph for 10 miles without crashing, it doesn't affect the level of risk, the second finding does not contradict the r=first, they are two separate findings.
"[[Nature {journal)|Nature]], which published a correction to its own claims:
"Contrary to a statement in the Editorial “Responding to uncertainty ” (Nature 437,1;2005), there is no evidence that lives have been lost as a result of the significant dip in take-up in Britain of the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella.""
Yet.
"In London, England uptake of the MMR vaccine is approximately 50% [[9]] and in some areas uptake is a low as 10% [[10]]. In other parts of the UK the uptake is similarly low. [[11]]
"
London as a whole? All London? Is that what we are being told that reference says?
"The Cochrane review has been undermined by subquent further reports of harm caused by the MMR vaccine raised by the former senior UK government scientific advisor on vaccine safety. [[12]]
"
From other reports of that Mail article, I am less certain of the provenance of this. It is in any case today's news, which is not encyclopedic. Yet.
Again, it is possible to crash and be killed at 30, that doesn't affect the safety of ordinarily driving at that speed.
Try this
Preferably in the page on MMR I'd have thought, since there is one, or alternatively if it is dispute that harm comes as part of increases in infection, and that some increases in some infections have followed some reductions in some vaccines some of which have been partly as a public response to information some of which has been presented with care and effort by some people who some people regard as conveniently labelled by "anti-vacinationists", then on the page linked by "harm alleged" in the section this collection came from. (Are Nature cvaccinationists, or anti-vaccinationists, or neutral scientists?)
In October, 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review HTML, PDF of 31 epidemiological studies of the MMR vaccine. (Press release used to announce the study stated:-
"MMR is an important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death .... "
NPOV - OK?
In October 2005 the science journal [[Nature {journal)|Nature]] stated there was currently no evidence lives had been lost as a result of the significant dip in take-up in Britain of the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. (A correction to the Editorial “Responding to uncertainty ” (Nature 437,1;2005))
I'd suggest sitting on the current stuff for a day or two, since, given that we are re-factoring a correction from Nature into teh article it seems unlikely that there will not be further material than the Mail on Sunday (for non-English residents, not one of the most highly regarded papers).
In particular, I'd question the references:-
"In London, England uptake of the MMR vaccine is approximately 50% [[13]]
this is a link to the Mail article, in a news summary on the BMJ site. Quoting it as BMJ rather than Mail could be seen as an effort to raise its status from newspaper to learned journal, which, it has been asserted, is a common behaviour in anti-vaccinationist publication.
Reading it, what it actually says about uptake is "The report reveals that in seven London boroughs, uptake of MMR remains below 50 per cent. "
Not in London therefore, since there are more boroughs than that. One could easily think that was a deliberate misrepresentation in direct speech. You know, a lie.
"Figures from the Department of Health for 2004-05 showed that in Westminster, London, just 11.7 per cent of children were immunised by their fifth birthday."
One area. Not actually, quite, if one were trying for accuracy, as low as 10%. In fact a completely truthful description might be more like "no area was as low as 10%"
In other parts of the UK the uptake is similarly low. [[15]]
Was that referring to this quote: "Craven and Harrogate areas featuring among the country's 10 poorest performers at 52.8 per cent,"
52.8% similar to 10% which is not the level which Westminster fails to achieve by age 5 (note that the Torygraph picks up that single jabs mean the course is completed later - if it is - so if you look at later ages you'll find a slow pickup from that.)
after that short intermission we return to something that might be science
"The Cochrane review has been undermined by subsequent further reports of harm caused by the MMR vaccine raised by the former senior UK government scientific advisor on vaccine safety. [[16]]
"
I think he might be a former senior ... rather than the singular definite article. Otherwise it would be creeping up his status, don't you think?
Going to that article we see:-
"after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers,"
...
"He called the sudden termination of legal aid to parents of allegedly vaccine-damaged children in late 2003 "a monstrous injustice"."
Are you projecting here? Not everyone has a purely financial and ego motive in helping others. If you want to make a statement about MMR being safe then I can add it to my list to/v/safemmr.html. 81.129.89.24322:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
use of "anti-vaccinationist" as a pejorative term
Please also see here (emphasis added) the use of "anti-vaccinationist" as a pejorative term "For your work against quacks, viz. anti-vaccinationists and others, I award you this picture of Sir William Osler and three colleagues!" [[17]] Please note the context of the comment and the individuals involved. Clearly, the choice of the term anti-vaccinationist will be taken by some readers and possibly editors of Wikipedia themselves to be a personal attack on all mentioned in that page and that indicates anti-vaccinationist is taken to be a pejorative term. Perhaps it is an inappropriate page title and needs to be changed to avoid causing offence.
The Invisible Anon21:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, true. I never used the term "anti-vax" term as it is perjorative (new word for me, but just the one I've been looking for), and for that reason you wont find anyone who is anti-vax describing themselves as such. It has always been thus, eg this 1895 book by Hutton "Anyone who adopts the cause of the "anti-vaccinator" is, ipso facto, reckoned by a vast number of people—who on any other subject would judge fairly and patiently—a crank, a faddist, and a fool." You can see this in front of your eyes by reading the page Midgley has created. You can see his intent by the way the more suitable and non-emotive term Vaccine Critics was deleted for this page. He may believe sincerely that anti-vax are psychotic, but that doesn't make it OK. Also anti-vax are a small section of vaccine critics, so he is effectively deleting 90% of vaccine criticism. And to get an idea about the term, I would have to ask people if they were happy to be termed "anti-vax", as I wouldn't list them as such otherwise. john15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen the term "vaccinator" used anywhere except by me, apart from old smallpox books where all medical men were know as such. So I don't see much case there, and anyway, there isn't a page to ""vaccinator"", or anyone trying to use it to slag off vaccinators. As to allopath, I have yet to see it appear in any media in all my years of reading that source. I detect allopaths are sensitive about the terms, but I feel that is more down to their desire to hide the fact they have a professional and financial interest in vaccination and pharma med. Anyway, anti-vax are a small minority and minorities are usually the ones who get shat on. It is a bit suspicious when the ruling majority complain about terminology. I don't know how many GPs there are but is 100,000 in UK a fair estimate? All pro-vaccine apart from about 2, what I could call anti-vax, that I know of. john18:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine that by extension, you would have thought that "vaccinator" was pejorative! And the medical profession is already tightly associated with the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not sure why the term "allopath" makes that link more apparent or something to be hidden. Andrew7318:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the forbidden term is "allopathic medical monopoly". See how that term hits your biocomputer. I don't have any emotional investment in think my opponent is mentally ill. If I was in his shoes I'd be doing the same thing, so I try to avoid judgement. Judgement is just PROJECTION, anyway. john20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
A useful side-effect of the argument on vaccination was the development of lighter than air aviation (joke)"anti-vax are a small section of vaccine critics" John, above. And this is a page about anti-vax (surely an abbreviation of anti-vaccinationist). What is so hard about that? If someone believes that there should be a page about the larger population, critics as distinguished by them from a-v, then they will write one. If we write a page about airships do we expect to be told that the page should really be about Lighter_than_air, or do we expect that balloonists will write a page about balloons. Someone wrote a page about that topic, but that was that page, this is this page. Anyone who wants another page should write one. Midgley01:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I did, Vaccine critics and you medical editors deleted it and merged it with this pejorative one, while you attempt to delete other ones with the same suspect intent Charles Pearce, National Anti-Vaccination League etc. Also revealed by your attempt to delete the main anti-vax man of the 20th century [18]. Your balloon talk is typical distraction. Anyone who wants another page should write one is pure brass neck!, given your behaviour. john08:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
John, I have no idea why you are so stuck on the idea that "your" page was merged into this one. It was not. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the history. Midgley01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This page started from blank formless void, upon the face of which I cast a single paragraph. There was no text of Johns or anyone elses in the initial state of the article. A surprisingly small number of pages have had material taken out and merged into this one, which suggests that it is a page about something different from other pages.
John's page was "Vaccine Critics" I'm told. Is it not clear who deleted it? I don't think I even noticed, but I expect someone did...
We have established some sort of consensus that a class of people may exist who have some criticisms of some vaccines, but do not subscribe to most criticisms of all vaccines, and that they could be described in such a way as to distinguish them from another class of people who we can recognise as anti-vaccinationists either historically because they wore badges with that on (National Anti-vaccination Society).
An hypothesis I suggest John tries out is that the first attempt at writing a WP page is quite likely to produce a bad page. Perhaps so bad that after a deletion consultation it is deleted. The second or subsequent attempt might produce a better one. I note that at least one editor offered assistance at hacking a page into shape (see the MMR Talk page around the RFC on Tongalese cetaceans) .
It is possible that I might inspect a page by John, someone unidentified and a male Bod going "Om" critically - it is even possible that those authors would be seen to have established ground rules for criticism, but a page starting at a couple of paragraphs defining critic vs anti-vaccinationist, and splitting the history of that and those from the history of the campaign against compulsory Smallpox immunisation and the campaign against combined voluntary immunisation with M; M & R would seem to have to be written very badly to not find some interest around here. Go for it.
I do demand cessation of the untrue statement about this page's genesis, my understanding is that admins have taken note of it and acted on one repeater of it. Midgley01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the balloon... I thought it a nice picture, and a reasonable analogy, although most analogies are as bad as something only vaguely like one. This, on the other hand, is a sheer brass neck. My suggestion is not. Midgley01:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Value of an Industry: the economics of anti-vaccinationism
We could do with an economist along with the sociologist and Psychologist we need. Looking at sites presenting immunisation as a damn good thing fit for all (most of) the world, I'm struck by an absence of advertising. (I expect someone can produce an exception..., do so, but it is a general tendency.)
Equally, or rather more obviously, I'm struck by the sales pitches on anti-vaccination sites. Not lest one be thought unfair, on whale. to - whatever I might say let us be quite clear that John gives good indications of telling us things he believes in because he wants to.
Sales of objects have a value (as do performances of vaccinations, or for that matter, of juggling with running chainsaws while riding unicycles) and that value can be expressed in monetary terms. What is the annual € (Euro) value of the 30 + 300 main and subsidiary anti-vaccinationist websites' retail trade?Midgley19:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Retail trade? I don't have any financial or emotional investment in being anti-vaccine, and I don't know any value in it apart from giving you something useful to do. No brain damaged kid or some group bunging me cash. Each vaccine generates sales of about $1 Billion. Then they create a vast industry of vaccine disease, e.g. ear problems to/vaccine/otitis.html, and asthma drugs. I want to tell the truth or get close to it, I wouldn't waste time talking propaganda. Sites promoting vaccines are vaccine companies---isn't a vaccine a product they sell? THE CDC do their vaccine selling on the taxpayers cash, all of their output is flogging vaccines, mostly, or anti-virals. the best sellers are ones who pretend to be independent, like the CDC. You cans see who pulls their strings when you look at the makeup and actions of their vaccine committee. john20:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"I don't have any ... emotional investment in being anti-vaccine". Um... Can I come back to you on that one when I think of something to say? Suffice it to say, I am impressed by that statement. Midgley01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Having thought about this I have determined that it is incredible. John has been hammering away at vaccines (among a stack of other topics) for so many years and in such terms (pretty much as here - newsgroups, fora, wherever you can get in and call people with actual qualifications in a subject incompetent ignorant and lying) that it is not in accord with my knowledge and experience of human nature for him to have no emotional investment in it. I see three possible explanations for that statement:-
A lack of insight, which would suggest other faults are likely, since it is not confined to a single topic;
lying;
that it is a tactic in argument, whether to continue characterising his opponents as motivated by greed and gain while he is a brave lone voice acting purely altruistically.
You can't sell vaccines to the public, only vaccination. If you sell vaccination, the vaccines sell themselves. Which is what government sites do, sell vaccination. That is the Golden egg of medicine. You couldn't put a price on the value of government vaccination advertising which you see on mmrthebullshit.nhss.uk etc. Priceless when it comes from a source the public view as being unbiased and reliable. "5 out of 6 members of the (UK) Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation had interests with Glaxo Wellcome, 4 with SmithKline Beecham (ref: May 1999 Secretary of State for Health). Sell vaccination and the rest of the pharma drugs are sold off the back of it, so that is worth a trillion or so every year, which the 100,000 or so GPs sell for you every day of the week. john08:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
First indisputable error is in line 7 to/vaccine/otitis.html "otitis media" is singular. It has the look of what happens when someone edits the vernacular and perfectly good "middle ear infections" into the more impressive looking "otitis media" but doesn't adjust the rest of the sentence. If the Australian ENT surgeon was referred to by name and if he had published the assertion alleged to come from him, we would be able to see what it is based on. Midgley01:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't believe any of that sort of stuff, as you believe in vaccines. one American child in 166 has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder...... 9 million American children under 18 have been diagnosed with asthma.......nearly 3 million children ..... learning disabled. ..... 4 million children between the ages of 3 and 17 years have been diagnosed with ADHD........206,000 Americans under the age of 20 have type 1 diabetes..... 1 in 400 to 500 American children and adolescents are now diabetic. Today, arthritis affects one in three Americans, and about 300,000 American children have juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis used to be so rare that statistics were not kept until its recent rise in children. ---Barbara Loe Fisher. Bit obvious really where all the disease is coming from. john08:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes these statistics are so clearly obviously related to vaccinations. But what about aspartame? Or maybe our increasing use of transistors instead of vacuum tubes. Or electricity. Maybe the vaccine critics who cite the autism data in the Amish community could investigate the link between their rejection of electricity and autism. Interesting statistics, but these don't establish causation. Andrew7320:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
John, have you noticed that people have been reminding you that it is objected to by most WP users to make constant personal attacks on the other users, and yet most of your postings do so? The argument above may be very well for people who have already decided they think vaccines cause all harm, but actually makes no connection between vaccination and any o those conditions, proposes no mechanism, gives no actual incidences, is unreferenced, is in short a diatribe. The problem for me, and I suspect others, is that among the blizzard of material you toss there is an occasional link to something interesting, and yet you hide it, and then resist attempts to get you to focus on it and reveal or discover more that is attached to it. Midgley10:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)#
Sorry, that is a big knee jerk for me. It is no excuse but medical people saying they are interested in vaccine damage brings out my cynic. The MMR fiasco has made it worse. I'll try and control myself in future. john19:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Single M;M;R as a business
From the Daily Mail article on the Chartered Physios' report referenced nearby: "An increasing number of parents are opting for single jabs through private clinics, due to fears over the MMR jab's safety. Each injection costs up to £100" (There are, of course, a total of 6 to make a course. £600 per customer.) This is a business that is worth advertising through Google, at least (observed yesterday). Midgley12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
In Reply. It would not be if the single vaccinations were available as an option on the NHS.
The UK government is also happy for only as few as 48% of London children (SE London) or 11.6% (Westminster children) or 58% of London children (overall) to be vaccinated it would seem. They are so concerned children might die (they claim) from measles mumps or rubella that they will not make single vaccines available at all. Surely that is intransigent dog-in-the-manger death courting behaviour for London children? (Source of stats: DoH) -
And "Death Courting" is inaccurate because government grossly exaggerates the risks
infant measles deaths fell from 3,367 in 1915 to just 4 by 1962 as a result of improved nutrition
well before measles vaccination in 1969
Source of stats ONS
Looks pretty much like good nutrition wins hands down over vaccination every time as a life saver. Now why was it drug companies were claiming vitamin supplements are useless? Find them in food don't we?
Measles fell sharply after immunisation was introducedRubella fell sharply when immunisation was introduced.
HiB is a good example of a sharp reduction where no change in nutrition occurred. Perhaps someone can show us the corresponding graphs for that, and for Measles in the UK - both of these are US ones from the CDCMidgley11:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This section has been edited into unintelligibility. The first edit was to separate it into two topics, the second edit appears to have removed that, and my comments, in order to restore the pearls of 86.10.231.219 in their original form. Lets try again.Midgley23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Single M;M;R as a business
From the Daily Mail article on the Chartered Physios' report referenced nearby: "An increasing number of parents are opting for single jabs through private clinics, due to fears over the MMR jab's safety. Each injection costs up to £100" (There are, of course, a total of 6 to make a course. £600 per customer.) This is a business that is worth advertising through Google, at least (observed yesterday). Midgley12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Reduction of the profitability of that business could be achieved if the DoH provided single immunisations. That they do not, in the context of theories of persecution on the part of some of the supporters of those giving or organising them, suggests the DoH believe what they say. (I said that earlier) Midgley23:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A user completely new to the debate, WeniWidiWiki (talk·contribs), inserted the {{POV}} template[20] again. As I have stated before, it is completely pointless to insert this template without at least a modicum of effort on the talkpage to identify the biased material. Such actions polarise the debate and are detrimental to normal editing. JFW | T@lk20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realized you owned this entry. I did explain my edits, and specifically marked what I contested. However due to the unorthodox markup and references used in this entry, when I used the {{fact}} tags, it broke the formatting on the page. As evidenced here. It was either slap a tag on the whole entry or leave the formatting screwed up. I chose the lesser of two ills. WeniWidiWiki21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Or ... fix the fault...in the markup and references.
To suggest that I WP:OWN is a good example of assuming bad faith. You could have chosen an even lesser form of evil: simply discussing your objections on the talkpage. If your objections concerned the section "Anti-vaccinationist material", why not simply just mention what is wrong? Other editors may take your concerns seriously and provide sources. Slapping tags on articles is a last resort, and should be reserved for situations where no consensus can be reached on the talkpage. Usually the agreement to place the tag is mutual and sorta automatically should trigger an RFC if not already ongoing. JFW | T@lk21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality or factual inaccuracy warnings should be accompanied by an explanation (with details and examples) on the talk page. Otherwise they should be removed. Andries22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
WWW - I for one am pleased to see someone new here, and also to see someone actually making edits rather than arguing on the talk page - but in view of the amount of discussion thus far, some of them seem a little quick. In particular I'm perplexed by seeing references removed and [citation needed] tags put in their place, or close proximity. I think that cross-referencing pages which refer to the same topic is sensible, rather than repeating arguments (although we do that enough here...) Midgley23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
After committing a faux pas and adding an NPOV template without asking permission, and then reading through the prior AfD, it appears from an outside perspective that there is obvious fanatical over-guarding and some editors who are attempting to assert ownership of this article. Note the absolute insistence of some editors to monopolize the presentation of facts in this entry, as well as the antagonistic attitudes of some editors. (One of them being an Admin who I feel should probably cease from editing this entry for having what I perceive as a conflict of interest). Continual insertions of See also: Cranks is blatant POV and bias. I have decided to re-add the NPOV tag as well as a tag to this talk page warning editors about the morass they are stepping into. I highly suspect this will go right back up for AfD or AfC since it is so blatantly POV and poorly written. I realize some here have a vested interest in the presentation of the issues either way, but regardless, at least try to *appear* NPOV - especially admins who should know better. Don't be fanatics, and if you cannot emotionally separate yourself from the issues at hand, take a break from editing the entry until you regain your composure. Look at the entry from a sheerly technical standpoint - it is severely lacking even the most rudimentary attempts of balance, rife with weasel words and undocumented assertions. That is my major complaint. WeniWidiWiki00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I find WeniWidiWiki's diatribe almost unbelievable. By opposing his indiscriminate use of the POV template I apparently WP:OWN, I'm a WP:FANATIC and heaven knows what else. As an admin I have every right to edit an article. I never wrote "see also: Cranks" anywhere; can you explain why you are applying this to me?
