Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Title

The current title(1) is misleading. This article, as currently written is not about hesitation or the tendency to hesitate, it is about opposition. Its a good article on a significant subject, made less useful to the world by the title being weakened. (1) Vaccine Hesitancy Midgley (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's incorrect. Vaccine hesitancy has a spectrum from having/expressing uncertainty or hesitancy about vaccination to overt opposition. This is the standard terminology. My question to you is if you don't like that wording, then what do you propose it be changed to? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

When I wrote the first draft of the first page of which this is the descendant of a sub-page...I called it antivaccinationism. It has been followed by an initial and sustained effort to remove or hide it, not lest by antivaccinationist editors who claim no such entity exists. This was some years ago, and the public health disaster in Samoa and deaths and illnesses elsewhere have developed since. Midgley (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Article needs some pro 'Vaccine hesitancy' info, from sources like [5]. Otherwise it is a violation of WP:POV, and should be titled as such: "Against Vaccine hesitancy" --Ne0 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"Effects of vaccine hesitancy" would be a more logical and rather more interesting article, although, perhaps, not this article or its historical root. You'll find it very difficult to find a WP:reputable source for benefits from hesitancy. Midgley (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, the very title 'Vaccine hesitancy' is a violation of WP:NPOV, as it implies noncompliance with vaccine mandates stem from irrational fear rather than rational scepticism. It belittles and WP:discriminates against people with a different POV. It should be titled 'Vaccine scepticism' and present all significant sides of the debate:

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

Guarapiranga (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't scepticism, which is another red herring to cover up opposition to immunisation. The origin of this article was simply opposition to vaccination. Midgley (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The title is not a violation of WP:NPOV. As mentioned previously, it is the standard terminology for the described phenomenon. Noncompliance with vaccine recommendations based on irrational fears is what is being described. People generally do not avoid vaccines because of rational skepticism. Vaccines are very safe, highly effective (the flu vaccine is variable), and save lives. There is no debate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No doubt there is little debate, but one can't really say those opposing compelled vaccination don't debate what they oppose without self-contradiction. This page is precisely about the debate they engage in.

@TylerDurden8823: People generally do not avoid vaccines because of rational skepticism.
Guarapiranga (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying there is no valid debate about whether vaccines are effective and safe (which I think was clear). I'm not saying there isn't debate about mandatory vaccination policies and the ethics of those particular courses of action. The page already explains what underlies vaccine hesitancy and it isn't usually rational skepticism. The entire article has multiple citations verifying that vaccine hesitancy is due to cognitive biases, irrational beliefs/fears, etc. People in the anti-vaccine community often attempt to whitewash their anti-vaccine views as being "vaccine-safety conscious" or some other similar benign sounding label. Come on, Guarapiranga. We're not seriously having this conversation (it's been done ad nauseam). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: I'm saying there is no valid debate about whether vaccines are effective and safe

That's a POV, TylerDurden8823, which is certainly the mainstream view, and thus ought to be represented, but whether the debate is valid or not is not for editors to judge. Editors are not RS.

An article about opposition to vaccination by a minority of people only has a place on Wikipedia if, in Jimbo Wales' words, this minority is significant. If it is, then, again quoting Jimbo, it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and represent their views fairly and from their own viewpoint (as well as their critics). Wikipedia is not meant to be used as an instrument of WP:promotion. Guarapiranga (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the mainstream and logical POV. As in, the one Wikipedia reflects and that is reflected by the high quality sources. It is absolutely easy to name prominent adherents. Are you suggesting otherwise? Vaccine hesitancy was named a top 10 health threat by the very notable World Health Organization, Guarapiranga. And you're right, editors are not reliable sources. The reliable sources are and they say what I am saying now. Vaccine hesitancy is a well-established public health threat. Are you seriously suggesting the topic fails notability? If so, I must vehemently and wholeheartedly disagree. There aren't many vaccine critics but those who have raised any legitimate concerns or issues have been fairly represented. Guara, this talk page is meant for concrete suggestions to improve the article. Do you have one? If so, please clarify exactly what change(s) you're proposing. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: Are you seriously suggesting the topic fails notability?

No, I'm not. What I said is that if it does not fail notability, then the minority view the article is about ought to be represented fairly (as well as their critics). Guarapiranga (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The article unequivocally does not fail notability (I can't believe you're even suggesting otherwise). Please demonstrate some valid sources of vaccine criticism that are not listed in the article, but I do expect high-quality sources that are based in reality and conform to WP:MEDRS. I just want that to be clear from the outset. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: The article unequivocally does not fail notability

I said I didn't say it does… repeatedly.

No, Guara, you said if, which leaves room for doubt about its notability. There is no doubt about that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: I do expect high-quality sources that are based in reality

That may be what you expect, Tyler, but it ain't WP policy. WP policy makes no judgement about reality, but rather on reliability (similar word, different meaning). Guarapiranga (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is. If you don't believe me, ask the other editors here. Please see WP:MEDRS. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS mentions reality exactly zero times. Guarapiranga (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: Yes, the mainstream and logical POV.

Again, whether a POV is logical or not, is not for editors to judge. Our job is simply to represent all relevant POVs fairly, and without introducing our own. Guarapiranga (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct, and the high-quality sources say it is illogical. That's what we reflect. We are biased toward reality and do not give equal ground to nonsensical views that are not well-represented in high-quality sources. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: We are biased toward reality

That's where you're wrong, Tyler. Wikipedia is biased toward the mainstream (WP:YESPOV). What the reality is is evidently a disputed subject, and clearly not up for editors to deliberate on. Guarapiranga (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Really? Guara, please back up your assertion with some high-quality sources that demonstrate this is a disputed subject with regard to vaccine efficacy, safety, etc. Be specific-which reality-based claims do you think are in dispute exactly? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Did I say vaccine efficacy, safety, etc is disputed? No, I said what reality is is a disputed subject. I see we're really not communicating here. Guarapiranga (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, "reality" is not disputed on Wikipedia, because our content follows reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: Guara, this talk page is meant for concrete suggestions to improve the article. Do you have one? If so, please clarify exactly what change(s) you're proposing.

Not concrete enough for you, Tyler?

Actually, the very title 'Vaccine hesitancy' is a violation of WP:NPOV, as it implies noncompliance with vaccine mandates stem from irrational fear rather than rational scepticism. It belittles and WP:discriminates against people with a different POV. It should be titled 'Vaccine scepticism' and present all significant sides of the debate

Guarapiranga (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, OK, and the counter to that is: no it isn't, this is the official term used by the World Health Organization. Yes, we cover significant viewpoints according tot heir prevalence. That doesn't mean we treat them as equally valid. We cover climate change denial, a significant viewpoint, but we make it abundantly clear that it's ideologically-driven bullshit. Same with creationism, same with this. So now you have your answer, how do you propose to improve the article? Guy (help!) 12:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: we make it abundantly clear that it's ideologically-driven bullshit

Exactly what I mean by 'violation of WP:NPOV':

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

@JzG: how do you propose to improve the article?

So far I've proposed:

1. Renaming it 'Vaccine scepticism'.
2. Representing the minority view fairly and accurately from the viewpoint of their most prominent adherents, not the viewpoint of editors (along of course with the mainstream view put forth by RS).

Guarapiranga (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, the first has been rejected for good and sufficient reasons, and your idea of "fairly and accurately" is idiosyncratic. We describe anti-vaccine views exactly as we describe climate change denial, creationism and the rest: accurately, neutrally, but without leaving the slightest doubt that they are wrong. Guy (help!) 00:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If my proposals have been rejected, you can't reasonably say I haven't proposed anything, JzG (talking of reason). Guarapiranga (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, I refer you to my actual answer rather than your strawman. Given that your demand to rename the article isn't going to fly, what improvements do you propose? Please be specific: change X to Y based on Z reliable source. Guy (help!) 10:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ne0Freedom, not a chance. Against your story of adverse events we have the WHO investigation which found:

Based on this review of the reports, it appears that 9 non-fatal cases could correspond to known but rare vaccine reactions. Such transient reactions, including allergies, seizures and decreased muscle tone, are expected in a very small number of recipients of the vaccine and are declared in the product insert accompanying the vaccine. These relatively minor effects of the vaccines pass, while the benefits of the vaccine remain, and save lives.

After careful investigation, it was found that the other serious AEFIs, including those which resulted in fatalities, reported in Viet Nam were either coincidental health problems related in time but not related to the use of Quinvaxem, or cases for which the information available does not allow for a definite conclusion (which is a common situation when individual cases are assessed). However, for those serious and fatal cases there are no elements that could be consistent with the use of the vaccine.

We have already discussed at length the issues of adverse events from poorly stored vaccines, and how these are exploited by antivaxers to assert that there is some coverup of vaccine risks, and also the issue of spurious correlation. There is nothing to be derived from this incident which is not already covered in the article. Guy (help!) 12:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. I seriously doubt the Wikiproject Medicine community will agree as a consensus to such a proposal. The proper title is vaccine hesitancy. If you're really pushing for such a major change, you'll need to open an RFC and have the community weigh in. I'm confident the consensus will be an overwhelming no though. I also wholly disagree with your assertions that it "belittles" people with a "different POV" (interesting way to whitewash dangerous/misinformed anti-vaccine views, by the way). As I said, the vast majority of vaccine hesitancy is not rooted in rational skepticism. Please read (or re-read) the article-there are numerous high-quality citations verifying this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• The title was discussed and agreed[6] which happened as part of a general topic clean-up earlier this year. The rationale given then was excellent. We need to make sure we are aligned with mainstream terminonolgy and that antivax crankery remains properly marginal, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I think either title is equally good or bad as both can be seen as sops to believers.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• I moved it to vaccine hesitancy to match the WHO report, which is about as reputable a source as you can get. I'd be OK with anti-vaccinationism but absolutely reject the "skepticism" title, as it's actually pseudoskepticism, exactly like climate change denial. Guy (help!) 12:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• The current "hesitancy" title is correct. The repeated claim here word hesitancy "implies noncompliance with vaccine mandates stem from irrational fear rather than rational scepticism" is not supported by any dictionary definition.[7][8] Hesitancy encompasses indecision, irrational fears, and rational fears. Rational people are hesitant to undertake risks that they do not understand, or whose costs seem to exceed their benefits. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread is what we say when people do not exhibit rational hesitancy in the face of incomplete or incorrect information.
  I want to point out that this is a "big tent" phrase, similar in nature to using "Men who have sex with men" instead of "gay". It's trying to cover a lot of territory, and the term, in its plain-dictionary-definition sense, may not be the most obvious description of every single person in that varied group. However, it is perfectly expressive for the largest group, which is people who are worried but not outright opposed. I know a woman who is "hesitant" about vaccinating her children. Her fear is both rational and wrong: one of her sister's kids got very sick shortly after a routine immunization. Did the vaccine cause the illness? Probably not. Is it rational to worry about doing something that immediately preceded a bad outcome? Yeah, the human brain is wired to make post hoc errors on a sample size of one. It might be perfectly fine to eat those colorful berries, but if you get severely sick right after the first time you eat them, it's perfectly rational for you to be afraid of eating those berries again. (Her kids were on a slow schedule. This meant more (potentially deadly) risk to them when they were young, but at least it happened eventually, and with no adverse outcomes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article is no longer about antivaccinationists - those who oppose vaccination, encourage hesitancy. etc - in any of its parts including particularly the first paragraph. They've managed to hide.

However, that now suggests that an article called antivaccinationism has a specific area to engage. Shall we (re)start one? Midgley (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, I can see where you got this idea, but it is actually incorrect. Back in my parents' day, there were real vaccine adverse events (e.g. the Cutter incident) but there was also a realistic chance of contracting a deadly disease. Modern-day "hesitancy" only works because vaccines are so successful that people have forgotten the risk they prevent, so focus incorrectly on the risk they present. This is further exacerbated by a culture of disinformation, such that the vast majority of vaccine "risks" cited have nothing to do with vaccines at all (the most obvious being autism). Guy (help!) 00:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  Guy, which idea is incorrect? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  I see you have some very strong opinions on this subject, JzG, as you've used some very strong language to condemn dissenting views, but I'm afraid your opinions are irrelevant and of no use to us as editors (WP:NPOV). All that should matter to us as editors, and thus to this discussion, is whether we're expressing the majority and minority views fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Guarapiranga (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  Naming articles "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" is basically synonymous with naming health-related articles whatever name the WHO gives that subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  I concur with WAID's last comment here. Guara, as we've stated above (and as you've acknowledged), Wikipedia is biased in favor of reality and what the highest quality sources state. That's what the article currently reflects. I have yet to see you put forward any high-quality sources showing that to be untrue. If you can, please do so now. That's the bottom line. I don't think you have consensus demonstrating vaccine hesitancy to be a violation of NPOV. Representing the "minority view" (AKA the anti-vaccination POV) from their perspective is not how Wikipedia works. By definition, their sources are not high-quality and generally fail WP:MEDRS. As stated ad nauseam, we reflect what the high quality sources say, which is that this minority view is pseudoscientific and promotes fear mongering. It is not based in "rational skepticism" and renaming the article "vaccine skepticism" would be a form of whitewashing/softening the language inappropriately rather than describing what is really occurring. Many anti-vaccine groups and people (e.g., Jenny McCarthy) object to the language, but we don't acquiesce to their demands and/or wishes just because they don't like the label. It's still accurate and reflected by high-quality sources. Many such advocates prefer labels such as "vaccine-safety conscious" and it's clearly nonsense (high-quality sources reflect that too, it's not just my opinion/POV). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  @TylerDurden8823: Guara, as we've stated above (and as you've acknowledged), Wikipedia is biased in favor of reality
  

  I acknowledge you've stated that, TylerDurden8823. And I stated that that's where you're wrong, Tyler. Wikipedia is biased toward the mainstream (WP:YESPOV). What the reality is is evidently a disputed subject, and clearly not up for editors to deliberate on.

  @TylerDurden8823: Representing the "minority view" (AKA the anti-vaccination POV) from their perspective is not how Wikipedia works.
  

  That may be but it's what WP:NPOV requires:

  All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views

  Guarapiranga (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong and you seem to have misunderstood the policies here, Guara. Fringe views do not get equal weight and representation. That's wrong. We do not give pro-homeopathy journals and "experts" the same weight as medical scientists, physicists, etc., even though they have a different POV. In the extremely unlikely event that rigorous science shows homeopathy to actually be plausible/real and that the anti-vaccine folks were right all along, I'll formally apologize to you. Until then, I must insist on high-quality sources to back up your nebulous claims about reality (it's still unclear to me which part of reality you think is being "disputed"). Shall I take your answer to mean that you are unable to provide any high-quality sources to back up your assertions? I have yet to see you produce even one despite multiple calls for them. I'm unclear on what's causing the delay... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 is correct: we are required to avoid the WP:GEVAL fallacy. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: Fringe views do not get equal weight and representation.