All I expect from you is helping to remove the perceived bias, rather than just pointing it out. Is that too much to ask, and is that really worth the shocking lack of civility? JFW | T@lk21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Chill! He did actually edit some text. I wonder if a way forward might be to (as John has been quietly doing from time to time) deal with a minor objection, preferably the most minor, least important objection, whatever that is. Whatever the size of the heap is, if people each pick up something very small rather than exclaim over the size of the biggest piece, it gets smaller. Any volunteers - to name the smallest least significant thing wrong with the article as it stands, or leans, or staggers, at present? Midgley22:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we have to respect the outcome of the AFD, but I am still waiting to see what this article will turn out like - it simply isn't clear to me what it's about. As it is right now, it reads like a disorganized polemic, but I think we should give the founding editors some time to shape it into their version of a neutral, informative article. --Leifern23:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the see also to cranks as (perhaps this is the only thing I agree with John). The reference to "cranks" can be viewed as pejorative and polarizing. Furthermore, it only adds emotional fuel for the "anti-vaccinationist" editors out there. Andrew7302:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That isn't an aside. The philosophical base from which they drew it - along with the Bavarian illuminati stuff - is recognisably a thread in the braid of anti-vacciantionist thinking. They were not alone, but they were referenced. Midgley14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, so much for assuming good faith. Hitler was a vegetarian and hated smoking, too. How about you put that into the article you're going to write about "anti-vegetarians" and "anti-smokers?" --Leifern14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It derives recognisably from the same source. The philosophical roots of science and some of anti-vaccinationism are very much core material here, but I'd agree health was only one of the Nazi party's major concerns. I'd hate to pre-empt Leifern's articles on smoking and vegetarianism, but if I may proffer a pointed example here, writing an article that purported to be biographical of Hitler, and approaching it from the standpoint that he did not smoke nor would suffer others to in his presence and not adding that he made poor choices in domestic and foreign policy would be regarded as odd. Midgley15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Has any source investigating trends in anti-vaccinationism ever pointed out the Nazi thing? In the absence of that, we may be looking at WP:NOR here. JFW | T@lk15:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The common root is much further back, and it would be better to have a reference to the common root and ignore branches other than this article already contains. (IE I'm in agreement) Midgley15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Measles figures presented for two selected years?
Here is the bit anonymously removed on the 12th with a comment "please don't edit my comments". (It isn't ironic, irony is something different.)Midgley00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 90 percent of American obstetricians and 66 percent of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine. In 1990, a survey published in the January 27th issue of the British Medical journal showed that over 50 percent of doctors in the UK rejected the Hepatitis B vaccine.
It would also be useful to put that in the context of current practice.
We discussed this on the talk page, I don't think the original assertions unmodified by that discussion should simply be pasted into the article. Midgley 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
(Later: the 1981 American paper actually does not report what is claimed. This is a trope that has been repeated many times, despite it also being pointed out that the paper is not about Obstetricians and Paediatricians, nor about refusal to take the vaccine. Midgley14:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 5 November 2005, pp. e623-e633 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0885)[23] is a more recent survey of how physicians (Swiss Paediatricians and others receiving a vaccine info mailing list) immunise their children.
"Conclusions. Ninety-three percent of the surveyed physicians agree with the current official vaccination recommendations and would apply them to their own children. However, the observation that 5% of nonpediatricians would not use Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine if they had a child born in 2004 is unexpected and concerning. In contrast, both groups gave additional vaccines than those recommended to their own children. Among physicians in Switzerland interested in immunization, a significant proportion of nonpediatricians decline or delay the immunization of their own children with the recommended MMR- or DTP-based combination vaccines, which indicates that clarification of misconceptions such as fear of "immune overload" has not yet reached important targets among health care providers who thus are unlikely to answer parental concerns adequately."
Midgley01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Immune Overload
I'm surprised we have not yet done immune overload. Has recognition that the recent increase in immunisation numbers has actually reduced the antigens from around 3000 to nearer a dozen, and that we can respond to many orders of magnitude more antigens become general? Midgley01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
from The State
I've moved this to here because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anti-vaccinationists.
The CDC mandate vaccinations for travelling to certain countries from the United
States.[24]
I don't think that is mandated as in you may not leave the country unless you have it, is it? There had been historical a-v activity advising travellers how to avoid vaccination on travel but this is modern.
Similarly:-
In Oregon, USA public health officials are advocating routine infant vaccination for
Hepatitis-B[25],
and already enforcing compulsory Hep-B vaccination for all students.
[26]
True, but should it be in this page rather than another? Are anti-vacciantionists establishing schools where children can attend without being immunised, as a reaction to it?
Wolfe and Sharpe
I've tried in vain to find the table in which Wolfe and Sharpe draw "uncanny" comparisons between the anti-vaccinationist groups of the past and contemporary, ehm, critics, I suppose. Can someone please post the URL to the table that makes this comparison? --Leifern20:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Towards the end of the 20th century, a wave of anti-vaccination activity led to an increase in media interest in the arguments attacking childhood immunisations. We have culled arguments from the present-day anti-vaccination movement and compared them with those of its 19th century counterparts (box A on bmj.com) which the anti-vaccination headings are taken chiefly from a study by Leask and Chapman of anti-vaccination themes as expressed in the press.10 Box B on bmj.com summarises the characteristics and impact of the anti-vaccination movement, comparing the late 19th century with late 20th century. These show uncanny similarities, suggesting an unbroken transmission of core beliefs and attitudes over time. (Leif's emphasis)
I may be being pedantic, or concrete in my thinking, but ... the BMJ publishes, for the most part, papers WP articles. Box A and Box B are where the paper says they are, on the BMJ site. If you read the top two lines of the page, of the paper you refer to, you will find them. A useful tip when looking for something on a web page is to use the find facility built into the web browser, in this case "box" would get you there rather promptly also. Midgley02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Wolf did a great job in disguising the fact the smallpox anti-vax people main argument was scientific not "of a spiritual or philosophical nature". You can see these arguments in the page National Anti-Vaccination League under "Chief points against vaccination by International Anti-Vaccination League". No change today. In a similar way anti-vivisection folk arguments are usually portrayed in the media as moral, never the fact it is unscientific. john19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It is a non-science, as scheibner says. Doesn't prevent disease (or eliminate any), instead causes most of the child disease. The antibody science used to back it up is non-science. john15:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I make that four and a half. Can that be referenced? John does a credible job of presenting a view which I think derives, quite logically, from some time between the ancient Greeks and Pasteur, through rejecting Pasteur 's demonstration of the germ theory of life, thus all of immunology and everything built on a conventional understanding of the immune system. I'd expect to see Lamarckism in there... Logical, but based on false premises and with really rather simple demonstrations of them, as done by Pasteur and Koch. An astronomical equivalent would be explaining the Apollo 11 mission using epicycles rather than Newtonian physics. Technically possible, but nobody believes in epicycles now. Midgley15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Publications
What does the content of that section contribute to the article? There is no argument there, nor description. Midgley21:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that as helping the article. The publications are perhaps sources for the arguments used, but isn't it more interesting who said what when and why? Where as well, to a degree.Midgley15:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Unreferenced Anecdotes
Could we perhaps have referenced anecdotes about the Amish, please? Is the argument one which has been advanced by anti-vaccinationists - that nobody should be vaccinated, because the Amish, who are not, have less autism, and that it is on that account they have less of it? If it is, the article would be better if that is what it said. Midgley00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Holland
I chopped this out of the article. Some of it should be back in, in different places and with references I think.
The pieces in quotes are Johns text form the article. I'll indent comments. midgley
"*Anti-vaccinists would reply that 50% of measles deaths are in vaccinated children, "
None of the deaths reported there are in vaccinated children, they were not vaccinated, they had measles, they died.
I don't trust gov stats re vaccinated or unvaccinated, they don't look into vaccination status usually. In a measles outbreak in Ireland, 2000: According to the PHLS of Ireland, the Informed Immunisation Network Dublin and Eurosurveillance Weekly, the year-2000 outbreak grew thus: by Feb 2000 there were 16 hospitalisations, but 9 were under age of vaccination and 4 vaccinated. Only 3 out of 16 cases were therefore children who had avoided vaccination. By June 2000, there were 844 cases, of which 101 were hospitalised. The highest attack rate was in ages 6-14 months, i.e. under the age of MMRjohn18:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That argument appears to be that vaccination would only have saved half of them. But I may be misunderstanding it.
"or in children under the age of vaccination"
If the assertion is that these deaths were under the age of vaccination then that is clearly checkable... but we all know that argument for protecting the younger ones by avoiding them catching measles from older children - that proposition would be an argument for vaccination not against.
"and that measles is safe in children under proper supervision,"
This was a community which chose not to vaccinate.
They get criticised by doctors for not vaccinating, and now they get criticised by the chief "its better not to vaccinate" person for failing to feed their children right and look after them when they got ill. Measles is not safe under supervision, it is occasionally lethal. Unless this is some special meaning of "safe", that elastic word that means one thing for vaccine side effects that need RCTs of 100 000 to rule out, and another thing for children dead of Measles.
Reconciling 50% arguments with deaths in Holland 2000
Deaths under age of vaccination
Deaths in vaccinated children
Deaths in unvaccinated children old
enough to be vaccinated
"one example being the use of vitamin C as demonstrated by Fred Klenner MD over 50 years ago .org.uk/m/klenner.html, or JB :Ellison with Vitamin A over 70 years ago .org.uk/a/ellison1.html. "
Were those large placebo controlled RCTs properly supervised and reported in peer reviewed journals? And can we see the reference to the original rather than a copy, please?
I gave you the journal articles .org.uk/m/klenner.html They were on Wiki until JDWolf deleted them [28], also she deleted the Kalokerinos articles [29]. Can I delete all of your work that isn't peer reviewed? I thought this was a page that outlined the anti-vaccine argument? The medical industry keeps control by controlling peer review, so it would be par for the course. I guess when I produce them you will then say they have to be large placebo controlled trials. If you can show me the Wiki page that says all text on Wiki has to be peer reviewed then I will play along. I have a list of 2,000 peer review vitamin C citations. john18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"Recent published studies have found that 72%. of hospitalised measles cases in America are Vitamin A deficient"
I've looked at that web page - it does not appear to be in a peer-reviewed journal.
Again ... (If I wanted to debate it I'd perhaps suggest that if vaccines use up Vit A, then the wild disease is likely to use it up greatly more, so that finding lower levels of VIt A in someone responding to illness than someone not ill (IE the source of "normal levels") would be less than surprising.
Not necessarily, neomycin depletes and interferes with nutrition: Neomycin impairs absorption (and may also increase excretion) of a broad variety of nutrients including carbohydrates, fats, calcium, iron, magnesium, nitrogen, potassium, sodium, folic acid, and vitamins A, B12, D, and K. (Faloon WW, et al. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1966 Jun 14;132(2):879-887; Hardison WG, Rosenberg IH.J Lab Clin Med. 1969 Oct;74(4):564-573; Robinson C, Weigly E. 1984, 46-54; Roe DA. 1985, 157-158.) Orally administered neomycin may inactivate vitamin B6. Orally administered neomycin impairs absorption of both beta-carotene and vitamin A. (Tuckerman M, Turco S. 1983, 215-222; Robinson C, Weigly E. 1984, 46-54; Barrowman JA, et al. Clin Sci. 1972 Apr;42(4):17P; Favaro RM, et al. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 1994;64(2):98-103.) Orally administered neomycin impairs vitamin B12 absorption and has been shown to decrease vitamin B12 levels. (Tuckerman M, Turco S. 1983, 215-222; Robinson C, Weigly E. 1984, 46-54; Cullen RW, Oace SM. J Nutr. 1989 Oct;119(10):1399-1403..) Neomycin, taken orally, impairs vitamin K absorption and has been shown to decrease vitamin K levels. Extended use of neomycin internally would also exert a detrimental effect upon the probiotic intestinal flora responsible for vitamin K synthesis. (Robinson C, Weigly E. 1984, 46-54; Olson JA. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Apr;45(4):687-692; Salet J, et al. Arch Fr Pediatr. 1968 Oct;25(8):961.) Neomycin impairs calcium absorption when taken orally. (Roe DA. 1985, 157-158.) Neomycin impairs magnesium absorption as a result of maldigestion when taken orally. (Roe DA. 1985, 157-158.) Neomycin causes fat malabsorption when taken internally, especially due to mucosal damage in the small intestine. Diarrhea is a common consequence. Further, over an extended period this effect could also result in decreased absorption of fat soluble nutrients such as vitamins A, D, E and K. (Hardison WG, Rosenberg IH. J Lab Clin Med. 1969 Oct;74(4):564-573; Roe DA. 1985, 157-158; Ratnaike RN, Jones TE. Drugs Aging 1998 Sep;13(3):245-253.) Neomycin impairs lactose absorption when taken orally. (Roe DA. 1985, 157-158.) Neomycin impairs sucrose absorption when taken orally. (Roe DA. 1985, 157-158.) During the course of eliminating disease-causing bacteria, antibiotics taken internally will also usually destroy normally-occurring beneficial bacterial flora that form an integral part of the healthy intestinal ecology and assist digestive and immune functions. Diarrhea and yeast infections, including vaginal yeast, are common side-effects of the disruption of intestinal ecology and the creation of an environment more susceptible to proliferation of pathogenic levels of opportunistic yeast. (Matteuzzi D, et al. Ann Microbiol (Paris). 1983 May-Jun;134A(3):339-349; Linzenmeier G, et al. Zentralbl Bakteriol . 1979 Apr;243(2-3):326-335.) john19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
John, from the titles alone, these are talking about extended periods of use, at a guess about grams of Neomycin given via the gut, every day, enough to kill all bacteria in it. Not about trace quantities given parenterally or even via the gut on one day in a month. Do you understand that it is like saying that sunshine can cause an all over second degree burn, and therefore it is unsafe to go out in the daytime. (I suspect I have the right order of magnitude there, but you can regard it as hyprbole to make a point). Have you actually a) read and b) understood all of those papers?
"In the third world nearly 45 percent of measles deaths are associated with low weight and poor nutrition .org.uk/a/nutr1.html. "
John earlier wrote here that 45% of children in sub-saharan Africa are malnourished. (I think he said 45%, it certainly wasn't e.g. 22.5%)
So on those figures, '
45% of healthy children are associated with low weight and poor nutrition
45% of dead children are associated with low weight and poor nutrition
If the piece added to the article had actually been using that figure to assert anything, rather than just being lobbed in and left for people to read, I'd at this point be remarking that it doesn't seem to indicate an association of death from Measles with malnutrition, and that since we have long regarded this association as existing, the definition of malnutrition - the case finding - is probably quite wrong. I'd actually look in the bottom say 9% for an association, although it isn't something I do for a living and an epidemiologist's opinion would be better.
"Of course, the main argument against MMR vaccination"
Is not relevant to what happened to some children who had not had MMR. It might belong elsewhere in this article, although turning it into an assertion like "A does B" and noting that it is a belief rather than anything that huge searches for evidence have supported would be desirable.
"is the amount of vaccine damage which anti-vaccinists believe to be way and above the bad effects from measles."
This looks as though it heads toward an assertion that measles causes X morbidity and mortality, and Measles vaccine/MMR causes Y, and then that Y is greater than X. It would be interesting to see actual numbers...but regardless of those, if that is an assertion that can be referenced - as having been made somewhere, by anti-vaccinationists, then it belongs in the article, regardless of its truth. Under assertions, I'd say.
"While naturopaths and homeopaths believe measles is a necessary process of the immune system,"
Again, here we have an assertion that is worth teasing out. And referencing...
Would it be
A child who has not by adulthood contracted Measles of the wild strain suffers the following adverse consequences:-
A
B
C
a list which I don't know of a single member of - enlighten me please.
The second assertion that is in there is
The attenuated strain of Measles in vaccine does not produce these benefits/avoid those consequences
and
because ....
(I'm not picky, empiricism is fine - provided it is a reasonable sized observational study conducted and supervised properly and can be referenced and the raw data seen.)
What is the argument which Mr Kraus is mentioned to advance or illustrate?
"In 1806 a Mr. Kraus was awarded $1000 by the then rulers of New York territory for his scientific discovery which had kept rabies out of New York for over twenty years. His formula is a matter of record and consisted of the ground-up jaw bone of an ass or dog, a piece of colt's tongue and the green rust off a penny of George the First reign." Page 185-186, Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean."
There is a short page which has considerable detail on the various acts (thanks to those who have made a study of them) and which is somewhat useful as a deeper reference for both vaccination and this page. May I suggest that the detail of the history not be re-written into the paragraph it was taken out of, as it doesn't really help the flow? Midgley01:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Gold Standard Trials, and others
They were heroes in those days...
"The rabies vaccine was initially created by Emile Roux, a French doctor and a colleague of Pasteur who had been working with a killed vaccine produced by desiccating the spinal cords of infected rabbits. The vaccine had only been tested on eleven dogs before its first human trial.
This vaccine was first used on 9-year old Joseph Meister, on July 6, 1885, after the boy was badly mauled by a rabid dog. This was done at some personal risk for Pasteur, since he was not a licensed physician and could have faced prosecution for treating the boy. Fortunately, the treatment proved to be a spectacular success, with Meister avoiding the disease; thus, Pasteur was hailed as a hero and the legal matter was not pursued. The treatment's success laid the foundations for the manufacture of many other vaccines. " Pasteur
Is the assertion actually true - IE no immunisation at all has been tested in a double blind randomised RCT of suitable size etc.?