Did I say equal? No, I said proportional. Guarapiranga (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, and that's what we do here. We cover anti-vaccination views in proportion to their significance and acceptance. Proportional coverage does not mean we have to pretend they are right, well-informed or honest. Guy (help!) 10:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

… or wrong, ill-informed and dishonest either. All WP:NPOV requires is that we express the minority and majority views fairly, proportionately, and… without editorial bias. No pretending required. Guarapiranga (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, if the sources say that something is the result of disinformation, then we also say it. As we do in climate change denialism, for example. We are not required to sugar coat the actions of the anti-vaccination lobby. Guy (help!) 10:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Guarapiranga, there is no editorial bias here. Reliable independent secondary sources clearly identify anti-vaccinationism as a public health menace based on wilful disinformation and often outright fraud (as in the Wakefield paper). That's not our editorial judgment, it's the judgment of the evidence-based sources, so we represent it as-is. Guy (help!) 09:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guara, I'm getting the sense you have an axe to grind. It seems like it's your POV that editorial bias is occurring here even though that's not actually the case. The highest quality sources available uniformly say, in their voice, that these anti-vaccination views are wrong, misinformed, based on misunderstandings of science, outright pseudoscience, illogical arguments or twisted logic, and/or dishonesty. We are reflecting what the best sources say in a fair, honest, and representative/proportionate way. Once again, which source(s) are you suggesting we include exactly? Which aspect(s) of reality are you asserting are in dispute per my questions above? Please be specific. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: It seems like it's your POV that editorial bias is occurring here

Yes, that is my POV. I stated it in my very first sentence here (no seeming required). That is the axe, and it starts with the title (the topic of this thread). The bias is clear in the judgemental language used here and in the article. That is the violation of WP:NPOV (again, starting with the title):

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

Guarapiranga (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice copypasta, but now you need to understand it. Wikipedia does not carry editorial bias, but it is bound to reflect the bias of RS (see maybe WP:GOODBIAS). Rational reality is "biased" agiaint the antivax crankosphere, and Wikipedia duly reflects that - to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Wikipedia does not carry editorial bias, but it is bound to reflect the bias of RS

Exactly what I said up above:

Wikipedia is biased toward the mainstream (WP:YESPOV).

We agree on that, so, no, that's not what this discussion is about. Whether the mainstream view is rational reality is what is beyond our role and remit as editors to deliberate on. Guarapiranga (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, So what exactly is the point of this thread? Is there a concrete proposal in the offing? Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The point is the one Midgley stated in the very 1st sentence:

The current title is misleading.

Guarapiranga (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, so you keep saying, but consensus is against you - not least because this is the title used by the World Health Organization. So now please drop the stick and back slowly away from the deceased equine. Guy (help!) 00:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your ongoing efforts, Midgley. The current title, "Vaccine hesitancy," is a joke. Feigning 'neutrality' that flies against the overwhelming scientific consensus does a disservice to Wikipedia readers (and those they influence). Sort of like "Spherical Earth hesitancy" or "Apollo moon hesitancy" -- not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Wtf2wtf (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wtf2wtf, I renamed it. Feel free to check my contributions and see if you think I am in any way friendly to antivaxers. This is the term used by the WHO. Guy (help!) 22:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wtf2wtf: I'm new to this article, but WhatamIdoing's comment 16:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC) seems a good description: I want to point out that this is a "big tent" phrase, similar in nature to using "Men who have sex with men" instead of "gay". It's trying to cover a lot of territory, and the term, in its plain-dictionary-definition sense, may not be the most obvious description of every single person in that varied group. However, it is perfectly expressive for the largest group, which is people who are worried but not outright opposed.- from earlier in THIS discussion. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Could we make it better?

Maybe we could back off a bit on the discussions of editors' (irrelevant) opinions, and just think about what would make a good article?

As I said above, "vaccine hesitancy" is a "big tent" label. Tyler correctly described it several thousand words ago as "a spectrum from having/expressing uncertainty or hesitancy about vaccination to overt opposition".

The biggest group of people, and the ones that worry the public health officials the most, are the "uncertain or hesitant" group. NB that these people do not always have safety concerns. That's the noisiest problem in US culture, but that's not (by far) the only one. Their problems may have more to do with practical concerns (taking time off work) or non-vaccine concerns (fear of needles) or philosophical concerns (government intrusion) or bad experiences (imagine a parent whose child died in hospital, and how hard it might be for them to take the other kids back to that same institution for any reason...) or any number of other things. I'm pretty sure that if most of us were faced with a choice of spending our last dollar on a child's vaccine vs on food for the child to eat that day, we'd delay the vaccine.

So we have some editors saying that we're probably not talking about this large and important group enough. Okay, that's potentially useful feedback. Would someone who *does not* already hold that view please go through the article and post here how much of the article is about "overt opposition" and how much is about the normal, non-activist people who are just a little "uncertain or hesitant"? The WHO has some decent, easy-to-read materials from around 2015 on some of the reasons for normal, non-activist people might hesitate. Are those reasons and circumstances presented in this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think, from some WHO documents (e.g.[9]), the tent is even bigger than that, encompassing e.g. complacency too (my kids are okay, the booster is probably not necessary). I suspect the problem here is that we've moved to Vaccine hesitancy as a title - and it's a good one as this is a worthy, notable topic - but the content hasn't been portioned up right to follow the title move. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WAID, that doesn't seem like Guara's objection to me. It seems like they just don't like the terminology "vaccine hesitancy" and view it as demeaning or discriminatory in some way. They don't like the label even though it's perfectly accurate and not the least bit discriminatory or demeaning. Here's an example of such whitewashing attempts: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/jessica-biel-says-she-supports-vaccines-which-exactly-what-anti-ncna1017886. The fact remains that an overwhelming majority of the medical literature and other reliable sources correctly refer to the phenomenon we describe here as vaccine hesitancy and thus the name should remain. We should not acquiesce to the desires of the anti-vaccine/vaccine-hesitant groups to refer to them per their preferences. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Tyler, Guara isn't the OP. The OP says that this article doesn't seem to cover much about the non-activists. Is there a possibility that the OP might be correct? Could we potentially improve the article to cover more of that aspect, so that people who want to learn more about vaccine hesitancy would learn about people who are just a bit hesitant or uncertain? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I have no issue with a split and a separate article on anti-vaccinationism. Equally, "vaccine hesitancy" is the term used by the WHO to define anti-vaccinationism - or at least its consequences. Guy (help!) 23:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm aware (s)he's not the OP, but (s)he is the one who has been driving this conversation the most by far. I also don't have a specific objection to a separate article about anti-vaccinationism. With that said, I think we do discuss vaccine hesitant people (even though we don't explicitly label it as such) and review common tropes and concerns that are raised by vaccine hesitant people across the spectrum (e.g., the other myths section). We also briefly discuss the underlying cognitive biases involved that affect people on the whole vaccine hesitancy spectrum. What other specifics do you propose we explicitly mention about vaccine hesitant people that aren't "activists"? I still wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of changing the article title to "vaccine skepticism" or something similar. That's whitewashing through and through. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that direction of the conversation has not been as productive as it could be, which is why I think that we should go back to the original report: This article doesn't talk much about people who are hesitant. I'm not seeing a paragraph in the first half of the article that I'd classify as talking about plain old hesitancy. (Lots of names of specific individuals and historical events, though.) Is that what you're seeing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, Midgley appeared to have different thoughts, but Guara appeared to strongly propose changing the article to "Vaccine skepticism" or something similar and that strikes me as whitewashing. There's no way around it. And then there were other nebulous nondescript complaints about "reality". As for hesitancy being discussed, this is in the lede: "Hesitancy primarily results from public debates around the medical, ethical and legal issues related to vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy stems from multiple key factors including a person's lack of confidence (mistrust of the vaccine and/or healthcare provider), complacency (the person does not see a need for the vaccine or does not see the value of the vaccine), and convenience (access to vaccines).[4]". TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant after the lead. The lead provides a good definition, but when do we finally get back to the simple "hesitation" content in the body of the article? How far down do you have to scroll to get to that? There are more than 10,000 words in this article. Do you (all) think we have the right proportion of words about the largest group of people who fall into the WHO definition of "hesitant"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not enough though it's still unclear to me exactly what kind of content about them is desired. There is more discussed about them in the management section but it's true that the management section is significantly lower in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that ==Management== (a section heading that we use for diseases, not for social phenomena) is an appropriate label. So rearranging is one idea. How about reducing the history? I'm not sure that we need to mention "royal approval" from the Princess of Wales in the early 18th century at all, but if we do include it, then maybe it should be at the end of the article, rather than the first paragraph after the table of contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

would agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What alternate title would you propose for that section then? Approach? Because it's really about the approach/management of vaccine hesitancy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

==Approach== sounds a lot better than ==Management==. Maybe ==Talking to hesitant people==? ==Healthcare providers' role==? MEDMOS gets into this single-word mindset, but spelling it out in small words might be more informative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think approach sounds fine. I think talking to hesitant people is a phrase we can use in the text but I think it's too wordy for the subheading. I also don't see an issue with rearranging the order of the sections and putting the historical part later. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That looks better. Thanks for making those changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I doubt those changes really address what Guara was getting at but I do think you had some good ideas, WAID. I always enjoy our conversations. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you TylerDurden8823 for the rearrangement, I think it is better with the history at the end, and the explanation of beliefs held by vax-hesitant people closer to the beginning; I think that it is more what readers are looking for when they come across this article. Good edits! ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Anti-Vaccination Movements

Bradv, how come the list of Anti-Vaccination Movements published at the BMJ Benjy Hall added that you reverted is not a notable list in an article precisely about anti-vaccination advocacy? Guarapiranga (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Why should it be included? It's a presumably incomplete list of organizations that don't have articles, provided without context or explanation of relevance, and cited to a single source. – bradv🍁 04:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a poor argument. 1) If the list is incomplete, add the next item to it, or remark nearby that more are needed. (Can you give a reliable reference to it being incomplete, by the way? Do we have WP:PRESUME - if we do I expect it to say "Don't". 2) Single source! There is indeed only one British Medical Journal. It is a source which cannot be improved-upon for medical material. (I don't mean the Lancet and JAMA are not good, but they are all of the same piece - this is the medical profession.) Midgley (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• At least three of the five organizations named are bluelinks:
  • Anti Vaccination League, which is presumably the Anti-Vaccination League of America,
  • Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League, and
  • Anti-Vaccination Society of America.
• There's never been any rule that Wikipedia:Embedded Lists need to contain only bluelinks. (That's the most stringent of many acceptable standards for stand-alone lists, and it's rarely invoked outside of exceedingly large subjects, such as List of people from New York City.)

The problem of "without context or explanation of relevance" is easily fixed. It is certainly incomplete, however; I believe that all of the organizations in that list originated in the US. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I wrote such a list as a sub-page of antivaccinationism some years ago. It may well have been deleted. Midgley (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• This can be handled through a link to a category or list article, I'd have thought. But would you group these organisations with other antivax groups like AVN and NVIC? Guy (help!) 10:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

False vaccine

It seems that according to the cited source, "excuse for mass murders" may not be accurate, but it was certainly unethical medical experimentation. I also doubt that they should be called false vaccines. —PaleoNeonate – 04:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw that another part of those edits was contested too, so will also remove this part for now. —PaleoNeonate – 07:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In the minds of the victim populations, those in power used fake vaccines, to kill, or at least not to save.

See also this story of real imprisoned Polish doctors sabotaging typhus vaccines for Germans:

https://www.mp.pl/auschwitz/journal/english/224306,sabotage-at-buchenwald

The source that you removed and this was published in 1947 in mass media, and the facts (I hope) are solid. I admit it is hard to measure how it affected the hesitancy itself. Zezen (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

More on failed vaccines

https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/threatened-pandemics-and-laboratory-escapes-self-fulfilling-prophecies/

By 2010, researchers published it as fact: “The most famous case of a released laboratory strain is the re-emergent H1N1 influenza-A virus which was first observed in China in May of 1977 and in Russia shortly thereafter.” The virus may have escaped from a lab attempting to prepare an attenuated H1N1 vaccine in response to the US swine flu pandemic alert. ...

No swine H1N1 pandemic materialized, however, and complications of immunization truncated the program after 48 million immunizations, which eventually caused 25 deaths.

Venezuelan equine encephalitis in 1995. Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) is a viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes... From 1938 to 1972, the VEE vaccine caused most of the very outbreaks that it was called upon to prevent, a clear self-fulfilling prophecy.

These are some additional reasons people distrust vaccines. -> Let us add them.

(And no ad hominem please. I am quoting facts.)

Zezen (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are using a novel interpretation of the meaning of the word "facts." -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

How do you arrive at the conclusion that these events are reasons why people distrust vaccines - is that your interpretation, or is there a reliable source saying that? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy, the PROD. . You have used ad hominem: you impute a "novel interpretation" to me. As per the quote:

"researchers published it as fact: ... "

-> Attack these researchers (who claim it to be a fact) or the source (which claims that they claim), not me. Hint: the source refs: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011184 in turn.

@ User:Girth Summit - you are right. I have updated my suggestion as per your comment, see above. As a Wikipedia:WikiDragon, I often boldly suggest changes to the content and jump to another topic. Here, for lack of time, I had not done research if these (sample) failed vaccinations increased hesitancy per se, but I claim it to be reasonable. A self-fix then: -> Let us research further and add them.

Zezen (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The question was do these sources say this is why people do not trust vaccines.

@Slatersteven

[edit conflict resolve]: No, they do not, as per above. Yet other sources may link these: as a WikiDragon, I suggest further research. I should have worded it better.

Zezen (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Get lost. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

WTF? Seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, until you learn to format your posts properly on Talk page, I shall not respond further. see WP:CIR -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a valid reason.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Zezen please could you take a look at THREAD? I can't really work out what's going on in the editing history, but I didn't get your ping, and there's a lot of jiggery-pokery above that I'm not really following. It looks like you're saying that more research should be done - please go ahead and do it, if you like. You'll need some pretty solid sources to support an assertion that these particular events contribute significantly to vaccine hesitancy. We're certainly not going to start listing every vaccine program where there have been problems here, any more than we should list every successful vaccine project at vaccination. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: WP:CIR - you and Slatersteven are right here: it is a valid objection. I am editing also this in the Source mode on mobile, with the tags, warts and all, so will be short here.

Re: GirthSummit's "You'll need some pretty solid sources to support an assertion that these particular events contribute significantly to vaccine hesitancy": you are right, too.

As a WikiDragon I alert yous to this possible ommission. The above case and the previous one (WW2, see above) linger in the collective memory, especially among some professions or regions. Please see e.g. this as a WP:RS:

 Concerns about vaccination and vaccine-preventable diseases were expressed very often across all countries (Figure 3). This was the most recurrent theme in both Greece and Romania, with vaccine risks being mentioned 80 times in

Romanian interviews and 79 times in Greek interviews. Of these, 17 mentions in Romania and 14 mentions in Greece were about patients’ perceived risks, with 48 and 47 mentions respectively being about healthcare workers’ own beliefs regarding vaccine risks. Although this theme was less common in France and Croatia it was still important, with 24 mentions in France and 18 in Croatia. Risks mentioned in all interviews, whether for patients or for doctors themselves, were: fear of side effects (31 times); concerns over new vaccines (22 times); low vaccine efficacy or effectiveness (20 times); children receiving too many vaccines (19 times); doctors being responsible in the event of side effects (17 times);... https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/vaccine-hesitancy-among-healthcare-workers.pdf

I try to avoid ad hominem also towards these subjects: I do not claim they are right or wrong. I try to understand them and I invite you to do the same, searching for such sources that may claim these links and then updating the WP content, if you deem it fit and DUE.

Logging of for good here, so as not to mess up more 《tags》.