Is the size an argument which lacks a specification about the power of the trial - some clinical trials require a population larger than the one available to be powered to detect all side effects, so other methods are actually the gold standard for them.
Being done by fallible people, few trials are perfect, and it is possible to serially assert that each trial should be succeeded by another bigger one... not a wholly convincing argument.
This is getting a bit like epidemiology ... there is a risk of running into a pair of assertions - that the trials must be done to prove safety, and that trials do not prove anything, since it is all individual variation, and in this best of all possible worlds the people who get unusual side-effects will be those fated to get them. Epidemiology seems to enjoy a two-pronged relationship with the arguments. Midgley01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Variolation
"In spite of the ban in England, variolation came to be known as "arm-to-arm" vaccination and the practice continued in parallel with vaccination through the late 1800's. "
It doesn't seem impossible although I suspect it is wrong - in that it would be Cowpox and then Vaccinia that was being inoculated directly, not Variola, and therefore would not be variolation. It also has no reference, but I chopped it out because it is not about anti-vaccinationists.
Unless the anti-vaccinationists were the anti-variolationists, and they had changed their mind about variolation!
Of course, if anti-vacinnationists were travelling the kingdom infecting people with Smallpox ... no, too much like a conspiracy theory. Midgley02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Vaccinationists
I'm just curious - who are vaccinationists? If there are anti-vaccinationists, then there must be vaccinationists, too. --Leifern03:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Known as vaccinators in early days. The medical profession in it's entirety were vaccinators, apart from the odd notable anti-vaccine medical men such as Charles Pearce, Walter Hadwen, Edgar Crookshank and Charles Creighton (for smallpox vaccination). "Vaccinator" has become a taboo word for medical people as it reveals their professional (and financial) interest in vaccination (mostly to themselves, breaking the denial), as they like to think their belief in pharma medicine such as vaccines is purely a result of science and their own thinking, rather than the truth, that it is mostly down to politics (money and power), especially with vaccination and the drugs for degenerative disease. There are medical people who promote or defend vaccination full time, in smallpox days this was Sir Lionel Playfair, and now we have Paul Offit, Katz, Halsey, Fitzpatrick, Elliman & Bedford etc. Midgley looks to be one as well. john09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
GPs have on the order of 1% of their professional practice taken up with immunisation. The income to the Practice is commensurate with the work involved. Most GPs earn profits from their practices, similarly to lawyers, accountants and other professionals. Paediatricians are generally and public health doctors always on salaries, as some GPs are now, and therefore have no financial stake in the level of immunisation achieved - and put more effort into achieving high levels in their patch than GPs. The payment system for immunisation in the UK is maintained in its present form - with targets - by the Department of Health against a preference for detailed change by GPs - one reason being to remove any apparent or disproportionate interest in complete coverage. The assertions there - it is all we do, we get paid a lot for it and we do it full time - are genuine a-v arguments since the dawn of time, and belong in the article. (As does that 1% of course.) How are Homeopaths and Naturopaths paid?
Money from vaccinations and immunisations should represent between 5 and 10% of item-of-service incometo/vaccines/money.html. (1997! Long gone. Midgley) I can see your words but they don't change the fact medical doctors are vaccinators, whatever their visible income from the practice. We don't call other doctors (naturopaths, homeopaths, herbalists etc.) vaccinators, do we. Pharma med is the medicine of the medical profession which is medical doctors, specifically those ones who use only pharma med, to distinguish them from nutritional medical doctors, or any other form of alternative medicine used by them. The whole of allopathy rests on vaccination, it is worth trillions in PR to say that you have (not true) eliminated smallpox, polio etc., because in reality you have only cured bacterial infections, disease wise. Some of the $10 Billion or so vaccine income comes back down the gravy train in the form of grants, and you can see people like Bedford and Elliman get grants from vaccine companies. Homeopaths and naturopaths get paid by the customer, they haven't managed to get at the laws to make the taxpayer pay them. That is how the public is so easily fooled, because the gravy train is funded by the taxpayer. GPs are on £100,000 a year. I guess the taxpayer funds that. john15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
IOS payments are a fraction of the income to the Practice, even from the NHS, but that sounds in the right ballpark - if they were around half the total then that would put vaccination income at around 2.5-5% of total. Calculating profit on it gets more complex, shall we settle for " a minor part of income". Midgley17:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"a minor part of income" translates into a large proportion of profit e.g. 17% of the profit of a professional practice. (If profitability is 30%, 5% of income = 1/6th of profit = 17%). At the cited 10% that is doubled. Even if it were only a couple of extra grand a year, that is enough to make many people greedy. Yet another example of trying to downplay unfavourable points. The Invisible Anon
Unbelievably stupid. Profit is income minus expenses. Which are left out there. This is an assertion that all immunisation activity in a practice is without cost. Idiot, or troll. Midgley21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There, there. It is entirely possible that a smaller part of revenue/income corresponds to a greater part of the profits. For example, let's say someone has total revenues of $100,000 and has total profits of $20,000. If $5,000 of the revenue and $3,000 of the profits is from vaccines, then vaccines comprise 5% of the revenue and 15% of the profit. I have no idea whether that's the case - I honestly don't put much stock in the greed argument - but the math isn't "stupid." Also keep in mind that not all medical doctors the world over are salaried. Many are professional corporations or equivalent. --Leifern21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You have no idea whether it is the case. I do. And you have left out capital costs and fixed costs and failed to consider the basis of payment which is that the state (or other commissioner outside the UK) aims to offer just sufficient to persuade the Practices to do the work. Since they are a monopsony (or oligopsony in the USA) they hold considerable bargaining power. Might anyone agree we have drawn an assertion out of this, that vaccinations are done for money motivated by greed - yes? I strongly doubt that it is a central canon that vaccination is pursued because it is significantly more profitable than other work, because the obvious weakness of that is that it would indicate the vacciantors would prefer to do something else given even pricing, which is inconsistent with other assertions. Midgley22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think this discussion rather illustrates my point. It's a bit like characterizing some medical doctors as "abortionists" to make them seem more murderous somehow. Wikipedia articles are not fora for mutual demonization - Midgley is trying his hardest to create a non-existent group of people ("anti-vaccinationists") who are dogmatically opposed to vaccination for reasons that are entirely spurious, and whaleto is trying his hardest to create a non-existent group of people ("vaccinationists") who are hellbent on poisoning people for financial gain. I am still trying to figure what this article is supposed to be about, but it's bound for serious edit wars unless we try to make it about something specific and factual. My own preference would be that it's about the historical phenomenon known as the "anti-vaccinationist movement," which largely expired in the early 20th century; and that we leave contemporary controversies about vaccination in their relevant articles. My guess is that neither Midgley nor Whaleto are inclined to support that, but that's my proposal. --Leifern17:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
there is a fairly large group of people who are anti-vaccine, but they don't like to be labelled "anti-vaccine" as it is a pejorative term, due of the efforts of the medical industry, as Midgley has so well demonstrated with his crank link. Most non-medical doctors would be anti-vaccine if pushed to give a view, but they don't like to antagonise the medical monopoly. The chiropractors stopped the NVIC folding. who are hellbent on poisoning people for financial gain. Vaccination continues purely due to its financial input, as Dr Buchwald points out, Vaccinations are now carried out for purely commercial reasons because they fetch huge profits for the pharmaceutical industry......There is no scientific evidence that vaccinations are of any benefit, but it is clear that they cause a great deal of harm...Today there are 800,000 children and youngsters under the age of 15 years (Germany) with asthma. But to say that they do it to poison people may be true for a handful of people running the world and the medical industry, but the vast majority have no idea, they believe in vaccines, just like the majority of US soldiers believed (probably not so many now) in the spurious reasons for invading Iraq. So that isn't true and is a distortion of my opinion. john20:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Too simple a view. Perhaps someone might bring back the section I wrote at the top of the talk page a while back, it is in the archive now, about the scope of the article? To quote one of the commentators earlier, they exist, pretending they don't is silly. As an antagonist of one specific form of vaccination on one specific ground Leifern may feel threatened or included. I've remarked before that Leifern's actions suggest a non-objective component, on this topic and those related to it. Midgley17:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Midgley, your ad hominems do neither you nor your point of view any honor; I could certainly reciprocate as to what your actions suggest to me, and we'd get nowhere here. So please refrain from these very poorly articulated and entirely misplaced attempts at insults. My point is this: if you are going to describe a group of people based on a shared ideology, you have the burden of proof that they exist. As it stands, you have as lousy a basis for that assertion as whaleto does for his - the presence and motivations of anti-vaccinationists and vaccinationists reflect your respective opinions and no facts that are actually in evidence. I have suggested that to salvage this article we narrow its scope to something that we can actually describe, namely the historical movement that is exemplified in organizations such as the National Anti-Vaccinationist League, etc. Unless you are willing to put up with an article called Vaccinationists we should try to work together on this. For heaven's sake, articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict are more focused and less biased than this article is. --Leifern19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It isn't an ad hominem. If you want an article on vaccinationists, undo the redirect, and write it. Write something in this article. At the moment there is an awful lot of talk about how anti-vacciantionists don't exist, can't be found on Google etc., and not a lot of actual contribution to an article. Who would you say is in the best position to describe the historical movements? Midgley22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(Resetting indents)
I was opposed to an article about the people labelled as "anti-vaccinationists" and am opposed to an article about people labelled as "vaccinationists" for the same reason, so asking me to write that article is an invitation to violate the guideline of WP:POINT. I won't take the bait. In general, I think it is problematic to write an article about a group of people who are presumed to share an opinion. You'll see that Anti-Semites redirects to Anti-Semitism, and if I had it my way, even that would be renamed to Antisemitism since there is no "semitism" to be "anti." So my suggestion is that we change this article to be about the anti-vaccinationist movement. It is absolutely fair to compare the convictions of the anti-vaccinationist leagues, etc., with today's skeptics, critics, and what-not, but it is not fair to simply assume that they are the same. --Leifern23:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is an exercise in creative writing. That is why "anti-vaccinationist" does not link to "anti-vaccinationism" - because there is no such thing. The purpose of labelling people "anti-vaccinationist" is to dismiss the factual basis for the concerns about the hazards of vaccines.
Take a look at this edit [[30]]. It was chopped out after a mere 3 hours and 11 minutes. How many bona fide editors delete relevant information in its entirety? The history of this page has numerous examples of unusual editing.
Please do not take any notice of the personal comments made to you either. I have seen this strategy before on Wikipedia. Just stick to the facts and the issues and you will not go far wrong. There are other editors on Wikipedia who will repeatedly make personal remarks. If and when the recipient responds in like manner, then you will find someone has without any notice to you or any warning posted something on the Admins noticeboard. I have some nice examples. I see you have had cause to complain about this kind of behaviour recently so you will know what I am talking about.
Underlying the anti-vaccinationist coherent group is a set of philosophies. They are essentially a rejection of modern science. Now to what extent that is a cloak, and to what extent it is obvious to someone who believes them that all of modern biological and medical science is a delusion or fraud, is interesting. Earlier we established that the last-listed UK anti-vaccination league was receiving money in the 1960s, which rules out the time scale offered above unless there is a definition of "early 20th century" that means "in the second half, along with the Beatles".
I have previously requested that someone indicate precisely in what years that these organizations were active. Unless I've missed something recently, it all continues to be very uncertain. You have yet to describe what these philosophies are other than a concern about civil liberties and safe medicine, and you're going to have to prove that they reject modern science. --Leifern19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
a rejection of modern science That is not true, so I wish you would stop repeating that.
Vaccination science is mostly junk science, for example antibodies are used as a measure of immunity but there is no evidence for that (see www.vaccination .org.uk/vaccines/antibody.html).
Immunity to Rabies is humoural, not cell-mediated. There is no shortage of evidence for that. The page pointed to is a hodge-podge of poorly considered and ordered quotes whose meaning in context is not even clear never mind relevance to this. Is Jon Whale's whalemedical.com commercial enterprise wholly unconnected from John's whale. to postrationality warehouse? A connection seems logical. Midgley23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Immunity involves a load of things, of which antibodies of various sorts are easy to measure, and in various situations are a particularly good measure if immunity.
Not according to some of your own experts: Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."--john22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It is used as a proxy, and is good for some things. Measuring cell-mediated immunity is a non-trivial exercise, but the cells use antibodies to recognise antigens. cell-mediated is a better term than cellular, I think, nowadays. Midgley01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Also you have scant knowledge of the immune system "I would challenge any colleague, clinician or research scientist to claim that we have a basic understanding of the human newborn immune system."---Testimony of Dr Dunbar (Hep B vaccine -- www.vaccination .org.uk/vaccines/dunbar4.html, so it is an experiment masquerading as proven science.
We have a more than basic understanding of the immune system, of how it differs from the adult one (cell-mediated vs non-cell mediate immunity) and we have had this all before and yet are having it trotted out again because a large part of anti-vacciantionist argument is to simply represent the same assertions over and over again, regardless of how wrong they are. Midgley21:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"Basic". We have to repeat our assertions to counter the repetition propaganda ploy of you vaccinators. Unless you have 100% knowledge it is still an experiment, and then you have other nasty little truths (www.vaccination .org.uk/a/child.html) about the blood brain barrier, A single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. And so on. john22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
100% knowledge before acting is not something that attends any common human activity. You have picked out for us an anti-vaccinationist argument though, which belongs in the article. I don't follow the argument about 180 pound adults though - the volumes are made up to be convenient to handle, and the amount of substance is estimated to be sufficient - if the adult needs more then you'd make a more concentrated solution, but it isn't obvious to me that it scales that way - the infant is going to have as many clones of antigen-recognising cells as the adult - possibly slightly more since their Thymus may still be turning out new ones - it is a little late to look that up now. Point being the body is not homogenous, and we are trying to present a few molecules to a few cells, not produce a constant concentration of something throughout the body. Analogies are bad, but one does not write a letter on a larger page and in a larger envelope in order to convey a message to a person in a large company than to one in a small shop.Midgley01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Anti-vaccination has always been pro-science, as you can tell by the quality of the people opposing it, like prof Edgar Crookshank and Charles Creighton--which would explain why you medical editors were so keen to delete my text on him [31]. And to say Viera Scheibner is anti-science is laughable. As she said, vaccination is a non-science claiming to be scientific. Just like vivisection claims to be scientific, and its opponents anti-science or moralists, another charade. I guess you hope if you keep repeating it people will believe it, worked well so far.
I suspect that if he was regarded as notable, you would not be needing to write a paen to him, someone else would have done it already. Midgley21:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hardly an argument. Books have mentioned him, but I tend to be the first internet publisher of smallpox critics (www.vaccination .org.uk/a/creighton1.htm). It is a testament to the power of the medical industry that few have heard of him john22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There are thousands of peer review articles on the negative effects of vaccines (www.vaccination .org.uk/vaccine/citations.html).
safety studies are no more than 2 or 3 weeks, and conducted by the makers, so we can discount them. So no safety studies, essentially.
No vaccine has been studied using 100% unvaccinated controls, using the spurious argument about unethical etc., which has just been shot to pieces by Dan Olmsted. So if that is scientific I'm a banana.
the statistics show, smallpox vaccine, for example, was completely ineffective, over 90% of the victims had been vaccinated [www.vaccination .org.uk/vaccine/quotes10.html], and look at the Philippines [www.vaccination .org.uk/vaccines/smallpox7.html]. So what sort of "science" is it that ignores the statistics that prove it is completely useless?
I've not examined them, never been there. What sort of science discounts symptoms of Influenza because "they are not a diagnosis" in order to discount the effect of immunisation against it? What sort of science says that people who get smallpox and lose large areas of skin don't die of smallpox, they die of a failure of supportive treatment.
You should examine them, as they are very revealing, too revealing I suspect. What sort of "science" discounts the true cause of smallpox, and the main cofactors in smallpox deaths and disability? And just blames a virus? If that is science I'm a banana. john22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I looked at the Philippines. I posted the link to the US Army medical department's report of smallpox from the Civil war to WW1 above here, from that:-
Initially the vaccine was degraded by heat, therefore much of it would have been inactive. Once they had established controlled supplies (the cold chain is still a major concern today) ...
"When locally produced vaccine virus became available steps were taken to protect the civil population, with the result that the disease in epidemic form disappeared in the wake of the vaccinating squads. As an example of the striking influence of this protective measure may be cited the fact that the deaths from smallpox in the native population in the Provinces adjacent to Manila were reduced from 6,000 annually to zero and in Manila itself not 1 death from smallpox was recorded for the 7 years prior to 1914.9
Subsequent to 1914, as a result of relaxation in administrative control and inefficiency and incompetency on the part of subordinate Filipino health officers charged with the administration of smallpox vaccine, a large unprotected population—young children—came into being. The result was that in 1918 and 1919 the population of the Philippine Islands suffered the greatest smallpox catastrophe of modern times.9 Incomplete statistics show that more than 60,000 persons died of smallpox during this period and more than 90 per cent of the deaths occurred in unvaccinated children.10
Notwithstanding the fact that smallpox in widespread virulent epidemic form attacked the Filipino population during the period of the World War, the military forces (American and Filipino) on duty in the Philippines during the same period were singularly free. In a military force of approximately 40,000 men only 3 deaths from smallpox occurred. Reduced to approximately comparable figures, the statement is justified that the ratio of recorded deaths from smallpox during the epidemic in the native population as compared with that in the military population was as 40 is to 1. The senior writer of this chapter has been informed by those conversant with the situation that, as a matter of fact, it may conservatively be estimated that 100,000 Filipinos died during the course of the 1918-19 epidemic, in which case the comparative ratio would be about 80 to 1, rather than 40 to 1.
The actual results accomplished in the prevention of smallpox in the American military forces during the past 75 years probably can best be expressed in the statement that for every 1 case of smallpox occurring during the World War, 9 occurred during the Spanish-American War and Philippine insurrection and 28 occurred during the Civil War (white enlisted men only). The case fatality rate during the Civil War was 39 per cent; during the Spanish-American War and Philippine insurrection, 31 per cent; and during the World War it dropped to the extraordinarily low figure of 1.6 per cent. (See Table 55.) This low mortality rate is probably accounted for in minor degree by the fact that the type of smallpox prevailing in the United States during the World War was of low virulence; however, the principal factor responsible for the low death rate was the high degree of protection afforded by vaccination."