Zezen (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is enough to add "according to...there was some concern expressed about the safety of vaccines.", like this "it is much more common to cite concerns about safety". So what do you want to add?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

And can you please read wp:indent your indenting is making this very difficult to follow.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Zezen And don't use someone's signature as a way to ping them. Look at how I pinged you just here - that's the simplest way to do it. I'm not sure what you are suggesting here - if you're just giving us a source and suggesting that we look at it, thank you. If you've got a concrete suggestion for a change in the article based on that, please make it. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

And another:

... an especially alarming situation developed in Africa. In 12 countries, 196 children were paralyzed not by the wild virus, but by a strain derived from a live vaccine that has regained its virulence and ability to spread. Fighting these flare-ups will mean difficult decisions in the coming year. The culprit in Africa is vaccine-derived polio virus type 2, and the fear is that it will jump continents and reseed outbreaks across the globe.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6473/14

Zezen (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed you added this Zezen, but I don't really understand why - it's an interesting article, but it says literally nothing about vaccine hesitancy, it doesn't even mention it. Where are you going with this? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Common sense. Reports of such cases must be read, analyzed, taught, talked about by some health service providers. They may summarize these to the lay folks, e.g. some of their patients so that they remain in collective memory. Gossip, rumours, myths, misstatements complement the circle.

No time for fuller research to prove it here: I only indicate that such reports about real cases (filtered down as I suggest above) may contribute to hesitancy itself. I leave it at that for your consideration.

Zezen (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, common sense doesn't really make an argument - or rather, if you try to construct an argument using multiple sources and apply your own judgement of what the common sense interpretation would be, that would at best be WP:SYNTH. To include content in a Wikipedia article, you need a reliable source that has done that 'common sense' analysis, been put through an editing and review, and then published. All you seem to be doing is adding links to articles about 'Times When Vaccines Went Wrong', which isn't the best of looks. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Some anti-vaxxers are changing their minds because of the coronavirus pandemic

CNN, maybe good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe they will soon forget. Lets wait until this becomes a lasting trend.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, that's working in the other direction as well. - JGabbard (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

How is that a helpful/constructive comment, JGabbard? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

Can this be renamed to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories? Gammapearls (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You can propose a move if you want to, but I don't fancy your chances, since conspiracy theories aren't really the main point of the article. PepperBeast (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The term, "vaccine hesitancy", is used and defined by the WHO and medical literature, as shown in the lede. It should remain as it is. Zefr (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I've seen, its a "big tent phrase" encompassing conspiracy theorists and varying lesser degrees of hesitancy.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Gammapearls, you can suggest it, but I don't recommend you do unless you want to spend the rest of your life answering incoherent comments at this talk page. Guy (help!) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, whilst many (much, most) of this is Conspiracy theory not all of it is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we add a statement about vaccine immunity being BETTER (in some cases) than natural immunity?

I saw this on NPR: "We know from many other infections, the vaccine response can be much more durable than the natural infection response," says Adrian Hill, who is the principal investigator for this vaccine study. That's partly because people get a strong dose with a vaccine, which stimulates strong immunity. "I'm pretty confident that in COVID we're going to see the vaccines are more durable than a natural COVID infection," Hill says. "But again, we don't know yet. We need to wait and see." [10]

I don't know whether we have any sources (I'd assume we need MEDRS sources for a statement like this) to support this, and I apologize for not knowing how to search for good MEDRS sources, so I'm wondering whether the many other editors familiar with this article could offer suggestions on how/where to find good sources for a statement like this, which I'm assuming would exist because otherwise (scientist Adrian Hill wouldn't have said that).

A statement of this sort would definitely seem relevant to the "Natural Infection" sub-section of the Vaccine_hesitancy#Other_safety_concerns section. Thanks!!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a worthy topic but it doesn't have an easy answer because natural immunity has numerous variables across types of virus, immune competence, age when infected, comorbities, etc. (further discussion for COVID-19 here). This lay presentation (see video by reputable virologist Paul Offit) indicates that "natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines usually occurs only after several doses." See the section on "The differences between a vaccine and getting the disease naturally are the dose and the known time of exposure." The CHOP Vaccine Education Center has this summary on hesitancy. Will have to think about how we make the discussion of natural immunity vs. vaccination more relevant to the article. Zefr (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Iatrogenesis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Vaccine overload" is stated to be "a non-medical term," which is a false statement. There is, in fact, a term for it, iatrogenesis. In the iatrogenesis article, it lists under the Examples section: "Overuse of drugs." Vaccines are categorized as drugs, and they can be (and are) overused just like any other medication. The recommended vaccine schedule is tighter and more overloaded than it's ever been, and so are adverse effects, as a direct result of medical error/abuse. Therefore "a non-medical term" should be replaced with "also known as iatrogenesis." - JGabbard (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No. “Iatrogenesis” is not a synonym for “vaccine overload”. There is no good evidence that “vaccine overload” even exists. And “x is not a non-medical term because the medical term y exists” is a massive non-sequitur.

If you want this included, you’ll need appropriately reliable sources for a) the existence of “vaccine overload” and b) “iatrogenesis” meaning “vaccine overload”. Brunton (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Brunton, Jgabbard is in serious trouble as they have shown they are NOTHERE. See WP:AN/I#Anti-vax campaign -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Brunton is correct that iatrogenesis is not a synonym for vaccine overload. The latter is indeed a non-medical term based on very flawed concepts and a lack of understanding when it comes to immunology. To address your point JGabbard and to put it simply, you're mistaken. Yes, there are more vaccines in the schedule than before, but the number of antigens (i.e., the "burden" on the immune system) is far lower than before, so your reasoning is deeply flawed. Also, do you have any idea how many antigens a kid is exposed to in everyday life and on the playground? Way more than from vaccines. It's not even remotely close. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Vaccines are not drugs, as drugs are defined as chemical substances, and vaccines are biological preparations. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are lots of research articles on the subject of Iatrogenic Disease caused by Vaccination. Added two of them as refs. --Ne0 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Priority of page

I have asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Priority of Vaccine hesitancy if the priority can be changed to Top priority. It was one of the WHO's top 10 Global health threats last year and seems even more relevant this year. And also I wondered if this should be added to fringe in order to increase the amount of editors. If anyone can point me at the most recent feedback so I can see what to improve that would be great. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It is already tracked by WikiProject Skepticism, and is familiar to fringe-savvy editors. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly a bias attack article

Get off the soapbox.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Arguments against vaccination are contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus about the safety and efficacy of vaccines" - Which is total BS, given pharmaceutical companies had to beg to be given liability exemptions in every vaccination case in the US (Special Masters Court where the US government pays damages). If they're so safe and efficacious, as Wikipedia falsely reports, why do they need liability exemptions from harm that supposedly never happens, that no other pharmaceutical product gets special exemptions for? This is clearly a pro-pharmaceutical hitpiece article, and the fact it's locked shows it's controversial and people disagree. Nice to know Wikipedia has fallen to the side of corporations in giving one-sided reporting. I look forward to Wikipedia's non-existent coverage piece on pharmaceutical interference on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.233.2 (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

In the Anthrax vaccines section and in the sixth sentence, there needs to be a comma after 2002. 2001:1970:5A9F:C200:A1FE:DA8B:5EE6:8E99 (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — soupvector (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Information Warfare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/11/15/majority-anti-vaccine-ads-facebook-were-funded-by-two-groups/

In 2019 RFK Jr was named as one of the parties named in a Washington Post article saying that his group spammed Facebook with political ads relating to vaccines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:c600:3c20:8da6:85d0:334a:22d2 (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This is fascinating to me (if irrelevant to the comment here) because this is the first time I've seen a talk page comment deleted. I know talk pages exist for the express purpose of improving articles and gaining consensus, but I can't help but be overwhelmed with intrigue seeing something deleted. I agree the deleted comment was unhelpful and unsourced and certainly deserved an MEDRS source, but I have no dog in the fight so to speak.

Having said that, I do think this WaPo article is interesting, and I'm surprised no one as commented on this. However it's paywalled and I'm unable to access it.

What were the two groups engaged in this activity? Sloorbeadle (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have no idea which deletion you are talking about. (Maybe it was auto-archiving?) But what you say about it is also unhelpful.
• You should use the "Show preview" button. I fixed the indentation for you.
• If you cannot access the WaPo article, how do you know it is interesting? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence tries to paint people who are critical of a single vaccine, as if they were critical of all vaccines.

Current: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases.

Proposal: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against one or more contagious diseases.

124.169.149.140 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The current text matches [11] which "Refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccine services". The third sentence (second sentence, after a recent edit) states "The term encompasses outright refusal to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others". So IMHO think it's fine as-is. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think extra clarification on numbers is unneccesary. It's good as is. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparticusmaximus (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC) I disagree. The source cited does not use the term "anti-vax". Vaccine hesitancy is best considered as a point on a spectrum of varying degrees of concern about the the effects of vaccinations . Associating the term with "anti-vax" is to overly simplify this spectrum, and associate anyone who has any concerns about any vaccination with what is in fact a small fringe group. "People who have ongoing reservations about vaccinating against COVID-19 are not “anti-vaxxers” and shouldn’t be branded as such." . Doing so is a mischaracterisation and it is thought that such crude categorisations are actually harmful to public health efforts obtain mass vaccination . I therefore offer the following proposal which more accurately quotes the actual WHO definition cited by Rolf H Nelson, and which offers a degree of nuance necessary to avoid inaccurate generalisations that potentially harm vaccination efforts.

Current: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases. People who subscribe to this view are commonly known as "anti-vaxxers". The term encompasses outright refusal to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.

Proposal: Vaccine hesitancy is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases. The term exists on a spectrum of perceptions of about vaccines ranging from outright refusal to vaccinate (commonly known as "anti-vax"), delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.

Sparticusmaximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I understand what you are saying but disagree that the only true "anti-vax" are those who refuse all vaccines. I have spent quite a bit of time in anti-vax spaces and the first thing almost every single one says is "I"m not anti-vax but..." followed by copious misinformation and disinformation. I think the general effects on general public health, of anyone who is public about their hesitation, are anti-vax, and advocate the movement and therefore the public health danger. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021

(UTC)

Disagree. Your anecdote is not an appropriate source. You are saying anoyone who questions any vaccine is a danger to the public. This is absolutist in approach and is unsubstantiated. If we were to follow this reason, then those opposed the past vaccines that ended up actually being harmful as referenced on this very page are "anti-vax" and somehow a danger. I argue that such a mischaracterisation drives people deeper towards actual anti-vax sentiment. I provide evidence from public health experts that specifically note that it is not appropriate to label vaccine hesitancy as "anti-vax". Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, any anti-science stance wrt vaccines indicates anti-vax. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not "anti-science" to question the potential impacts of a medication. This very article provides a list of past vaccinations that proved to be harmful. Would it have been anti-science to question those vaccines? Science IS questioning. I provide expert evidence that absolute mischaracterizations used in this article are in fact not helpful.

The WHO source I cited is indeed for vaccine hesitancy, not for anti-vax; I was addressing a definition of vaccine hesitancy. Sparticusmaximus The source you provided doesn't use the word anti-vax except to say "Today in many countries the public conversation about vaccination has become mired in an aggressive argument, which characterises parents as either “pro-vax” (responsible) or “anti-vax” (irresponsible)." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. And the definition of vaccine hesitancy, the title of this page, does not directly equate with common understandings of "anti-vax". This is why I think the page should be changed to more accurately reflect actual definitions. The article I cites provide a reasonable spectrum of the range of vaccine hesitant positions. The section that you quote in this reply is the binary position that the cited article goes on to refute, arguing for greater nuance in the use of these terms. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitions of anti-vax/anti-vaccination/anti-vaxxer

Definitions

• "anti-vaccination", "opposed to vaccination", "a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination" (Webster[12][13]
• "The anti-vaccination movement is when people don't believe that some or all vaccines are a good thing, and do not want themselves, family members or other people to be vaccinated." (BBC)[14]
• "public health commentators refer to the activities of an anti-vaccination 'movement'... How much theoretical sense it makes to view anti-vaccination groups as (new) social movement organizations (as distinct from pressure groups or self-help organizations) is as yet unclear." (2006) (Blume, Stuart. "Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations." Social science & medicine 62.3 (2006): 628-642.)
• "The media plays a large role in disseminating and sensationalizing vaccine objections. Such objections are part of what has been called the “anti-vaccination movement”" (2010) (Kata, Anna. "A postmodern Pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet." Vaccine 28.7 (2010): 1709-1716.)
• (Added) "Today in many countries the public conversation about vaccination has become mired in an aggressive argument, which characterises parents as either “pro-vax” (responsible) or “anti-vax” (irresponsible)... (but our research instead suggests) within (people who decline all vaccines), only a handful are the noisy "anti-vaccination" activists" (The Conversation)[15]

Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

While IMHO "vaccine hesitancy" has a different connotation from "anti-vax", the definition appears to usually be the same. It's also independently possible that this groups clusters into two subgroups, a "reluctant" and an "absolutely against" group, but I can't find strong support for demarcating one specific group onto "vaccine hesitant" and one other specific group onto "anti-vax" terminology-wise. Nor does there appear to be a large "vaccine hesitancy" movement distinct from the "anti-vax movement". The current article [16] should probably directly source a definition for anti-vax if it doesn't already. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

-- The following article provides evidence in the form of peer reviewed research (see the links within the article) for the demarcation of anti-vax from vaccine hesitancy. [17] As I argue in the previous section, I believe it is harmful to public health to mischaracterise anyone who has a concern about a vaccines as being "anti-vax" and this article should avoid doing so. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sparticusmaximus: OK, it does say "Within (people who decline all vaccines), only a handful are the noisy "anti-vaccination" activists." Do you have other independent sources with the same (extremely strict) demarcation? If it's just the one source, IMHO it can be listed in a section if desired alongside other definitions, either here or (if the article is over length) in another page, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and there is certainly enough literature to support (for example) a "vaccine outreach" article if there isn't already one. However, we would need more sources to put it in the lead, and we would have to weigh the sources against sources that say differently. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the spectrum shown in that article refers to other sources which they used to establish the spectrum. The sources I cite in the previous section on this talk page reflect this view point and specifically note the dangers of mischaracterising those who simply have concern or reluctance about vaccinations as "anti-vax". The misrepesentation of vaccine hesitancy as "anti-vax" in the lead of the article at present is currently poorly cited and should be updated to provide a more nuanced definition that does not unfairly associate people who have genuine concerns about vaccination with fringe, borderline conspiracy theorist antivaxers. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The people who have genuine concerns about specific vaccines are typically scientists who know about vaccines and are generally in favor of them: people like Paul A. Offit, David Gorski, or Seth Mnookin. There is no danger of confusing them with anti-vaxxers. Non-experts are usually unable to tell apart genuine concerns from bullshit, so if they do have genuine concerns, it is by pure chance. The Conversation source you linked, and the "Australian attitudes to vaccination fall into a spectrum comprised of five unfixed groups" diagram in it, only talk about the rate of acceptance of anti-vax bullshit: it is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, people at home and the media don't do the science, they get their information from good or dubious sources and have their opinions. If there's a valid medical reason they should avoid a specific vaccine, their doctor should determine. It may still be legal for them to refuse vaccination (even if recommended in their situation)... —PaleoNeonate – 11:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Validating a degree of vaccine mistrust from a (non-immunologist) layperson as not "anti-vax" is more of a threat to public health than placing it on some sort of spectrum: The origin is scientific misinformation and poor sourcing, whether that applies to quiet rejection of one vaccine or vocal activism against all of them. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of definition. The WHO definition of "vaccine hesitancy" does not include the term "anti-vax". Those who are vaccine hesitant are not necessarily the same as anti-vaxers as commonly understood. The definition of vaccine hesitancy should therefore include the nuanced spectrum of opinion on the topic rather than labeling anyone who has concerns about a vaccine as "anti-vax". The qualifications of those who have concerns about vaccines is irrelevant to that point. As I note in previous citations, labeling those with concerns about vaccines as "anti-vaxers" is a mischaracterisation, inappropriate, and ultimately harmful to public health. The fact someone has concerns about a particular medication against their doctor's advice does not make them a crack pot conspiracy theorist such as implied by the term anti-vaxxer. The arguments I see here are absolutist and require an individual to blindly accept some monolithic concept of "the science" else they be labelled anti-vax. If you want to create more anti-vaxxers, labeling people with concerns about vaccinations in this way is a great way to create them. The article text should therefore be amended.Sparticusmaximus (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You are starting from the wrong end here. Wikipedia's business is summarizing what reliable sources have to say about something, not popularizing the concerns of the user Sparticusmaximus about this thing and that thing. You are synthesizing your own ideas from bits and pieces you found in reliable sources. If you want those ideas to end up in Wikipedia, you need to get them into reliable sources first. Or, if they are already there, you need to find those sources. Until you do, we cannot help you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing in this article where it defines "anti-vaxxer" as "crack pot conspiracy theorist". I think you're making it more prejudicial than it is here. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the article with the overwhelming evidence? People like you should be ashamed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Going back to the initial request for additional reliable sources: the conceptual distinction and its importance for formulating public health strategies is widely recognized by authoritative sources: in addition to those in Sparticusmaximus' cited piece in "The Conversation":