The reference on Whale is rather less convincing - where were the people who are quoted, for instance, and how did they measure what they report?
The case fatality rates quoted on Whale suggest to me that reporting was very incomplete.
Midgley02:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Case mortality is just another nail in the smallpox vaccine coffin [www.vaccination .org.uk/a/case.html]
the BCG vaccine science is a wonder: Never used in the USA, given up by Germany 27 years after they knew it was ineffective, yet given to babies in France while it's 10-14 year olds in Britain. Don't even try!
Given to babies in Britain. Not given 10-14 year olds in Devon, which I'm told is local to John. This information is readily available, and if you tell me you don't know it I shall look incredulous. The USA have a different approach, of surveillance and treatment on positive tests. See http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/article.php?id=223 "The combination of better living conditions, antibiotics against TB, and the BCG vaccine reduced the number of cases of TB in the UK from around 50,000 a year in 1950 to 5,745 in 1987. Since then there have been small year on year increases to around 7,000 new cases a year. "
Was 10-14 year olds, last time I looked [www.vaccination .org.uk/a/imm.html], and I recall it was that age with my teenage kids. So now that has changed to babies in UK, make up your mind. "In the Netherlands BCG is never given to children...nevertheless, the incidence of tuberculosis in the Netherlands is the lowest in the world."--Dr. Tinus Smits http://www.tinussmits.com/english/pvs/john22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And badgers, in Devon. The reason it is not used in Holland,I surmise, is _because_ the incidence of Tb there is very low. In much if England it is very low now, hence one reason for reducing use of it - the likelihood of it doing good has fallen - except for those recently born and about to go where it is more likely they will be exposed. And, as I said, badgers. These items of information are not obscure, and perusing them goes well with an interest in vaccination.Midgley01:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I love the way you used a mumps vaccine for years, probably decades, Rubini, and then admitted it was completely ineffective! I could go on. I like your photos, you must show me how to upload them one day. john20:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hepatitis. Here you have a hep B vaccine, and hep C test yet: "If you read the literature very carefully, you will find that, while there is a strong marker for the disease, there is no hard scientific evidence to support the existence of a hepatitis C virus. Clearly, a non-A, non-B hepatitis disease exists, but the science behind an associated virus is weak at best. As a scientist I am compelled to ask, how can we vaccinate people against a disease-causing agent that has not been fully characterized?"---Dr Urnovitz [www.vaccination .org.uk/vaccines/urnovitz.html] john22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I have patients with Hepatitis C. Urnovitz I don't know, and 1999 is very nearly prehistoric in this field. This looks pretty well characterised though:
Here is an abstract reporting sequencing 6 variants of it:
and here is a primer on it at the excellent Leicester Virology department (they really seem to know something about viruses and telling people about them, in Leicester) http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/HCV.html
The reference on Whale is rather less convincing - where were the people who are quoted, for instance, and how did they measure what they report?
The case fatality rates quoted on Whale suggest to me that reporting was very incomplete.
Midgley02:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Case mortality is just another nail in the smallpox vaccine coffin. Case mortality (death rate per cases of smallpox) ranged from as much as 26.8% in Japan where revaccination was enforced to 1.26 (averaging 5.1) under the Leicester Method where vaccination was rejected in favour of sanitation, and 0% under homeopathic care .org.uk/a/case.htmljohn09:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Measles
That is a feeble excuse. You can't take it, but vaccination can only survive by keeping these annoying truths out of public view:
Anti-vaccinists would reply that 50% of measles deaths are in vaccinated children, or in children under the age of vaccination, and that measles is safe in children under proper supervision, one example being the use of vitamin C as demonstrated by Fred Klenner MD over 50 years ago .org.uk/m/klenner.html, or JB Ellison with Vitamin A over 70 years ago .org.uk/a/ellison1.html. Recent published studies have found that 72%. of hospitalised measles cases in America are Vitamin A deficient (while vaccines deplete Vitamin A levels .org.uk/vaccines/autism35.html). In the third world nearly 45 percent of measles deaths are associated with low weight and poor nutrition .org.uk/a/nutr1.html. Of course, the main argument against MMR vaccination is the amount of vaccine damage which anti-vaccinists believe to be way and above the bad effects from measles. While naturopaths and homeopaths believe measles is a necessary process of the immune system, either in elimination due to dietary choices and/or inherited disease traits .org.uk/m/measles4.html.org.uk/m/measles3.html. john13:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Could I press for something more specific, a couple of headings up the page, where I took the trouble to take the paragraph apart and indicate some pieces that look to me as though they should be in the article. And a few other things... (This is beginning to look like a day of ad homnimen "you are all liars except where you are fools dupes or in it for the money." The WP rule son that have been mentioned before, most days I think.) Midgley14:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You can spread a lie, e.g. vaccination eliminated smallpox, but that doesn't make you a liar unless you know it to be false. Likewise you can use authority ploy without any conscious knowledge it is a propaganda ploy. I haven't accused anyone of lying or being mentally ill unlike yourself [32]. You removed the above text using not peer reviewed journal references, nor original material - copy of it on partial site as an excuse. Klenner has peer review and Ellison was BMJ, and I don't accept peer review is the only acceptable information source. john14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
One of your links repeats a lie, about me - do you think if you keep doing that it will become true? If one of the papers you quote is a BMJ paper, give the reference to it in th BMJ, not on Whale/clone. One is primary, the other is secondary and looks like an attempt to grab traffic. Vaccination was part of the process of eradication of Smallpox. A lie that it was not is often repeated. Which of those who repeat it believe it is a question I am unsure of as yet. Shall we rmeain WP:civil or is it too much trouble? Midgley14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Give me the link and I'll look at it. It doesn't matter if something is a lie so much, but lying is another matter. We both believe in our beliefs about smallpox, so we are hardly liars. You could see they were peer review papers, so why didn't you put that in instead of deleting? It suggests you are more concerned to scupper my argument in anyway possible. Can you tell me why it would be wrong to grab traffic? The only argument I can see where it would be wrong is if I was making money off the back of it. Your deletion of links would appear to be an attempt to suppress the anti-vaccine viewpoint. john15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Midgley: The national health services and almost all doctors point out that they have looked at the statistics, and it simply isn't so. Is that a response? They would say that wouldn't they. Smallpox falls apart with statistics, and the Philippines in 1925 is the icing on the cake to/vaccine/smallpox3.html. john13:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
An official history http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwi/communicablediseases/chapter9.htm gives some figures on Smallpox before, during and after the S=A war. I suspect that assertions that America produced an apidemic of Smallpox with massive civilian casualties are propaganda. Disease was rampant and catastrophic for all parties involved (accounting for over 90% of Spanish Army casualties). Spain was essentially engaged in a full-scale war against the nascent Cuban Republic and the armies involved had the highest wastage rates anywhere on Earth–most of Spain's and Cuba's casualties in 1898 had zero to do with the war against the United States.
In a lecture at Yale in 1913, William Osler, a very famous physician from Canada mentioned, half way through http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/osler/modern_medicine.htm that the American occupying force eliminated (almost completely) Yellow Fever from Havana "thus saving, since then, more lives than had been lost in the Cuban War". This actually followed on demonstrating the causation of Yellow Fever, and from that, the Panama Canal became possible.
Nice story. I fail to see how that equates to the smallpox Philippine story that demolishes smallpox vaccination. Unless the Philippines are near Cuba?, I never was too hot on Geography. john15:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Not my best bit of Geog or history either. I gather they were there in similar time periods, and the army medical dept was considering them together. Midgley17:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Para 1 - now rubbish
The middle two sentences are no good:-
"The medical practice of vaccinating the populace, has been opposed by a wide array of critics since the practice first began to supersede variolation in 1796. As early as 1798, organized groups self-identifying as Anti-vaccinationists lobbied against vaccination for reasons ranging from religious justifications, conflicting scientific evidence, philosophical, aesthetic and health reasons."
1798 is later than 1796
The collection of reasons would seem to overlap (aesthetic?).
And I think there was a gathering of resistance after compulsion, and it didn't start off wide.
Underlying the anti-vaccinationist coherent group is a set of philosophies. They are essentially a rejection of modern science. Now to what extent that is a cloak, and to what extent it is obvious to someone who believes them that all of modern biological and medical science is a delusion or fraud, is interesting.
It is awfully hard to ascertain the underlying philosophies of people who are only thought to exist, so let's take this piece by piece.
If I understand Midgley's point correctly, it is that the people who are critical to vaccines now are in all important respects successors to the Anti-Vaccinationist leagues that were at their most active in the late 19th/early 20th century. The evidence for this is to be found in a comparison made by Wolfe and Sharpe of the arguments found in both camps.
Now, Wolfe and Sharpe are presenting a case that one could dispute. To their credit, they do not reach for the conclusion that either of these groups reject modern science; they are simply drawing parallels. To test Wolfe and Sharpe's arguments, one would have to find out if a) the sample of arguments from the two groups are in fact representative and exhaustive of either one of them; and b) whether these arguments help distinguish arguments made by other groups.
Midgley goes beyond what Wolfe and Sharpe say by claiming there is a continuity in the underlying philosophies. This would mean that there is a worldview that is similar. But as far as I can tell, the arguments that Wolfe and Sharpe compare boil down to two propositions:
There are limits to the state's rights to coerce individuals into taking medical treatment
The value of a vaccine program must be evaluated in light of its efficacy and safety
I have to imagine that such a philosophy will find adherents among the vast majority of medical professionals; certainly all medical doctors I know
To be sure, the anti-vaccinationist leagues of the past had a strong position on these: they questioned whether the state had any right to vaccinate people against their will; and they held that vaccines had absolutely no efficacy and great risk. But the difference between vaccinationists and anti-vaccinationists in those days was not on philosophy; it was on facts.
Stated this way, there is nothing in the position of the anti-vaccinationists of yesteryear that represents a "rejection of modern science." Certainly, there was a rejection of the assertions made by the medical establishment of the time, but that was because the anti-vaccinationists thought they were lying.
I see that "modern" is yet again tripping us up.
Pasteur to me is modern science.
John at least rejects him. A sampling of anti-vaccinationist websites appears also to do, but I am not yet convinced that when John tells us it is a canon of faith, that it is so. We should test that.
It is interesting that Pasteur was a fraud and plagiarist www.vaccination .org.uk/v/pasteur.html, hardly an encouraging fact. Likewise jenner was a charlatan. (John)
Edward Jenner was trained from 13 as a doctor, trained in London by eminent and famous doctors who have left more of a mark on the world than you ever will, elected Fellow of the Royal Society for science other than medicine, elected justice of the peace and served as a GP in a country area where he is still remembered, and remembered fondly - it is not far from here, past the Practice of one of his descendants - and where he was built purpose built premises. It is a characteristic argument of the anti-vaccinationists to belittle those they do not agree with, but in this case it doesn't work, it is ad hominem and even if it were true it would affect in the slightest way the composition of viruses, their behaviour or the response of the immune system.
He didn't believe cowpox was a preventive of smallpox, he touted horsegrease, but gave that up when Pearson wouldn't accept it. It was no discovery of Jenner's that cowpox was inoculable and preventive of smallpox. That was a rural superstition.
John, that is what discoveries are. I agree he didn't have priority, that probably goes to Benjamin Jesty, a successful farmer buried in a position in his churchyard that demonstrates he was not the least well thought-of citizen of his village (I've been there) and who was abused in scurrilous terms by one of Johns spiritual companions - it really does demonstrate continuity, assuming that John is accepted by anti-vaccinationists as a holder of a resource, not in his own word a kook which seems likely since I have yet to see a word of criticism of whale. to or its content in site that present themselves as vaccine-critics or are clearly anti-vaccinationist. What Jenner did was to observe, at the age of 13 or so, discuss, be unsatisfied by the status quo and think about it until 34 years later, practiced, established in medicine and the regard of the people in his area, he acted and then observed, described, refined (as mentioned, his initial hypothesis was excessively complicated) and published.
I'd take issue with the word "superstition" there as well. It was an observation by people who had many opportunities to make it, over a long time, and if anything, it is surprising that it took so long. Why would it take so long? One reason would be that Jenner didn't have a model to explain it - until Pasteur demonstrated that the ancient Roman who remarked on contagion in marshes was right (albeit perhaps about Malaria) there was no model to adequately explain infection, immunity and immunization. That is one reason why there would be so much cross-infection and infection - Erysipelas as in the Leicester account - with early vaccination - in modern times with infection understood rather than empirically treated as Jenner did - vaccination had little bacterial secondary infection and no mortality from it (that and antibiotics, of course). Jenner's initial model was not fully accurate, but what of it, science involves refining of models and only some fictitious process has the initial inventor either perfectly right or perfectly wrong, wholly lauded or wholly derided - a problem with the idee fixe is that you miss the fun going on around it - the Enlightenment, the birth of modern science through the empiricism of the Royal Society. There is a book in it, and I may have to write it - it'll give me a use for the wordage splashed around here at least. Midgley00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
(Back to Johns comment - I interjected because in a conversation that works better)Midgley 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Nor, be it again repeated, did he ever become responsible for that rural superstition. Recognising its futility, he deliberately set it aside, and recommended a disease of the horse, transmitted through the cow, for inoculation. It was Pearson, who disliking Jenner's prescription, brought cowpox into vogue; whereon Jenner, fearing that he might be cut out of the enterprise, dropped his specific, adopted the cowpox he had rejected, and claimed Pearson's work as the development of his own....... Jenner's prescription in the Inquiry of 1798 was not Cowpox. It was Horsegrease Cowpox. It was a disease of the horse inoculated on the cow. Cowpox per se he expressly rejected as useless, having no specific effect on the human constitution. Pearson and Woodville entertained Jenner's prescription in good faith. They tried to generate pox on the cow with grease from the horse, but did not succeed. Reluctantly they abandoned Jenner's prescription, and resorted to Cowpox. [1885] The Story of a Great Delusion by William White. Hardly encouraging that two allopathic gods were such characters. john23:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The position of contemporary vaccination critics is varied and nuanced. Some have a problem with thimerosal; others with the vaccination schedule; others again with the necessity of all of the vaccines; and yes, some with the evidence that vaccines are safe and efficacious.
It's not a pretty debate - both sides are accusing each other of dishonesty and greed, as well as no small measure of ignorance and stupidity.
But it can not be said that any of the critics reject modern science. In fact, they are invoking scientific arguments to make their case. What is in dispute is what the evidence shows us.
It is worth distinguishing between science and scientists. Science is a method, based in part on critical reasoning, that allows us to draw logically valid inferences from observations. Scientists are the people who make interpretations. Science can't speak, but scientists can. Any scientist worth his/her salt expresses himself/herself with great care, distinguishing between what is proven, unproven, and uncertain. If a scientist asserts that a vaccination confers 99% immunity for a given disease; and then there is a case where 50% of an immunized group that gets infected by the disease, one can calculate the odds that the incidence is consistent with the 99% assertion if one knows the sample size. In such a case, the science may in fact be intact, but the scientist has to evaluate his/her beliefs in light of new evidence.
If the sample size is 2 in the immunized group, to set an extreme case. But more importantly, there may have been flaws or unknown factors in the original study that established a 99% immunization rate. New information may become availably subsequently. --Leifern23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If the sample size is 2 then most statisticians would suggest not doing statistics on it I think. In order to have half a chance of distinguishing between 99% and 50% efficacy you'd need around 50 people in the sample, so th trial with 2 people is not powered to determine the difference. What does crop up with similar numbers is that if the vaccine is highly effective, perhaps not quite so good as 99%, and most people are vaccinated, then most of the people who catch the disease will have been vaccinated. Rather more in proportion of the people who don't catch the disease also will have been vaccinated, and a rather higher proportion of those unvaccinated people who are exposed will catch it. We tend to see one figure only, in official material as well as anti-vaccinationist. At the moment I'm looking for people who were bitten by an animal later proved to be rabid (John I suppose won't accept that one can prove it or that the viruses in their brain are anything to do with it, but I'll leave it to him to tell us what to do about Rabies - VIt C is it?), didn't have Rabies vaccine either beofre or after, and didn't get Rabies. If they did get Rabies, then with one exception, they died, but I'm interested in the ones that didn't. I'd think people wanting to demonstrate that vaccines were not needed and antibodies were not effective in immunity might have been looking also, did they find any? Midgley23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and here is an anti-vaccinationist link[33]. They are not critical, they are 100% anti. They represent themselves as numerous, organised, and widespread. Their card is copied on Whale but I don't know the copyright so I won't upload it here. Midgley23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it is absolutely essential for the integrity of science that the integrity of scientists be constantly questioned. I think most scientists would agree. Evidence that vaccines are efficacious and safe must be weighed against evidence that they aren't. To present dissenting evidence is not a rejection of modern science, a new form of philosophy, or cloakery. It is in fact essential to the advancement of medicine. --Leifern21:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You must be a bundle of fun to work with - why do you stick at scientists? Do you not demand that your integrity is questioned constantly? If not, what is the source of the privilege you award yourself? Midgley22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I expect that when I make an assertion, I have to back it up with facts and logic. If someone finds that my facts are shaky or my logic is flawed, of course I expect them to tell me. I try to be honest, i.e., be clear as to what remains uncertain. I advise executives on their decisions, and there is nothing they care more about than what uncertainty is. --Leifern23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What is actually essential is that the findings of scientists are repeated. In order to do that, the data must be available, with a description of the method. Midgley22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, not quite. In order to replicate a study, you need to fully understand the method so you can control for the same variables. What you are talking about is review, i.e., to find out that the data supports the conclusions. In an ideal world, you would insist on both - each finding should be replicated by parties that are independent of each other, and each of their findings should be reviewed to make sure that there weren't any mistakes in the analysis. Pharmaceutical companies spend huge amounts of money on both of these, and they describe their findings very very narrowly. In the meantime, you probably know that the vast majority of diagnostic work is based on clinical experience not double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies. --Leifern23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hierarchies, or levels of evidence are described by the evidence based medicine (EBM) community - who recognise that RCTs are relatively new, and that much of what we know was established to our satisfaction, often correctly on further investigation, in ways that were in use at the time. There is a saying going around - it was a joking aside between Archie COchrane and another early EBMer, that only 10% of medicine is based on science. Actually, and reported a few years ago on the Jiscmail EM healthcare list - when you look at it and ask the question "for these patients, in how many is the main intervention supported by good quality scientific - trials - evidence?" you get around 80% which is pretty good. Forming the question is key, and attempting to write for WP is an interesting exercise in that which is feeding back into my work in http://ganfyd.org and the Practice. (Possibly a sign of being time for a wikkibreak if it gets into conversation). Pasteurs experiments are pretty easy to duplicate - in fact, in the average kitchen, it is a struggle not to. The key thing I take out of scientific method, and what the ones named above here did was to build the model that fitted the world. After a Bright does that, us Tweens can follow, indeed it looks as though it was always obvious. It'd be a pity to just bog down in this article, there is interesting stuff lying around , and on a good day John allows it to be teased out and spun into a thread. We could split it into old and modern, but where, and what caused the split? I see a continuity (that model again) running weakly from ancient Greece and with a big kink in it labelled Bechamp/Pasteur. I suspect the former was a perfectly useful scientist, made money, married, had children, solved problems etc., but he is defined now on the web by accounts of how beastly Pasteur was, and they are aimed at supporting a braided collection of ideas that amounts to another worldview, and includes much anti-vaccinationism - as it would have to be, if one asserts Becahmp to have been right and Pasteur, thus Koch, inevitably Jenner, and the best part of 40 000 of my colleagues to be wrong. Midgley23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
How does a scientist react to finding himself among the post-rational allied in common cause? One approach is to deny there is any such alignment or grouping, and therefore it is merely coincidence that he and they happen to be calling for the same things. The science in there is psychology. Midgley17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As written, that is not a very useful sentence - trial of what, for instance.