---

a closer look indicates the anti-vax crowd remains small in number, but can appear larger when clumped together with people who are hesitant ...

“The number of people who have very strong, very negative ‘I am definitely not going to vaccinate period is quite small,” said Brian Zikmund-Fisher, associate director of the University of Michigan Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine.

“There are not that many people who hold that strong and confident of a belief. There are a lot of people who are questioning, hesitant, want to wait and see how it goes … or are not sure whether the hassle is worth it.”

The difference between those who are anti-vaccine and those who are hesitant of the COVID-19 vaccines is how likely they are to change their mind, said Anna Kirkland, a University of Michigan professor of health management and policy, and member of Michigan’s Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.

Kirkland said the vast majority of people who remain undecided on the vaccine don’t have a strong ideological commitment against vaccines. They’re persuadable, and they’re who health care and public health workers are targeting to help them make informed decisions.

Anti-vaccine individuals on the other hand are publicly committed to their ideology. “That person is never going to change their mind and they’re not persuadable,” she said.

MLive via MSN News

---

The vaccine debate is more complicated than just those who are for or against immunizations. The vast majority of people support vaccination efforts, while a loud minority of those against vaccines (anti-vaxxers) dominate the other side with outlandish narratives and scare tactics ― and it’s typically those people whose minds we try to change.

But there’s a third group that’s often overshadowed: “hesitant vaxxers.” And when it comes to convincing people to trust science and get shots like the COVID-19 vaccine, we should focus more on this camp.

According to William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease at Vanderbilt University, hesitant vaxxers want to learn more about the benefits of vaccination, while anti-vaxxers have already made up their minds.

“I’ve learned that you’ll never change the opinion of someone who’s truly against vaccination,” Schaffner said. “The more logic and reason you use, the more they dig in their heels.” Those who are hesitant, on the other hand, “just want to understand vaccines better,” he said.

HuffPo

---

It's the 'vaccine hesitant', not anti-vaxxers, who are troubling public health experts

the next giant leap towards herd immunity will be persuading everyone to actually take whatever emerges, a task made harder by the viral spread of anti-vaxxer sentiment online. What really keeps public health experts awake at night, however, isn’t a handful of people convinced that Bill Gates wants to inject them with invisible microchips, nor the Russian bots now amplifying their loopy theories. It’s the “vaccine hesitant”; people in a sense not so very different from Lydia Guthrie. Or you. Or me.

The Guardian

---

Some of those who watch the anti-vaccine movement closest agree that the fight against the most trenchant anti-vaxxers is a lost cause. “To say that they’re suspicious of a potential vaccine would be an understatement,” says Cassie, a pro-vaccine mole who until recently was a member of a large anti-vax group in order to keep tabs on the movement. “A lot believe that this is finally the moment we put microchips in vaccines to track people and usher in the new world order. They firmly believe that if the virus is real, everyone needs to build up immunity naturally.”

So therein lies, to the surprise of few, the views of the hardcore anti-vaxxers. But what of the vaccine-hesitant? This group is itself a sizable one and, importantly, one that can be swayed in either direction. These are parents who aren’t sure it’s safe for their babies to get so many shots at once, for example, or they know someone whose kid had a bad reaction to a vaccine and are now leery. ...

a lot of parents in the middle of the vaccine debate feel alienated by both anti-vaxxers and pro-vaccine parents. Express fears about vaccines, and some parents peg you as an anti-vax nutjob, Daria says, while anti-vaxxers would castigate her for vaccinating her children at all. This isolated position in the debate makes them more vulnerable to anti-vaccine messaging which might be more persuasive than you think ...

Fatherly

---

being hesitant doesn't mean never. And being hesitant is like protection from what has happened to my community, black people, over the years in the name of: "Hey, I'm here to help you. Here's a vaccine. I'm here to help you. And not treat you." So let's hold up and make sure you understand why I'm hesitant now...

Marshall: Hesitancy isn't anti-vaccine, it's just caution.

Thomas: Thank you. So once we get that straight, now let's deal with the broken system out there. It was like this. I could see it, three weeks ago, we had people that said "hell no, I'm not taking a vaccine." Those folks are now saying "maybe." In the people who were saying "maybe," they are now saying, "where do I sign up?" ...

I think hesitancy needs to be contextualized. So just to keep it simple, for many African-Americans they need look no further than the Tuskegee syphilis step. ... Then you have the anti-vaxxers protesting at Dodger Stadium, trying to shut down a COVID vaccine site. That's a whole different ball game. Therefore understanding what it means with those two populations requires different strategies.

MedPage Today

---

The page really needs to clearly draw this distinction in the lede, and maybe have separate subsections to address both.Mikalra (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Mikalra, the issue of course is that vaccine hesitancy is the desired goal of anti-vax propaganda, and separating cause from effect is notoriously difficult in this respect. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG: First, to quibble: the goal of antivax propaganda is not vaccine hesitancy, but vaccine refusal. Putting that aside, the distinction is still very clear and important. Again: antivaxxers are dug-in, ideological opponents of vaccination; the vaccine hesitant are still swayable, and open to arguments and incentives supporting vaccination and may even respond to just lowering the barriers to vaccination.

If Political Party X funds ads attacking the candidate of Political Party Y, they may have several audiences in mind: they reinforce motivation in their own voters, but also hope to win over some independents who are on the fence, and even to leave enough uncertainty in Party Y voters' minds that they just sit out the election. Still, these same independents and demotivated Party Yers could be won back over with the right arguments, whereas Party Xers would rather be tarred and feathered. And even if the X ads are successful for this election, the independents and Party Yers will tend to return to their normal stances when the next election comes around. It would be wrong to conflate the dissuaded independents and demotivated members of Party Y to be truly in the same bucket as members of Party X.Mikalra (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mikalra, it is both hesitancy and refusal. Hesitancy leads to refusal. Like so much other propaganda, the intent is to spread Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

But the WHO describes hesitancy as a top ten threat t public health, so that's the focus of this article.

It's also better than the title it had for several years: "vaccine controversies". That really was a gross violation of NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, I agree entirely that vaccine hesitancy is a threat to public health. If vaccine hesitancy is the focus of this article, then this article should be titled "vaccine hesitancy," and there should be a separate article for anti-vaccine activists/antivaxxers. They're both problems — but they're different problems, and require different public health responses, as I and others have extensively documented from authoritative sources, above.Mikalra (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The difference between both is quantitative, not qualitative. Mere hesitancy in the sense of "I can't decide that yet" is a mild case of full-blown antivaxx. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist vaccine related Death

• Marvin Hagler
• DMX On April 8, family members stated that drugs were not involved and the reason for the hospital stay was possibly due to a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine which had been received days earlier. EarthWorship (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

So, the vaccine does not prevent 100% of all heart attacks in the next few days? Because only if it did, such things would never happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• EarthWorship, Hagler's death was unrelated to vaccines. There's no credible evidence that DMX's was either. Even the notorious "blood clots" from AstraZeneca actually occur less often in the vaccinated population than in the general population.