Also, unless we get bogged down in how large "large" is, it is trivially easy to demonstrate to be wrong - if one RCT ... has been done then it is disproved. Here is one RCT
Would someone like to turn it into an assertion they feel comfortable with?
I notice the only contribution ever by that IP address is to this article. Midgley22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"No proper "gold-standard", that is a placebo controlled, double-blinded, large population, long term, properly randomized and properly supervised vaccine trial has ever been conducted. The year 2005 brought forth anecdotal observations that non-vaccinated populations (Amish and a large metropolitan health care group) have far lower rates of autism than the vaccinated population. However, these observations are confounded by several factors (genetic homogeneity among the Amish, different lifestyles, etc.) that make these observations difficult to extrapolate."
I'm not sure what the section about the proper trials is referring to. Is it just smallpox (mostly gone prior to modern trial designs) or does it refer to any/all vaccines? Because there are certainly well designed RCTs for many of the more recent vaccinations (see Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00139347 and NCT00090233 for two rotavirus vaccine RCTs published just last month in the New England Journal of Medicine!) InvictaHOG12:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It is an abusive buzz-phrase wrapping in a superficial appearance of science a simple lie, which when challenged will retreat into folds of what an CT should be, of how large it must be and the level of significance etc. required, and when finally pinned down will simply assert that the supervision was not "proper". (Unless someone can point to a more definitive statement of the proposition?) Midgley16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
"The periodic nature of disease outbreaks has always challenged the scientific investigator and led the incautious astray[citation needed]. "In 1806 a Mr. Kraus was awarded $1000 by the then rulers of New York territory for his scientific discovery which had kept rabies out of New York for over twenty years. His formula is a matter of record and consisted of the ground-up jaw bone of an ass or dog, a piece of colt's tongue and the green rust off a penny of George the First reign." Page 185-186, Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean."
The point about disease outbreaks is that they tend to be aperiodic. Some follow a cycle, for instance the epdiemics of Measles that used to sweep through countries, but the random variation produced a random schedule reinforcement in people following particular courses. Midgley23:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Lefern's edits (not a "cleanup and writing in English" as described
"Reverse English" is a sort of spin used in Billiards, and this large edit is an exercise in spin.
Partial, and badly written and spelled. Orwell would not have approved. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Anti-vaccinationists&oldid=40054425
Several of the "fact" tags are just above the sections which have been discussed here, which provide the references - the impression is of an editor pushing an argument "there are no anti-vaccinationists" in the same way as Leffern's afd started with an assertion that they could not be found in Google. It is also inaccurate, the opposition in the late 19th century was not "... as a public health measure". Midgley23:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
(People who want to read the changes can find them here:[34] I don't know about "badly written" - I am sure my prose can be improved, as can anyone else's. But I did reword a number of sentences into the active voice, simplified prose where pronoun usage was uncertain, etc. But for a few exceptions, I kept the propositional content intact. I did insert a request for references for assertions that should be part of the historical record. I find no grammatical errors in my edits, and the only spelling mistake I made was writing "immunizatio," and to that error I plead guilty. My apologies. --Leifern22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh, no. It would have been better to write: "these identified themselves as anti-vaccinationists," or "these characterized themselves as anti-vaccinationists," but there is no grammatical error in that sentence. --Leifern01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
"for that reason you wont find anyone who is anti-vax describing themselves as such". John, here. I suspect there is another reason that anti-vax describe themselves as vaccine critics as well. Midgley02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The following personal attacks against three Wiki editors imply bad faith. The attacks seek to discredit the contributions of the editors by suggesting bad faith: one for having an IP address and implying the other two are sockpuppets. Regardless of whether they are, personal attacks like this only encourage editors to seek as much anonymity as possible and discourage other editors from attempting to sort out this minefield of a page. This shows how personal attacks like this can only damage Wikipedia.
The same applies to threats to, attempts to and actually publishing the identities of editors who have not published their identities themselves e.g. "... our friend from Canberra". The author of this implied threat has previously published the identity of another editor and is closely associated with another editor who has also done so. The Invisible Anon09:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Vaccine controversy appropriately contains a heading Sites decidedly or apparently totally against vaccination which is - after a large argument that some people wish to recreate here - a sample, nothing like a listing of them. To say that the anti-vaccinationist movement is extinct or minimally active, or never existed mot likely labels the writer as a member of that group. It is not an assertion that belongs in this article. Midgley17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Welcome also to our friend User:Uppertoe who has made exactly one edit to WP, and that one a removal of large amounts of this article. Perhaps I should not be welcoming him, since Ombudsman already has, at 12:47. Still, anyone seeing Uppertoe's remark "(Hopefully this makes more sense, but this article really needs a complete overhaul.)" might be excused for thinking that he seemed very familiar with WP terms as well as the process of editing. An amazingly good performance for a total newbie, if he is. Midgley18:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
And welcome also to Sly Soprano, who seems unaccustomed to newspapers running campaigns, for instance the Sunday Times, in the 70s, on DPT, and yet is clear about some things to do with vaccination, that there are no anti-vaccinationists and that the writing of the article is unintelligible. His contributions are this article, and a quick series of edits to one on Brit Millah which I took to be a pop star until I saw it is some religious festival. contributions Sly Soprano. Who else was involved with that around th end of January? Midgley00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Midgley, Brit milah is the ritual of circumcision within Judaism, not a "religious festival." As a medical doctor who presumably is involved in circumcisions, I am a little surprised that you didn't know this to begin with. Why do you feel an urge to ridicule people you disagree with? --Leifern14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say it was my idea of a party, but it looked religious, and if festival is not the exactly idea word for the celebration of the rite and the party thereafter (and the one I went to a few years back was very jolly) then I shall just have to wait for a better one to appear. As to the presumption, just add it to the list - and of things that offer to distract us. Midgley15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, on further thought, I'm insulted that anyone should presume that I'd be involved in ritual mutilation of children. It is child abuse. Midgley19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't suggest you were involved in it, only that you were aware of it. Other than that, your opinion clearly shows that you're not going to let something as annoying as facts get in the way of forming a judgment on what other people - in this case Jews - do. --Leifern21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You made the characterization of child abuse - this is a serious charge that should be substantiated. There are people who are opposed to circumcision because they believe it is unnecessary and risky. --Leifern14:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
On what basis is it not child abuse? If I cut a piece of someone then I need a good reason, and normally their consent. Please don't answer that, the argument is rehearsed elsewhere, and you are yet again getting WP:LEGAL. Midgley16:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Reference for anti-vaccinationists' existence
I think we can agree that during some time in the future (and we really should try to find dates here), there were organizations that explicitly billed themselves as "anti-vaccinationist." I think we can agree that at the present time, there are no organizations that explicitly bill themselves that way. The burden of proof is on those who assert that a group in the present can fairly be equated with a group in the past, not on those who think such an equivalence is flawed. I'm therefore removing the citation needed tag for that particular assertion. --Leifern12:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose to continue moving forward through time as I have enough trouble organising my diary that way. Leifern's assertion is also, risibly false, as we clearly do not agree that anti-vaccinationists have ceased to exist, nor that they are organised. The assertion that there is agreement, never mind that none exist is either pathological, or a deliberate attempt to represent collaborative anti-vaccinationist activity as non-existent by a stealth anti-vaccinationist. Midgley13:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears, Midgley, that you have a great deal of difficulty of writing without including a personal attack. Earlier you diagnosed me as being either dishonest or delusional liar because my son was sick, now you have concluded that I am a stealth anti-vaccinationist prone to something "pathological." I suppose we should retitle this article to Stealth anti-vaccinationists, because that's what it's really all about. Oh, and diagnosing those who disagree with you as more or less deranged.
Also, I would like to correct your (deliberate) misquote of me: I wrote that: "at the present time, there are no organizations that explicitly bill themselves that way [as "anti-vaccinationist"]. I did not write that they have ceased to exist. By all means, if you can find an organization that says in clear language that it is "anti-vaccinationist" or claims to be a successor the leagues et al in the past, we should include those in the article.
The thing is not the name, I do see now that Leifern intended to say that since no organisation - even one whose front page says "there are no safe vaccines" - calls themselves anti-vaccinationist, they are therefore not anti-vaccinationist, and should not bein an article about anti-vacciantionists. This seems a very fine distinction to me and I do not think the meaning taken is unreasonable. In the 19th century, it is clear that many people believed they were doing good, preventing harm, by campaigning against some aspect of vaccination. I see no reason to think that all the people campaigning against vaccination from standpoints akin to Whale's do so in a different belief, though some appear to have motives of doing harm to their enemies. Accordingly, someone who believes that a component of a vaccine is harmful and opposes vaccination (explicitly or by aligning himself with others who are so explicit, or by attempting to cover up their existence should be pleased to be identified as such. If such identification is likely to harm him then that should be cause to think whether the majority might be right about it.)Midgley19:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Leifern is an anti-vaccinationist, John is an anti-vaccinationist, Ombudsman is, and so is the anonymous detractor from 86.10.231.219 It is no more a personal attack to remark on this than it is to say that I am a doctor. I assume that each of us has other facets, although it isn't obvious with John, even on Wikipedia. As for Stealth it is neither more nor less than a heading among several in the article that should be written, and will be, here or elsewhere. Midgley15:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but accusing me of being an anti-vaccinationist the way you define and describe anti-vaccinationists is libellous I have posted a notice to that effect on Midgley's talk page. --Leifern17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Leifern is prone to making threats. In this case WP:LEGAL. The first contact we ever had was a barrage of threats without pause to even look for a reply from Leifern, who had been touched off by our anonymous detractor here.
"If you delete an entire section of an article like that again, I will report you for vandalism. My son was poisoned by thimerosal and is only now starting to recover. I don't expect everyone to believe me, but I want people to be aware of the specifics of the controversy. Readers of Wikipedia have a right to make informed consent. --Leifern00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"
Hasn't changed.
Leifern seems to have a very clear image of me, but his image of himself is interesting, "Strengths I have: Communication skills, negotiating skills, logical analysis..."
The omission in this http://vyer.typepad.com/hereticsalmanac/2006/02/using_money_to_.html#more is interesting of course. If you cross-reference the graph with the change in immunisation levels between 1990 and 1999 it gets even more interesting.
"But there are some interesting anamolies. Guinea has the same average income as Ghana, but nearly twice its infant mortality rate. The Bahamas has the same per capita income as Malta, but about 8 times its infant mortality. Cuba is a real hero in this ranking, about as poor as Nicaragua but with an infant mortality rate just slightly above New Zealand's.
February 11, 2006" Cuba is particularly noted for its effective immunisation programme.
Midgley, it is of course encouraging that you read my blog, but there are any number of factors that I didn't bring into the article on infant mortality rates and per capita income. I also made that pretty clear in the piece itself. And it really isn't relevant to this discussion at all.
Wikipedia guidelines dictate we warn an offender before reporting him/her for infractions. Blanking is the very first type of vandalism defined in the guidelines. If you want to call that a threat, fine.
As far as my child is concerned, you're right - I brought him up, and perhaps I shouldn't have. But you were the one who openly speculated that since I was a parent of a sick son, I couldn't possibly be interested in the truth.
There is no threat involved in directly asking whether one user is a sockpuppet for the other - frankly, I have seen too many accusations of sockpuppetry that were questionable - so I thought I would ask. I was suspicious because the two of you have very similar editing behaviors, similar self-righteous and dismissive comments, and a similar tendency to rush off edits without checking orthography. Once you responded that the two of you were different people, I left the issue alone. --Leifern14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as anti-vaccinationists go, yes, it is a point worth making that the anti-vaccinationist organisations of the 18th and 19th century named themselves as being against vaccination, whereas by somr time after 1993 a change had visibly occurred and anti-vaccinationists and organisations made themselves clear by their actions but used names that suggested otherwise, that a proportion of them actively try to deny their existence, and that some rebadge themselves as "critics" rather than opponents of vaccination. It isn't laudable. Midgley15:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
RFC
Midgley continues to insist that individuals and groups who are questioning various aspects of vaccination can be characterized as "anti-vaccinationists" off the same cloth as the anti-vaccinationist leagues of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He refuses to substantiate this allegation and has gone so far as to label other editors with the "anti-vaccinationist" label. This may well be his opinion, but stating it as a fact is not only wrong but potentially libellous
This article was initially nominated for deletion because some editors felt it was a POV fork that committed the rhetorical fallacy of begging the question.
This article has to find its destination soon: it can either be about the history of individuals and organizations who have reservations about the safety and efficacy of vaccination; or it can be about the merits of such reservations; or it can be about organizations that have explicitly billed themselves as anti-vaccinationist. I think it is perfectly legitimate to consider whether there is a connection between current groups that are critical to vaccines and those of the past; but it can, as I've said, not be assumed. --Leifern17:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment The purpose of this new page "anti-vaccinationist" appears to be to marginalise and dismiss well-founded concerns about current vaccination practices.
Anti-vaccinationist is an antiquated term from the 19th century. It is attempted here to apply it to a broad spectrum of modern-day medical, scientific and other professionals, parents of vaccine damaged children and vaccine damaged adults.
Midgley claims it is not a personal attack to call someone an anti-vaccinationist:-
"It is no more a personal attack to remark on this than it is to say that I am a doctor." [[35]].
But the following examples show he intended Anti-vaccinationist to be pejorative and abusive and that he insists on associating anti-vaccinationists with "cranks" and "quacks":-
"quack" and "crank" are both pejorative terms [[36]]
Origin of Anti-vaccination in Cranks page - added 26/8/05 by an anon - and it pointed to the "vaccine controversy" page - there was no "anti-vaccination" page or any anti-vaccinationist page [[54]]
I can't help the fact that Quackwatch takes a visible position about the association between quackery and some anti-vaccination positions! Andrew7302:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment :The Invisible Anon has covered Midgley game as far as I see it. Listing anti-vaccinationists as cranks [55] Inserting crank link [56]
Asserting anti-vax people are psychotic I write as someone who treats a small number of psychotic patients, and therefore might come from someone psychotic or a group simulating psychosis for their own amusement. (John's writing is not very closely similar, one may have an idée fixée without being mad even in a lay sense)).[57]. The term anti-vaccinist or anti-vaccinationist has fallen out of use. This is probably more to do with the fact the medical industry has made it a pejorative term, so if you want to be labelled a crank, psychotic, paranoid, anti-science, etc. then call yourself anti-vaccine. See this page for an example of that. Also, anyone who claims to be anti-vaccine will never get any media time, so you would restrict the number of people you could reach. I am not totally averse to a page on anti-vaccination, I think it will backfire eventually, but it is being made by a vaccinator, and vaccinators can't accept vaccination is anything other than God's gift to medicine, so non-believers have to be excommunicated using the above terms, as Clerc put so well to/a/clerc.html. Psychologists would say it is something to do with projection and the denial mechanism. john09:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, there are some people who edit this page who can't accept vaccination as anything other than poison from the devil! Surely the "truth" lies somewhere in between. Andrew7313:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's the thing: we can not resolve this issue on Wikipedia. As much as some of us might want this encyclopedia to be the definitive record of our version of the truth, it's never going to happen. What we should strive to do is educate readers on the state of the issue: what are the opposing arguments, what is the evidence and logic on either side, and what are the dynamics of the debate. My internal yardstick is that any intellectually honest person on either side of an issue should be able to read the article and find that it honestly portrays the debate. --Leifern14:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Too true, wikipedia articles are not a place for debating/campaigning, but can & should accurately outline the nature of a controversy. Whilst I may strongly disagree with info at www.whale. to, that is a whole website and it would be unreasonable here in wikipedia to even attempt to discuss all its many points or references individually, in the same way that any description on the use of antibiotics routinely vs. in selected circumstances for a sore throat can not argue out the whole of the relevant literature. I agree there is a need to distinguish between the specific individual concerns about some aspects of some vaccines, the issues of vaccination generally and this article that by its name sets out to describe the people or movements of the view-point.
The overwhelming consensus is that of WHO, governments, health departments and vast majority of doctors & nurses believing that vaccination in principle does work, is in general safe and that most vaccines are overall more beneficial to society than the small risks to individual recipients. Now the majority might be misinformed or deluding themselves, and some argue both vocally & very effectively against these points, but are still a minority. Whilst of course any one individual may only have a single specific concern, the perception from a government or medical concern for provision of healthcare is that there continues overall to be continuous opposition to vaccinations (whether or not this is from anti-groups, or the sum of individual single-issue concerns). Indeed, just as anti's or concerner's may use some research to support governments' enthrallment with vaccines causes (general or specific) harm, so government healthcare policy might site other research to suggest harm by reducing willingness to be vaccinated.
As far as writing an encyclopedia , a particular view point is notable and usually worthy of inclusion if a majority support it, whether or not it is "the truth" based on correct data (so I must accept articles on wikipedia about soccer clubs or TV soap operas, even if I fail to see their importance)
Now I don't list the points in the previous 2 paragraphs to reopen specific discussions, but rather to indicate my agreement with Leifern that wikipedia can not be the place to resolve the issues. Although the 'majority' may/does have concerns for the harm a 'minority' might cause, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must be descriptive rather than opinionated and so by NPOV requires (non-trivial) opposing positions to be covered and have fair treatment. It does not however mean that identically equal space be given to both sides, e.g. article on astronomy of Planets might mention (in a NPOV) Flat earth vs Spherical Earth viewpoints, but does not have to give equal space compared to Kepler's Laws etc.
So I agree, the development of this article should be the NPOV description of the main issues (but not exhaustive to every last piece of research) rather than arguing about the opinionover whether any particular issue is correct or not. David RubenTalk15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am always a bit skeptical about the notion of awarding "space" as a means of ensuring neutrality, or even balance. The controversy around flat vs spherical earth may warrant its own article, but probably merits no more than a sentence and a reference on the main article about Earth. By the same token, articles on vaccination and immunization should describe what these procedures are intended to do, and how, and then there should be a reference to those articles that cover the controversy. The anti-vaccinationist leagues of the late 19th and early 20th century deserve an article; those who object to vaccines today deserve an article as well, but while it can be argued it can not be assumed that the two are equivalent or identical. The other concern I have is that this article is a dumping ground for all kinds of debates when it should really be about one topic with references to others that are of relevance. --Leifern16:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, given this RFC here seems to be about Midgely's behaviour ... why not follow the proper procedure, instead of sticking it up on a talk page? I mean, john, for one, has clearly stated he thinks Midgely is POV pushing - surely, if that's the case, it'd be better to have it out in the open instead of this continual sniping from both sides? Because it's starting to get downright absurd, on this page and on certain others (MMR Vaccine comes to mind, for one...) Michael Ralston01:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest first things first. The terms of this RfC are about this page, to quote:-
it can either be about the history of individuals and organizations who have reservations about the safety and efficacy of vaccination;
or it can be about the merits of such reservations;
or it can be about organizations that have explicitly billed themselves as anti-vaccinationist
There is too much about Midgley's behaviour for an RfC to deal with it, and especially not this RfC. Here he accuses all jewish people who hold to religious customs of child abuse:- [[58]].
Specifically, he claims that circumcision is child abuse. Which is an interesting perspective, but isn't precisely anti-semitic - at least, there seem to be much more plausible explanations. And if this RfC wasn't about Midgley, why did you keep talking about him? I mean ... there's three people here who seem convinced he's inherently bad - surely you can outweigh him in any sort of content dispute, right? And I'm pretty sure that the sort of behaviour you assert he's engaging is is precisely what the dispute resolution process is for. Indeed, an RfC is pretty much the second step to go for (at least, in a multi-party situation) - the first, of course, being to try to address the editor(s) you have problems with calmly, and while assuming good faith. Now, if you claim an RfC isn't enough ... then that'd indicate the third step - mediation - would be suggested. Either that, or go on to arbitration. I mean... Wikipedia has a process for dealing with these sorts of issues, and somehow I don't see these semi-rfcs on article talk pages as getting us all anywhere that'd be an improvement. Michael Ralston05:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stay on point. The terms of this RfC are about this page [[59]].
Allow me to note I didn't bring up Midgley's behaviour - you did. If you didn't want it discussed, why did you bring it up? Furthermore, it seems pretty clear to me that the issues Leifern has brought up are symptoms, not the problem - even if we all manage to come to a workable agreement on them (something I strongly doubt, given the degree of agreement that this and related pages have had in the past), the problems that, for instance, you and john have with Midgley will not be resolved, and will probably continue to be brought up in every single content dispute even remotely related to vaccination. Thus, it seems that the only realistic way to try to resolve the issue is to deal with the underlying problems FIRST, at which point content disagreements will likely be resolved much more easily. In other words - If you didn't want to talk about Midgely, why did you bring him up? Michael Ralston06:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stay on point. The terms of this RfC are about this page [[60]].
Please address my concerns. You are attacking Midgley, then declaring me to be "not staying on point" (that being a paraphrase, obviously) for noting that your attack is indicative of some sort of larger problem, which will hardly be solved by talking about this page, and will probably make talking about this page fruitless at best. Again, the diff you're pointing to includes you attacking Midgley - therefore, going purely by that edit, it would seem that you consider talking about Midgley to be part of being "on point". Michael Ralston07:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stay on point. The terms of this RfC are about this page [[61]].
If you want to discuss other issues, you can use your talk page or mine.
Please stay on point. The terms of this RfC are about this page [[62]] - which, I note, again mentions Midgley. If you wish to not discuss Midgley, I would advise that you stop asserting he is an anti-semite. Michael Ralston07:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to discuss other issues, you can use your talk page or mine.
Please stay on point and please stop disrupting and making incorrect allegations about other editors.
If the terms of this RfC are about Midgley being anti-semitic, then talking about Midgley's behaviour is entirely on point. If they are not, then you should stop saying they are. If you would like to link to a diff or make a new post wherein there is no accusation with regards to any editor's behaviour, and merely suggestions on how to improve the article, that would indicate you thought the RfC was about the article. If you continue to link to a diff wherein the behaviour of an editor is being discussed, then that indicates you think the behaviour of that editor is relevant to the RfC, in which case it is perfectly on point to discuss that editor's behaviour. It doesn't make sense to try to have it both ways. Michael Ralston23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
(Reset indent): Michael, why are you baiting The Invisible Anon to escalate his personal opinions about Midgley? Clearly, there are strongly felt opinions on both sides of the issue that lead to heated and sometimes personal debates, but I don't think we should do anything to encourage it. User:Leifern
It's "baiting" to note that he keeps asserting that the edit in which he claims Midgley is an anti-semite is the edit he also claims is what the RfC is about? I think that allowing such accusations to go unchallenged is far worse than attempting to address them and get things resolved. How can we address a content dispute when we seem incapable of trusting in one another's good faith? Michael Ralston23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Or ... allow me to put this another way. I think that an RfC purely among those who watch/edit this article is doomed at even beginning to achieve consensus, and I base this on how all of us have been interacting over the past few months. I think that a much better approach, at this point, would be to seek out mediation, so that we have a chance of getting over the ill will that has been built up among us, and then, from there, perhaps be able to advance forward and discuss content disputes from a mutual assumption of good faith - something that with regards to certain editors I currently find difficult to find, and it seems they have similar difficulties finding the assumption of good faith with regards to, eg, Midgley. As long as we continue assuming the worst of one another, our chances of achieving any form of consensus are negligable. Michael Ralston23:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Evidence of Bad Faith Editing Here [[64]] Michael Ralston says Midgley "claims that circumcision is child abuse. Which ..... isn't precisely anti-semitic". But Michael Ralston is directly contradicting himself. He has claimed seven times in the above paragraphs that stating Midgley made such a statement is an allegation against Midgley of anti-semitism. This demonstrates his purpose. The Invisible Anon16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I declare "This is not anti-semitism" in response to what seems to pretty clearly be an accusation of anti-semitism. This is not a contradiction in any way - one can accuse someone of being anti-semitic without them being anti-semitic, and someone can say that is an accusation without agreeing the accusation possesses a basis in fact. My "purpose" here is, in fact, to try to get us to discuss content without attacking editors, per WP:NPA. I'm sorry if that seems to be "bad faith" to someone who still doesn't want to get a handle. Michael Ralston20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This is now the eighth time you have personally attacked me by accusing me of something I simply have not done and which in your own words [[65]] I have not done. I ask you now please to stop this. It is clearly being done to disrupt. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an RfC about the topics Anti-vaccinationists should be covering. The Invisible Anon05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC) & 06:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
No, in my own words you were inaccurate when you made the assertation. You can say something that is not true, and me telling you that your statement is not true is not claiming you never said it - merely that when you said it, you were wrong. And if it has nothing to do with the topic, why did you say "Here he accuses all jewish people who hold to religious customs of child abuse" in reference to Midgley and keep pointing to the diff including this as being what the terms of the RfC are? How is it disruption to say, as I have been, that if the RfC is not about Midgley, you should stop talking about him? You are the one who repeatedly links to diffs including attacks upon a fellow editor - do you not consider that disruption? Michael Ralston09:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"or it can be about the merits of such reservations;
"or it can be about organizations that have explicitly billed themselves as anti-vaccinationist
The first has a page - vaccine controversies. One of the characteristics of contemporary anti-vaccinationists is to turn every discussion back to their idee fixee - biography of a doctor - "he was against vaccination... er that's it." So the merits live there.
The second actually might be better inverted - a section at least about the way in which current anti-vaccination organisations bill themselves as something else, picking domain names that a naive user looking for advice might expect to advise about vaccination. Midgley09:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but you see you are begging the question. It is your opinion that there are current anti-vaccinationist organizations who are billing themselves as something new, etc. Since it is an opinion, it can not be the basis for an encyclopedic article. --Leifern13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is disingenuous at best. Yet again it is a simple assertion of something which is not true, was never true, and has previously been dealt with here. The opening paragraph of the article in various versions has referred to the paper whence that view came, and other references have included other authors on the same subject. Todays statements from Leifern are almost as good as his assertion that Google had not hits on anti-vaccinationist, which was wrong by an infinite number of orders of magnitude and was his initial attempt at justifying deleting the article. In an effort to assume goodwill, I've attempted to assume that that came of a single careless mistyped attempt to search, with no checking and a rash assertion immediately afterward. But the only way to assume good faith about he latest one here and below would be to assume the poster had never actually read the article (or at least not seen the same words as others do in it). This might explain much of course. It is by the way John's opinion also, and one he has been acting out since 1995 or so in a variety of arenas. Since he operates anti-vaccinationist central, and no penumbral vaccine critic, even, appears to contradict him it seems perverse to assert it is not so. Midgley 00:35, 23 February
2006 (UTC)
I can not recall a single instance where you have made anything approaching an attempt at goodwill toward me or anyone who disagrees with you on this matter - attempts at ridicule, sarcasm and patronizing putdowns has been the standard fare. As it turned out, I read the article more carefully than you did, since I was able to find that crucial phrase "uncanny similarity" which you ridiculed me for quoting. But back to the real issue: I can find articles that make any number of assertions. But just because it is written in an article does not make it indisputable - to do so would be an appeal to authority. In the abstract, the BMJ attribute this to the authors and do not proclaim it is an indisputable truth. I have repeatedly said that it is ok to discuss such a linkage, but to assume that it is true is misguided. I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief that there are a group of anti-vaccinationists out there who through subterfuge, misinformation, and some devious conspiracy are trying to subvert all your good works, but believing it, hoping for it, arguing for it, doesn't make it true. In fact, the Wolfe and Sharpe article commits a number of horrendous rhetorical fallacies and absolutely fails to prove its point. --Leifern02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The BMJ publishes papers. WP, articles. The article is what this talk page is supposedly about. Leifern's first contact with me was rude, hasty and ignored previous discussion among others. In discussions with people who display civility I am also civil. There are several references on this page to organisations which are quite clearly and explicitly anti-vacciantionist, however in any case an organisation need not declare itself by name in order to be clearly such. The failed rfa contains a nicely put remark on this - I suggest re-reading it. Midgley22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
For comic relief, isn't it about time that an article is started on the CDC'sAdvisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)? For a warm up, maybe an article on Paul Offit's rotavirus vaccine would do? Not apt to leave their profits to chance, the drug industry continues to demonstrate its immense political influence; vaccinationists recently succeeded in getting the rotavirusconcoction back on the market now, despite the marginal justifications tendered as excuses for causing more vaccine injuries due to vaccine overloads. ACIP is symbolic of the conflict of interestnightmare that has fueled the autism epidemic and political debacles that continue to undermine public confidence in the medical industry. In order to to justify their continued existence a couple hundred years ago, US corporations had to provide demonstrative evidence of their contribution to the common weal, and did not have all the civil and criminal protections that were once accorded, instead, to mere citizens. The civil rights of citizens to hold corporations accountable, especially with regard to drug makers, is largely a thing of the past. Giddy after Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert tacked PREPA onto the DOD budget bill in the dead of night, vaccinationists have now gained FDA approval to push their tired old rotavirus vaccinesnake oil. Vaccinationists have simply changed the names to protect their profits, slapping on new labels like RotaTeq, a tactic not unlike the newspeak anti-vaccinationist label that has been foisted on vaccine critics here at the Wiki. Instead of politically correctdoublespeak, real questions need to be asked across the Wiki's vaccination articles about the protection of public health in the face of increasingly corpulent vaccine schedules and flawed studies purporting to show that vaccine injury is virtually nonexistent. The vast increase in the number of mandated vaccinations in recent decades, pushed recklessly by those who might take great umbrage at being called vaccinationists, can only be explained by the often ruthless political and pro da campaigns that have been waged to protect the obscene corporate profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Debate over the straw manconcocted for target practice with the creation of this article, apparently for no real reason other than to bash vaccine critics, has been quite effective thus far as a means for diverting attention away from the alternative of creating good, balanced articles, if that's even possible. A new gold standard has been established for 'fair and balanced' dismantling of Wiki articles over on the gold salts article (which was created primarily to showcase the many purposes for which the forgotten preparation may one day be used, ranging from treatment of autistic spectrum disorders to IBD); unsurprisingly, that article was almost completely eviscerated almost immediately, leaving behind little more than a Wikilink to the Dan Olmsted article. There is something dead wrong about the focus on dredging up an anachronistic term to pillory a straw man, while so little attention is being paid to ACIP and the fact that pharmaceutical industry is still only a redirect, while articles like Andrew Wakefield are turned into Brian Deer style character assassination hit pieces. Go figure. Ombudsman09:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority (governments, researchers, health departments, doctors, nurses etc) who do believe vaccines are both effective and beneficial, would view the overall tone and approach of the above comments as being anti-vaccinationist in nature. I note the above accuses pharmaceutical companies of being motivated by profit at expense for safety, "the medical industry", dismisses vaccine effectiveness ("rotavirus vaccine snake oil"), attacks doctors in general ("pushed recklessly by those who might take great umbrage at being called vaccinationists"). So no I don’t think anti-vaccinationist is an "anachronistic term", the above seems to fulfil many of the aspects that characterised self-labelled antivaccinationists of the past – the continuity of the sentiment (even if not of formal organised groups) seems demonstrated.
This is meant to be a talk page about improving an article. I object to personal attacks made above against an individual author who has had to work almost alone(1) defending the majority viewpoint against detractors, rather than devote attention to writing a well-written "good article".
It would be better if rather than trying to argue for a campaign here in Wikipedia, if effort was spent merely in writing a descriptive piece to "educate readers on the state of the issue" (see Leifern's comment 14:07, 21 February). So this talk page should be a co-operation in helping to write in a better style an article that people might eventually agree outlines a description of people/movements/the nature of a controversy (i.e. describe the debate yes, not actualy debate).
The article has many one-line sentences that seem more like a series of notes which need tidying up: i.e. joining into well-written paragraphs, some (but not excessive) citations and overall a better expression or use of English. In other words I agree its needs a general copyediting tidy up.
I also agree care needs be taken in the various articles about distinguishing descriptions of specific diseases, specific vaccines, specific concerns, vaccine controversies, vaccine detraction. However, as the multiple-point detraction above indicates, not only is there a need in Wikipedia to describe vaccination overall, but also the overall case made against.
Perhaps input by some general wikipedians can help focus on writing style – I’ll admit not laying into the article myself with this regard, as prose writing is not my greatest skill :-)
PS, yes I do dislike the label of 'vaccinationist' as if this is some special activity doctors do vs. one of many normal routine tools & aspects of modern scientific conventional medicine; one might assert that most doctors are also antibiotic-ist, antihypertension-ist, pro-phebotomy-ist, neuroleptic-ist. I do not see detractors of antibiotic overusage or SSRIs labelling everyone who disagrees with them as antibioticists or neurolepticists, or proposing that "questions need to be asked across the Wiki's ...... articles about the protection of public health in the face of increasingly corpulent ..." (? asking questions vs. WP:NOR).
1Most involved in healthcare across the world would view campaigns to try to restrict vaccination programmes, however well-intentioned, as resulting in harm to society, yet if all official sources are dismissed as biased/corrupt/conspiracy that leaves, here on wikipedia, few to debate such contentious objections. Most doctors (approx 30,000 GPs in UK) are too busy getting on with treating people out in the real world, are not interested in also doing medical-journalism/authoring or unfortunately have great suspicion of a wiki environment where any information/advice carefully constructed (re not seeming to diagnose or treat those one has not met) may be later edited to something they would have no wish to be associated with (a personal opinion as to some reasons why so few professionals in general seem to be present in wikipedia). Instead most doctors (?through laziness or active agreement) would see the role for helping provide considered balanced EBM advice on public health measures as that provided by health departments factsheets, clinical guidelines or EBM articles (e.g. Drugs & Therapeutics Bulletin or Bandolier (journal) here in the UK and information from NIH/CDC in US) – oops, forgot, these are dismissed as being "ruthless political and pro da campaigns that have been waged to protect the obscene corporate profits". David RubenTalk12:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I note Ombudsman further copyedited his above entry between original posting and my seeing it & writing the response above, I appologise in advance therefore if I have unintensionally misquoted or misconstrued comments he had self-modified :-) David RubenTalk13:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
My view is that if Ombudsman wants to write an article about alleged corruption, immorality, etc. among doctors, pharma companies, etc., he has to follow the same rules as everyone else: not formulate a title that begs the question, not present opinions as facts, make references to substantiate allegations, and avoid rhetorical fallacies. And accept the fact that the article will be edited mercilessly. An article called Vaccinationists would not be a good start.
My own opinion is that conspiracy theories tend to confuse discussions on issues, and they should have their own articles - as theories.
Every single website that Midgley refers to avoids a categorical rejection of immunization. What they all say to varying degrees is that the public is not fully aware of the limitations and risks of vaccinations. I suppose we could argue whether it does harm to the public interest that groups oppose conventional wisdom or medical authorities, but - again - it's not something we're going to resolve here. The entire premise for this article as it has evolved is that there are such people as anti-vaccinationists, they have many unfortunate attributes, and they are merely a continuation of the anti-vaccinationist movement of 50-150 years ago. The premise is an opinion, and whether or not one agrees with it is beside the point - we can not have articles that use opinions as their premise. It would be the logical equivalent of creating an article about "anti-circumcisionists" that has as its premise that all people who oppose circumcision are anti-Semites. For sure, some people believe that (I don't), but it would be absolutely inappropriate here. There are tons of examples of this - there is even an article about Holocaust revisionism that specifically and neutrally addresses something that most people would hold is absolutely reprehensible and doesn't dignify a response. --Leifern14:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"Every single website that Midgley refers to avoids a categorical rejection of immunization" is only true for very small values of truth. One I referred to (it is signposted from John's site) Has in pole position on its front page "There are no safe vaccines". Should we take it that in order for that to be a categorical rejection of immunisation, we would have to first change the proposition back to vaccination since clearly Leifern might later turn out to have previously not meant immunisation to be equivalent to vaccination and thus point out that he had been misquoted; adopt the American spelling rather than the English one, since a hostile pedant seeking an excuse could say the two words were not identical, and then add to the existing page the words "we categorically reject vaccination"? Would that do? or is it likely that this woudl be rejected on the grounds that it was not a sworn statement and did not have a digital signature and could nto be shown to have been the wording shosen unanimously by all the members of the organisation and therefore might conceal the presence of a member who would say that although all vaccines are not safe this is not eh same as them being dangerous and he thought that one of them might be useful in a single specific instance? That is a poor argument, and has to do, again, with the words, not the things, people or actions.
I have referred to whale. to. We have on hand its author. John: Is it true to assert that you do not categorically reject vaccines?
I recall seeing an argument relating to Smallpox. The arguer stated that people did not die of Smallpox. They died of failure to support them after their skin fell off. THis argument is of the smae form, from the same stable, and as stupid. It is presented not to help, not to establish truth, but to impede a process that Lefiern has clearly determined is not to be permitted. It is not eh only untrue statement recently added to this page.Midgley16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any value in them. I haven't seen a page about smallpox that you mention. I have a page that people wouldn't die of smallpox if they were not living in poverty, ie living in filth, malnourished etc, and under effective medical care, homeopathy or naturopathy. john22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
So not a "yes" then, which would appear to indicate that it is not true to say. That would appear to make three so far.
That page... Perhaps John would not like it, it also says: "Editorial Comment: Some studies suggest that antibody levels from previous vaccination may last as long as 50 years. Since this is a test that can be performed at research laboratories, the CDC should make this type of testing available before the vaccinia vaccine is used." But perhaps the author is in agreement with John that antibodies are of no value in predicting immunity and is merely trying to confuse and delay? It is at www.mercola.com/2002/jun/12/smallpox_update.htm (It also has a wonderful example of interpretation of body language, I was not there, and I suspect that the doctors' body language was more along the lines of "is this clown enough in touch with reality to be worth talking to?" But that is mere supposition). Midgley22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Queen Mary died of Smallpox, according to Pepys and no doubt remarked upon by others. Shall we have an opinion on her standard of accomodation? It was a while back, but Queens of England tend to be fed properly and housed well. Midgley22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is another previously referred to orgnaisation, teh vaccine liberation front who propose "free your mind from the vaccine paradigm": Vaclib.org front page, under the titles: "Vaccination Liberation is part of a national grassroots network dedicated to providing information on vaccinations not often made available to the public so that one can make the only informed choice, complete avoidance and refusal." "Every single website that Midgley refers to avoids a categorical rejection of immunization" needs a bit of amplification here I think... Midgley16:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Vaclib.org explicitly says they want to provide information so that the public can make an informed choice and refuse if that is their choice. Are you opposed to informed consent? Perhaps there should be an article called "Medical doctors who oppose informed consent." --Leifern02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with vaclib.org et al. is that some of the information presented as fact is probably misinformation...how can you make an informed choice based on misinformation? Andrew7302:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as I noted in the comment Leifern is replying to, they explicitly say on the front page that there is only one informed choice, so no, they are not advising people to make up their own minds they are advising a specific invariant course of action. Perhaps "the only informed choice, complete avoidance and refusal." is not sufficiently "categorical" for Leifern to understand? Or perhaps understanding is suspended on this subject. Again, if an article should exist, trot off and write it. Has Leifern actually written any articles? Midgley09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is, they want people to make an informed choice. And here we go again with the personal attacks. I would imagine that you believe the only informed choice is to accept all vaccinations, but I'm not going to write an article called "vaccinationists" where I list you. And since I believe the ethical guidelines for doctors when it comes to informed consent is pretty clear, I can't imagine such a list could be constructed. Wikipedia doesn't track how many articles people have started, but if you go to the overview of my contributions you can see what I write and edit. --Leifern12:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is they say there is only one choice to make. THat is the information they are offering, that is their polemic. As for your imagination, well, it is active. Midgley15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
None of the editors on this page (I'm assuming) is going to argue against making an informed choice. The problem with sites like vaclib.org and others is the accuracy of the content. You can't make a purse out of a sow's ear. Andrew7313:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we have an article called Vaccine controversy that at least begins to outline the disagreements, etc. I would personally like to see an article that sorts through the conflicting claims to make sense of them, but this article we're discussing here is about people, not about arguments. I further believe there should be an article called something along the lines of Activism opposed to vaccination policy or something along those lines that describes the rhetoric made by those who are skeptical to/critical of/against vaccination, as well as the rhetoric of those who oppose them in turn. I actually did a more advanced search in Google - making sure this time to spell my terms correctly - and found that articles with the word "anti-vaccinationists" or "anti-vaccinationist" fall into three categories: 1) Those referring to Wolfe and Sharp's article; 2) those discussing the anti-vaccinationist organizations of the past; and 3) opinion pieces denouncing "anti-vaccinationists." Neither of these categories substantiate - as a matter of fact rather than opinion - the premise that "anti-vaccinationists" is a term that can be used about certain individuals or groups now. --Leifern14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
So you missed the 7th hit on a search on "anti-vaccinationists"? Which offers a further list of references. Midgley15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, into which classification would Leifern place this paper? Gangarose EJ, Falazka AM, Wolfe CR, Phillips LM, Gangarosa RE, Miller E, Chen RT. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control : the untold story. Lancet 1998, 351: 356-361.
and this Poland GA, Jacobson RM. Understanding those who do not understand : a brief review of the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine 2001, 19: 2440-2445.
(Reset indent:) Midgley, your attempts at sarcasm are getting really tedious and predictable. These articles are undoubtedly interesting, but they a) discuss the anti-vaccine movement without defining or delineating it (that I can see), whereas you are trying to describe a group of people in this article; and b) simply assume that there is such a movement for purposes of their opinion. I have suggested a clarification of the scope and focus of this article, and you never respond to these suggestions. BTW, didn't it feel better to include a bunch of serious articles in references than to a hack like quackwatch? --Leifern16:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As are your serial attempts to persuade people that what is easily found is not findable. We are agreed that at a time in the past there were anti-vaccinationists - what is the definition you used to conclude that? Midgley17:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I will agree that in the past there were organizations that characterized themselves as "anti-vaccinationist." --Leifern18:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
So essentially, Lefeirn's argument is that the Militant Tendency of vaccine critics are not anti-vaccinationists because they do not characterise themselves as such, publicly. I dare say there are murderers who do not characterise themselves as murderers, publicly. Leifern might perhaps argue that therefore they are merely "critical of life". To be fair few of them seem to be "categorically opposed" to it? Midgley22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Personal vaccination protection
To completely leave aside the issues of general population vaccination for a moment (ie vaccine effectiveness, levels for herd immunity, genuine concerns for how cost-benifit balance equates for both society & individuals, issues of society's advising/urging/compulsion of individuals etc etc), there is a far smaller use of vaccinations for specific individual protection. The 2 senarios that come to mind are pre-travel vaccinations (e.g. typhoid, Hep A, tetanus, tick-borne encephalitis) or specific worker protection (e.g. BCG & hepatits B in healthcare, tetanus for gardeners or sewage workers). Are these similarly included in the debates/arguments, or seen just as personal decisions in light of personal circumstances and assessment of exposure risks (e.g. academic staff vs surgeons, modern costal city resorts vs. extended back-backing) ? David RubenTalk15:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting question - I can't recall anyone arguing that vaccinations should be banned, which would be a logical consequence for anyone who thought they were all bad and no good. --Leifern15:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Opening para
the authors of the paper, not article are historians who write not writers who hist. Previously they were named there which is a usual way to refer to scholarly work. Midgley17:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to clear this up
Although plenty of words are produced on the talk page, I can not see that the article is getting much better. I'd like to see if I can summarize the state of the article and propose a way out of the impasse that doesn't lose information and ensures encyclopedic standards.
It seems to me that the main purpose of the article was an exposition of groups and individuals who object to vaccinations, tie them into historical movements with a similar purpose, and examine the arguments that they make.
This is a contentious issue where both sides of the argument feel much is at stake. Those who object to vaccines feel that harm may be done by exposing individuals and society to risks that they believe are typically underestimated in order to achieve benefits that they believe are typcially overrated. Those who support vaccines feel that harm may be done by discouraging vaccines that prevent illness, complications, and death.
It doesn't help that the parties in the argument paint themselves as having roles in a drama - those who support vaccines as the enlightened, educated professionals who preserve the truth against ill-informed ignoramuses and nutcases; and those who object to them as crusaders against an establishment that is bent on self-preservation.
There is no middle ground between these positions at the present, and we can not hope to create an article that would give readers a definitive answer.
There appear to be several implicit chapters in the article, though it is not really organized that way:
The history of opposition to vaccination - who the people are, how they organized, the lifecycle of the organizations
The history of those who resist the opposition - who they are, how they're organized, etc.
The rhetoric employed on either side of the issue - the evidence produced, the logic employed, what these arguments appeal to
The evidence itself, which is a hodge podge of opinion pieces, peer-reviewed articles, invectives, polemics, blogs, websites, statistics, etc.
At this point, both sides to the argument are discrediting themselves in this article and not doing the readers any service. I propose that we work on several articles that provide ample cross-referencing. One approach might be two, maybe three articles:
An article on Organized opposition to vaccine policy that describes the impetus for, organization of, and platform of, organizations and groups that oppose vaccination policy. It should differentiate among the types of organizations based on their expressed platform. It should also include groups that oppose vaccination as part of a broader platform, whether that is political, religious, or whatever.
An article on Vaccination and epidemiology that discusses the historical epidemiology illnesses for which people are commonly vaccinated, bringing in all the factors that are thought to contribute to lower infection rates, morbidity, and mortality.
Possibly also an article called something like Common good and individual risks (maybe something more specific) that discusses the philosophical and political issues related to coercing an individual to do something for the good of his/her community. Something like that may exist already in Wikipedia, but it is something we should address explicitly, either by reference or directly.
I further think that we must carefully delineate the controversies as they relate to safety, efficacy, and other issues, such as civil liberties, the common good, etc. --Leifern17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
By all means start any articles you think should exist. "Organized opposition to vaccine policy" translates as "anti-vaccinationists". Curiously, I agree there should be an article. It should differentiate among the types of organizations based on their behaviour, and what they say, rather than what they say they do. The interesting thing about the topic is not so much the people or the arguments they make, but the underlying reasons and philosophy presented as or causing those arguments to be made. Midgley18:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to come up with a solution that puts the effort here on the right track. I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "the arguments they make" and "underlying reasons and philosophy presented as or causing those arguments to be made." --Leifern18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems that some of the frustration in editing this article again boils down to the term "anti-vaccinationist." Some view it as all encompassing while others view it as being restricted to a historical movement in the past. I'm starting to favor the the latter, as the term "anti-vaccinationist" does have a somewhat antiquated feel, almost like "abolitionist." Perhaps if we can settle on a more appropriate title, then it would make editing the article more constructive. Andrew7319:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that it is purely a red herring. I do agree, there is an antiquated feel to the whole business, but when discussion turns to immunisation, we are presented with arguments relating to Smallpox in 1880, not to HiB in 2000. Midgley22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Quackwatch is not a weblog. Actually looking at the site, which displays a HONcode badge and link indicating it is independently assessed as following good practice for medical websites, reveals a link to the board of medical advisers, 152 in number. There are also 30 legal advisers... it may be the case that legal advisers are more useful in avoiding being sued than in preventing "partisan rants", but to characterise this as one man's blog is an attempt to mislead if made in knowledge of it that needs two clicks to obtain, or suggestive of very poor analysis if not. Midgley22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
But Leifern "dedicated to denouncing all forms of alternative medicine"? What Quackwatch 'say they are dedicated to is being " Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions". Surely you demand that if they say this is what they do that we accept them at their own characterisation, unless some reputable reference denounces them in turn? Surely you are not against people being informed, so that they can make informed decisions? DOes anyone see a huge and glaring inconsistency around that? Does anybody not? Midgley22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Imagine that - now look at how many of the articles he has written himself vs. others have written for him. And let's see if he has anything charitable to say about anything "alternative" - he even goes to far as to question Doctors of Osteopathy as somehow being lesser than Doctors of Medicine. I am on pretty firm ground in claiming he is an anti-alternative-medicinist. Be that as it may, he is clearly not just "commenting" on the matter, he is weighing in one side of it. And wouldn't you say that the title "quackwatch" sort of gives it away? I don't see any of his writing that is objective, but that's neither here nor there. As far as the HON certification is concerned, I looked at the criteria, and it's basically a club for medical doctors to certify each other. Which is absolutely fine, but that's what it is. I'll try to come up with something that is descriptive and neutral. --Leifern23:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of the HON is that is merely reflects on the nature of the website itself, rather than the medical opinion included. Hence HON sites must be written by doctors, not try to directly diagnose or treat conditions, indicate the date pages were last updated, cite their sources, indicate clearly the author and source of any sponsorship. By this reasoning a doctor discussing one particular cause of a disease (provided not making excessive claims) would be acceptable, even if the rest of us are aware that more common causes are not included which may lead overall to an unbalance article (compared to an encyclopedia), eg a site might discuss diphtheria sore throats and miss out on common viruses & streptococcus bacteria. So HON will not be a weblog - its only real purpose is to ensure readers are able to verify it is written by the medical authors claimed and with any sponsorship/advertising transparently indicated (vs an author falsely claiming to be a qualified doctor, or hidding the website's financial conflicts of interest). David RubenTalk00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
So if we look at a website, whatever it bills itself as, and we "see if he has anything charitable to say about " a particular topic, then if it doesn't we conclude that whatever the site characterises itself as, it is in fact a site which is anti-{topic} and presume it to be run by anti-topicists. Do stop me if I'm misinterpreting anything here. Perhaps one only applies that to sites which one already has been told are a collection of "partisan rants", applying a particulr view of the world against a particular topic? Or perhaps the problem is that an argument introduced to hamper the writing of an article is actually of no merit whatsoever and can now be discarded as not fit for purpose? I agree the Honcode is not a panacea, however markings will be withdrawn from sites Genva considr disreputable. Quackwatch is noticeably older than WP, and while it wasn't at the dawn of the Medical Web, it is venerable. Midgley00:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I revised the description of Quackwatch, because you're absolutely right - I shouldn't apply different standards to the things that I agree with than the things that I disagree with. Having said that, I tend to judge the credibility of a website by its level of intellectual integrity. Quackwatch addresses every issue to prove the same point over and over again, namely that anything that isn't practiced by the majority of medical doctors is quackery. As an editorial aside, I find Kevin Trudeau's stuff to be pretty looney, but after I read what Barrett had to say, I started wondering if there's something more to the stuff Trudeau says, simply because I was wondering "is that the best you can do?" --Leifern15:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
They probably don't like Whale either - is it mentioned there? whalemedical.com by John Whale of Devon is probably in their list as well, with its coloured lights whose pseudoscience probably goes back to the bechampist "microscopist", and Dr Beddow Bayly's offer to cure anaemia with ultraviolet light. Any connection or is it all coincidence? Midgley13:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know how I would describe whale. to's platform. It seems to be anti-everything-the-Man-tells you. --Leifern15:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I find the absence of dissent with _any_ part of Whale among those sites which to my eye share some other common characteristics to be part of the group of properties defining their membership of a particular group (or set or cloud or constellation or network). Many people if they chose to point toa Whale resource as evidence or to support or amplify something might say "although much if it is bogus hocum, this particular page is the pure unvarnished truth". Compare and contrast to scientists and doctors substantially in agreement with each other in Nature, the BMJ, medical web fora or at conferences. The latter argue and pick out any weakness in their colleagues' descriptions. The former accept anything aimed against their target, regardless. Midgley15:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets concentrate the discussion on the talk pages of articles, and lets not saddle any future random user near Bromley with the content there and animus around it. Midgley15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
While I may not necessarily agree with this anonymous user, I haven't heard of a user talk page actually being deleted; I thought a talk page was the user's own domain!). Andrew7300:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It is explicit that this is not the case, that the user pages are part of the WP and that use for purposes other than writing the encyclopedia - although interpredeted widely by the tolerant community - is cause for deletion. It is implicit that users who have a username, and therefore an actual user page which is reliably theirs and not shared with the next user of that IP address, get very wide tolerance. Note that the user page which this is an appendage to was deleted administratively, and that use of the talk page is very similar to the use of the user page. Getting a user ID is a trivial exercise, and would provide the user with assorted benefits, some of which he has claimed to already posess and therefore may be presumed to value. The affair is very perverse. Midgley00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Tags
This is highly disputed article. Removing the tags as a way to argue is not appropriate. Until we reach some kind of consensus - and I have proposed ways out of this, the tags must remain. --Leifern11:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, the editor who removed the tags as far as I can see (and correct me if I've missed an edit) was just visitiing, looked at them and stripped them off with a quick and penetratingly analytical comment to boot. I suggest that not all of the article is disputable, so applying tags to sections may be aprpopriate, but to the whole article is neither helpful nor, as User:Intersophia note, appropriate, regardless of motive or faith. In addition, the actual state is that a small group of editors, some of whom have only ever appeared in order to make poorly phrased and unconstructive edits to it, are far more determined to prevent there being an article on this topic, than to improve it. Suggestions that are easily categorisable as "lets write an article about something else" would if they were serious have produced articles about some of those things. Midgley23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
There are dozens of calls for citations, a fair number of ad hominems, lots of sentences that are poorly written. I am giving the editors of this article three weeks to make it NPOV and written at an O-level/high school freshman level of English before I weigh in again, but I will continue to reinsert these tags until this article lives up to minimal standards. --Leifern23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Another three weeks of adding none of those things noted to be needed. Imagine, all the other people in the world who are not writing th is article or looking up referneces also refrain from telling us. Which is preferable? Midgley01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know what this article is supposed to be about, except "Midgley's musings on people he disagrees with." I've waited and waited to see if it evolves beyond that, and aside from bringing in the Nazi party and characterizing people as psychotic, there hasn't been much improvement. The purpose of the tags, by the way, is to signal to other editors that help is needed. If I wanted this article to be depracated, I'd let you continue doing what you're doing. --Leifern12:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is about anti-vacinationists. I am impressed by anyone who can manage to now know what it is about despite writing vitriolically for several weeks. Although of course the first item Leifern wrote on it - the call for deletion since "Google returned no hits" - was celarly made without any actual research or reading anything noticeable of the article, so there is no clear reason to expect reform. I think anyone who writes so much on the talk page though is defining themselves rather clearly when they set themself apart from "the editors of the page" despite having made a number of changes to it themself. Midgley13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I would edit if I knew what this article is about - I will certainly agree that there were people who characterized themselves as ant-vaccinationists 40-100 years ago, but it is only your opinion that such people exist today. I see a lot of prose written about the history of vaccination, but this is redundant to Vaccination or else belongs in an article called History of immunization. It is hard to contribute to an article based on a few people's opinions, especially when the opinions are hazy to begin with - my efforts would likely lead to an edit war, which does not help things. As for your repeated ad hominems about my contributions, I welcome you again to look at my contributions or else stop complaining. Yes, you're right that I probably misspelled anti-vaccinationist in my original google search, but the basis for my AFD was that the articled begged the question - which it still does. --Leifern23:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The basis asserted by Liefern was that the article depended upon the presence of a single organised body with the total absence of the word from Google being cited as evidence. It was a rush job. There is no need for a single body to exist for there to be anti-whatevers, or an anti-whatever movement, but there is coordinated activity - coordinated through a significant number of websites (I suspect some of these are set up more to swell numbers and squat on domains than because there are separate groups for each, but their membership is less than totally clear) and mailing lists. Midgley12:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Leifern - specifics now
You've moved the NPOV and poorly written tags back up three paragraphs to in front of the first one.
What are the first NPOV, an the first poorly written lines in the first paragraph, and what change do you propose to it to nmake it NPOV/well written? I believe you are actually simply telling us that you will never accept that anyone may write about this topic, but now is your chance to come to proof Midgley22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Midgley, your patronizing tone is insufferable and obnoxious. We have discussed many aspects of this article, and for one thing the entire premise is based on assertions made in one article and is therefore inherently biased and reflects your opinion. If every article in Wikipedia were written on the basis of assertions made in one or a few journals, we would surely have a lot of articles but little of encyclopedic value. To make this well written, the article needs fewer passive sentences of the type "As an illustration of the behaviour of measles in an unvaccinated population, the religious community and school outbreak summarised at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4914a2.htm is available," less pretentious diction of the type: "Recognisable anti-vaccination activity is one of the strands in a complex braid and to the extent to which it was effective, most doctors and governments regard resultant harm as belonging to it," fewer editorial comments of the type "An example vaccinationists claim is a dishonest argument is the dismissal by some vaccine critics and anti-vaccinationists of immunisation because it has not eliminated any disease. Vaccinationists claim[citation needed], etc., and better organization - for example, I don't understand why it's necessary to include a looong preamble on the history of vaccination - I thought this was supposed to be about "anti-vaccinationists," whatever that means (we still don't have that). --Leifern23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Based on one paper. It is not. The Scheibner paper and the paper to which the response immediately below this section was, are two of the several others remarked on in the article. (If it was inherently biased by being based on one paper, it would reflect the opinions of the writers. But it is not.)
Poor sentences The illustration of a poor sentence without an improved version is not from the initial paragraphs. is there any way of taking it systematically, or may we assume this indicates no poorly written sentences exist above that one?
editorial comments The example given is well down the page, again, may one consider that a statement that no such objections exist above it?
preamble I think there is only one editor who remains confused about what anti-vaccinationists are, certainly there seems a reasonable working concensus among writers in academic journals and in these talk pages. I suggest looking at the rock music and similar pages to see how such definitions work in practice. Starting an article on anti-catholic activity by assuming that everyone knows what the catholic church is and when it started is a similar idea to explore - I agree one could have too much of it. That section is one which has had edits that have shortened it and edits that have lengthened it, so it seems to be an area of opinion on how much is useful in it. I suspect that 1796 is a date that should be in it. How far down the page does the preamble reach, in paragraphs? Anti-Catholicism is actually a very good model to look at - is it unreasonable to ask everyone who wants to work on this to read the article and the discussion page? Would that organisation be suitable here? Midgley12:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"In broad terms, your editorial is correct in stating that many anti-vaccinators are opposed for religious and political reasons and this was also the case in the 19th century" Year 2000.
He goes on to give a homeopath's view of the reasons. he seems an articulate academic poster-child for the movement to put up as an example. Any demur? Leifern want to say he doesn't exist, or is wrong in his use of English? Midgley22:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
His quote on MS is wrong in its detailof coruse ("Mapping multiple sclerosis susceptibility to the HLA-DR locus in African Americans.
Oksenberg JR, Barcellos LF, Cree BA, Baranzini SE, Bugawan TL, Khan O, Lincoln RR, Swerdlin A, Mignot E, Lin L, Goodin D, Erlich HA, Schmidt S, Thomson G, Reich DE, Pericak-Vance MA, Haines JL, Hauser SL.
Department of Neurology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0435, USA. oksen@itsa.ucsf.edu
An underlying complex genetic susceptibility exists in multiple sclerosis (MS), and an association with the HLA-DRB1*1501-DQB1*0602 haplotype has been repeatedly demonstrated in high-risk (northern European) populations. It is unknown whether the effect is explained by the HLA-DRB1 or the HLA-DQB1 gene within the susceptibility haplotype, which are in strong linkage disequilibrium (LD). African populations are characterized by greater haplotypic diversity and distinct patterns of LD compared with northern Europeans. To better localize the HLA gene responsible for MS susceptibility, case-control and family-based association studies were performed for DRB1 and DQB1 loci in a large and well-characterized African American data set. A selective association with HLA-DRB1*15 was revealed, indicating a primary role for the DRB1 locus in MS independent of DQB1*0602. This finding is unlikely to be solely explained by admixture, since a substantial proportion of the susceptibility chromosomes from African American patients with MS displayed haplotypes consistent with an African origin.") but that is to be expected. Caucasians rarely sickle. So it goes. Midgley22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Faculty of Homoeopathy speaks for a medically qualified minority. The more numerous medically unqualified homoeopaths belong to the Society of Homoeopaths, the Institute of Complementary Medicine, or the Homoeopathic Medical Association, totalling some 2000 practitioners. None of these bodies supports vaccination."--Peter Morrell to/m/homeo12.html
Name Change
There is no concensus for a move to a particular name.
Organised opposition to widespread vaccination is not an adequately descriptive name, does not mean anything other than anti-vaccinationist, and more crucially is not a good name for a user to find what they are looking for under (see "Bad luck in user performance in an Alertbox article[67]. There are few people who do not understand both what anti-vaccinationist means, and that some people currently active are exactly that. The persistent changes by Leifern are strange, and most closely seem to match the effort by some anti-vaccinationists to cloak their absence of support for any immunisation at all in an appearance of only objecting to individual aspects of vaccination, immunisation, and immunisation plicies and methods. TO change the name so radically in a controversial article is not acting in good faith. Given that the author of the change has argued that in fact there is no organised oposition (albeit without convincing anyone at all) it is the more perverse. Midgley13:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You yourself wrote: "Organized opposition to vaccine policy" translates as "anti-vaccinationists"" - which is, of course, begging the question. The entire basis for this article is one opinion piece in a journal, an opinion with which you happen to agree. And then of course there are your personal attacks. Midgley, a self-proclaimed medical doctor who gives advice to people on their lives, simply can not refrain from personal attacks. Makes me wonder whether he treats his patients the same way - if they dare to question his judgment, they are told there is even more stuff wrong with them. --Leifern14:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Good afternoon Leifern (GMT). I see you have returned refreshed from your holiday. Examine your conscience and behaviour, and consider whether a year after agreeing that splitting out Thimerosal controversy from Thimerosal your response to me actually doing that was proportionate, sober, or a basis for a smooth relationship between us. I think it was not and that your behaviour is worth comment. Meanwhile, I have looked around WP, and if you read the discussions above, you will see I took note of (actually your comment on)a need for a better structure, identified a clearly contentious topic, and borrowed the article from it, which is curently available for editing. I urge people to look at the article in question's history and talk page fora model of how to do things like this. A vast cool intellect observing from outside might think there is something special about this subject, but also he might look at other topics not devoid of controversy, and wonder if there was something special about anti-vaccinationists. Let us write an enyclopedia. Midgley14:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
We have done the one article and whether the BMJ publishes papers and it isn't one and it isn't an opinion piece (or peace) and this does no credit to those who simply cycle back to teh same argument regardless of it having been explored and exploded. Midgley14:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thimerosal controversy was created on February 22nd this year. Not quite a year. As for my conscience, I have never sought to delete content I've disagreed with, and certainly never made myself a sockpuppet to impersonate another user. This entire article rests on the premise that one can equate the many types of skepticism toward vaccination programs today to the anti-vaccinationist movements that met with their demise several decades ago. That is a weak premise, but certainly controversial. It is entirely a hasty generalization and guilt by association, and not even carried out by the BMJ article writers. As for our working relationship, you are the one who has carried out personal attack after personal attack, culminating with some rather nasty mischief that most people would have been banned for. --Leifern16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
So this year wouldn't be a year after Leifern agreed to it, would it... my comment clearly applies to something else, IE Leifern's agreement, a year ago. that controversy could be split out of Thimerosal (it is in the talk page for the relevant article).
If anyone had a moment, they might list the many types of scepticism, with references, laying particular stress on the types which exponents of it express along the lines of I am against the particular vaccination {x} but in favour of vaccinations {y] and{z}. This discussion is very repetitive, and this has been dealt with, although with no actual conclusion, higher up this page. The assertion that the entire article rests upon a single premise (different signle premises being tried sequentially) is not correct. Midgley16:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Points of fact
Thimerosal controversy was created on 3 Feb this year, at 04:37, by Leifern. The material was split by me, from what is now Thimerosal having sought comment on the talk page on 2 Feb and received replies in favour. Looking back in the history, a considerable time earlier, discussion had taken place, and Ten of all trades had created the Section Thimerosal controversy at that time. Somewhere around there in the back story, Leifern assented to a division - which did not occur at that time. I thought the material was more anti-vaccinationism than chemistry, and placed it in this nascent article.
First point of contact of Leifern (who was rude first? Leifern, very.) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Thimerosal#material_out_of_place is the talk page first POC. The afd on this article (with the assertion that the title word does not appear in Google, now asserted to have obviously been mistyped) followed rather hastily, and was pursued with venom. This stuff really is very unusual in WP, but is very usual in anti-vaccinationist attacks on doctors, look around, eg in the BMJ Rapid Responses, and on anti-vaccinationist websites (one reason for regarding them as anti-vaccinationist, rather than critical of vaccines, but not a main one, just an example of the enormous subtlety of English). At the same time there were several postings by Leifern on my user page, replied to by me on his, but clearly not read by him. I think he has kept them visible, I have not, since this is not interesting, but you can dig them out of the history. Midgley17:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Facts? Let's see here. You deleted the entire section about the controversy about thimerosal on February 1st, here: [68]. There was no discussion on the matter - your first entry on the discussion page of Thimerosal was also on February 1 [69], only your contention that reservations about thimerosal is of the same cloth as "anti-vaccinationist" activity ("It is clear that a proportion of the attacks on Thiomerosal are actualy nothing to do with it, but rather are anti-vaccinationist activity"). And the discussion you did present seemed to indicate you wanted to move the section to "vaccine safety." Instead, you created an article called Anti-vaccinationists. In my book, deleting entire sections of an article amounts to deletion, a position I have made very clear. If we are to compare the rudeness of vandalizing an article based on a blatant bias and criticizing such an action, then I think the vandalism gets the rudeness award. And yes, unlike you, I keep contributions to my talk page (I have nothing to lose), and I did respond to your entries with this: "My avowed interest, as you put it, is to give the public the right to make an informed choice about the medical treatment you make. I am surprised a self-proclaimed physician should have a problem with that. There is no such thing as a "anti-vaccinationist." This is a term you have invented full cloth to describe a wide range of opinions." --Leifern19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It was on the 2nd of February here, as WP still reports (GMT vs EST I suspect) - and the account above is inconsistent - "The discussion you did..." and "you did not discuss" cannot both apply. Leifern's view that "there is no such thing as an anti-vaccinationist" is one he has expressed before - when someone had mentioned it in Autism early on in his editing career. It is a term used in the 2002 BMJ paper and in at least one paper in the learned journal Vaccine and in the proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine last month in a paper by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick. Also, to quote from the afd discussion referred to above "Of course there are anti-vaccinationists to pretend otherwise is ridiculous." But Leifern will not have it that any such people exist, regardless of anyone lese's use of this simple compound word. Why? is the question that comes to my mind. As for the asertion above here that moving a section of an article to another is deletion, this is a play on words. Vaccine safety was indeed an idea... 20:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
My point is that you didn't discuss cutting out the entire section of "thimerosal" and moving it to an article called "anti-vaccinationist." Never. You briefly - as is documented above - say that maybe it should be moved to "vaccine safety," but that is an entirely different suggestion. So I suppose if you quote incompletely and out of context, you may be able to arrive at a strange conclusion, but that would be fraud, wouldn't it? As for what people exist, my general view is that categorizing people with a derogatory term should is something we should only do with great caution. As I've pointed out, we don't have an article on "anti-Semites," we have one on "Anti-semitism," and in this case you are trying to make it seem like anyone with any reservations about any aspect of vaccinations is an anti-vaccinationist. You accused me of being an anti-vaccinationist, though I have never expressed such views, and indeed got a tetanus-diphtheria shot yesterday after accidentally putting a nail into my hand.
...had to go to dinner. It was indeed an idea, and the revisionary idea that this (waves arms widely at last month or so, many words much bad feeling, work for admins, absence of wonderful page progression etc) is actually just Leifern's way of saying "Midgley, you suggested moving that section, as I had previously indicated I would agree with, but instead of moving it to Vaccine safety as you suggested you seem to have erred in moving it to anti-vacinationist, I propose we move it there instead or alternatively into an article all of its own" would be nice if we could consider even for a moment that it was anything like true, rather than an attempt to cast aorund for one more stick to hurl. FWIW, I may actually have got it wrong - my recollection was that I's suggested that as it was anti-vax (to pick up an abbreviation used by an anti-vax-ist here) it might go there, but it is entirely possible that I dropped it in the otehr article. What it was not in any way was obscure - there was a link, and the paragraph boiling down the section where it had gone to a para where it had been, and making it perfectly clear that it had been moved not deleted. (Except in the trivial sense that when one moves something, it is taken from where it was.
As an exercise in expression though, that revisionist interpretation would be less than ideal, less than eg mature, effective, polite, WP:CIVIL, proportionate, coperative, sensible and rational. SO I suppose that it did not actually happen like that is not all bad. Good dinner BTW.Midgley21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Question to onlookers, if any, When Leifern - who has looked me up - describes me as a "self-proclaimed physician" is he intending to suggest to others that I am not? And which WP:POLICY would cover that? As it happens, the first mention of me being what over here we call a doctor since Physicians are a specialty was when one of my colleagues put a marker on my user page identifying me as one. I am - anyone who wonders can look me up on the GMC database, see http://ganfyd.org and look for "registered medical practitioner" in it to see how it works. Leifern, who I have looked up, describes himself as the CEO of a company, but does not list any other employees, and does list having worked for various large companies. I suppose I'm a CEO on that basis, as are many people. Midgley21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't be stupid. I can feel pretty confident that Adrian Midgley is a medical doctor, but I can't be assured that User:Midgley and Adrian Midgley are the same person. I honestly don't know where you found a place where I refer to myself as a CEO, but I do have my own company with real revenues. The only place I refer to myself as a CEO is when I have to enter into legal contracts. The counterparties have to be assured that I have the right to enter into contracts. My business card simply has the name of the company, my name, and my contact information. --Leifern11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I actually haven't "looked you up" until recently, and then based on the links you provide on your user page. You describe yourself as a general practitioner on your user page, and I sent an email to you via the WP-created link on your user page. --Leifern13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
See above in talk page for the reason for the name and purpose. Possibly it should be in the Talk: space rather than article. Midgley12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
POV
POV tags presume there is active debate. There hasn't been any discussion here for the last two weeks. There will always be controversy around this topic, but that is not the same as POV.
Before reinserting that miserable tag, please do the following: (1) make constructive edits to correct what you think is biased, (2) discuss the contended material here first, (3) wait for response. Only if all the above fails, think of reinserting the tag. JFW | T@lk11:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The article rests on a premise that remains disputed. I have not edited because my edits invariably result in personal attacks, mischief and/or stalking by Midgley. I will continue to insert the POV tag until and unless someone can prove to me that everyone who has reservations about any vaccination is an anti-vaccinationist. It is the article that is miserable, not the tag. I have made repeated attempts at improving the article, but they are always rejected. And, by the way, you're not the boss of me. --Leifern22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Leifern - the consensus seems to be that the article is NPOV, and I'm going to remove the tag. There are two problems here: the primary one being that you are continuing to revert the edits (specifically the removal of the NPOV tag) of others despite community consensus. Secondly, you need to Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
That is a mis-statement or logical error, and a straw man. There is no requirement that everybody who has any reservation is an anti-vaccinationist for there to be some people who are anti-vacciantionists. However, given that the expressed reason for opposition is neither logical nor susceptible to change by reasoned argument - relying for that solely on the statement immediately above - I suppose we should moe to an RFC on whether Leifern's specified demand is reason for maintaining a POV tag. Meanwhile, I'll take it off, and count 2.Midgley23:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
(the scope) धर्म 06:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC))