  See also post-hoc fallacy. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

The section on autism has a false statement. The claim that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism is incorrect.

Dr. William Thomson is a CDC whistle blower. He was part of a team who found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, for black American boys. He made a public statement on August 27th 2014.

' My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed'.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160220144837/http://www.morganverkamp.com:80/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/ 2A00:23C4:9E02:700:4813:47D0:DF1D:6473 (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been debunked so many times that it we could write an article just on this myth. The facts are these – vaccines are not linked to autism spectrum disorder. There are over 150 PUBLISHED and PEER-REVIEWED scientific articles that have dismissed that link. It's settled science. And Dr. Thompson continues to write outstanding articles of scientific research about vaccines done at the CDC. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

And a press release from a plaintiff law firm is the furthest thing from a reliable source that you could ever find. Nevermind being a medical reliable source. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an article on this topic or myth: Vaccines and autism. The extended discussion of this topic there can be cited from all over. -- econterms (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Heavy Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page is packed with good information, but it seems to me that its entire purpose is to say, 'People who are against vaccination are stupid and wrong, so there!'

This is incredibly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Mougar (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. The argument used to justify that is that WP reflects its reliable sources, in its facts and biases (with a Jim Wales quote to boot), but that's clearly abused to go above and beyond reflecting facts to include loaded terms, e.g. conspiracy theorist, and basically serve as an extension of the mainstream media propaganda machine. Wikipedia could still be a reflection of reliable, i.e. mainstream, sources, without bringing itself down to the level of mass propaganda we see in mainstream media everyday. It suffices to avoid loaded language, and protect its WP:NPOV. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should promote untruths. This is a difficult subject because there are strongly held beliefs on both sides. Honest intelligent people can hold widely differing views and we should treat them with respect. But when the matter is as clear cut as this, Wikipedia must be cautious in its presentation. A number of sections present reasons for refusing vaccines followed by an evaluation showing them to be false. The refutations must be (and are) cited. This is fair providing that the original hesitancy reasons are actual reasons and not Straw man arguments. There are also some valid hesitancy reasons, such as CIA fake vaccination clinic and these have been fairly presented. The following quote from the Individual liberty section states "Others argue that, for compulsory vaccination to effectively prevent disease, there must be not only available vaccines and a population willing to immunize, but also sufficient ability to decline vaccination on grounds of personal belief." That is typical of the tone of the entire article and shows the lack of bias. Any claim for undue bias really must be more specific than, "I disagree with it."OrewaTel (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should promote untruths.

1. No one said it should. My point was about not using WP:LOADED language.
2. WP:NOTTRUTH

  — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If the reliable sources use strong language - and they do - then we should follow them. Otherwise we are whitewashing.

Look at it like this: Antivaxers kill people. In the fight between humanity and disease, they are on the side of disease. Doesn't it show a lot of restriction on our part not to put it like that?

But if you find the place in the article which says antivaxers are "stupid and wrong", tell us. It must be changed to "ignorant and wrong" immediately. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If the reliable sources use strong language - and they do

Indeed.

then we should follow them.

That's where we differ.

Otherwise we are whitewashing.

Personally, I want my encyclopaedias "whitewashed". Just the facts, thanks. If I want to hear people's opinions about a topic, I can read it in the newspaper columns, or turn on the TV. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedias deal primarily in knowledge, not "facts". And knowledge and opinion are inextricably intertwingled. Just reflect what the best sources say and all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, Guarapinga, it doesn't really matter "what you want." This sounds a lot like "I don't like it" to me. Wikipedia reflects what high-quality mainstream sources say and that's what this article does too. I have yet to see you propose a specific change. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 has a valid point. Wikipedia is a source of cited facts. It can report opinions and it can link to editorials but it should not promote a point of view nor should it deprecate other views. Read NPOV Consequently if there is a statement that says "antivaxers are stupid and wrong" it should be changed to "antivaxers are wrong". (Providing there is a cited reference that agrees.) Name calling has no place here. Of course saying, "Professor Joe Bloggs ABC,DEF and Bar declared antivaxer are stupid" is allowed providing that there is evidence that Prof Bloggs actually said such a thing and that his utterances are Notable.OrewaTel (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

OrewaTel, it doesn't, and as far as I can tell it never did. Antivaxers are certainly hurt in the feels when they read a reality-based article on the topic, but that's not really our problem to fix - their reaction is to statements from CDC, the WHO and other sources we regard as extremely reliable, they need to fix the way the topic is represented in sources and then Wikipedia will change. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, it's more that we deal with facts not Truth™ Guy (help! - typo?) 07:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, if that is untrue get onto the RS and get them to change it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think anyone advocating that we not follow the sources has no business editing WP. Following the sources is one of our core policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Typical unsubstantial straw man arguments. In addition, there is no need in discussion about "feelings", what matters are facts of reliable sources. We should close that "discussion" per WP:FORUM. --Julius Senegal (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reason for Controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Along with religious and political reasons to avoid vaccines, parents choose not to vaccinate their children due to the fact that they are too young to experience serious diseases. Vaccines were invented in the 18th century, and were used quite frequently since then. Because of vaccines, many serious illnesses have been wiped out. Parents in this generation have not seen what polio, for example, can do to someone, so it is much easier for them to say that their children do not need to be vaccinated. This can cause major problems down the road.

References

There are some obvious biases with the way vaccine hesitancy and "anti-vaxxers" are discussed. I suspect that this largely comes down to different moral systems at play: deontological and utilitarian-consequentialist. Pro-vaccine arguments are largely intended to be justified by how well the consequences benefit everybody. Anti-vaccine arguments will largely emphasize the right of an individual to personal autonomy, and they will be bolstered by the inherent uncertainty present in all consequentialist reasoning.

It is probably worth noting that "anti-vaxxers" have at times been designated as a target of public health institutions (WHO) and popular reporting outlets, despite a concerning lack of evidence that such a group as "anti-vaxxers" really had any significant impact on vaccination rates of a general population. The term "scapegoat" has been used by those concerned.

Additionally, there is likely no such thing as "overwhelming" scientific consensus. This is a form of political rhetoric which appeals to authority, and many reasonably consider it inherently fallacious. At the very least, some agreement needs to be made on what constitutes a scientific community, and what makes the scientific image of the world a more realistic image of the world, but no such consensus actually exists within the parties commonly debating the subject of vaccine usage. In the context of an actual scientific process: when two minds agree, one of them is unnecessary. If you are an expert, or a member of a "scientific community," and your reasoning is not compelling to your audience, there is always a strong possibility that this is merely due to the limitations of your own expertise, rather than the limitations of the reasoning capacities of your audience. To jump to the conclusion that the latter is the case, rather than the former, is an irresponsible approach to the scientific process, especially when the process is being used to justify overriding the right/ability of a group of people to refuse a medical treatment. There are strong moral arguments against a paternalistic approach to healthcare, which make use of both the principles of patient choice and informed consent, as well as the consequentialist risks associated with the role of such an approach in the emergence of totalitarian regimes and genocidal practices.

2601:645:4580:2240:F0FF:9C69:8834:9B45 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• The issue is that their "concerns" are founded on assiduous disinformation by grifters. 2/3 of all online anti-vaccination bullshit emanates from twelve people, all of whom make huge sums from it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:FORUM #4, and no, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. And no, antivaxxer's concerns are based of false conclusions, sources, statements. We are not talking about moral, but about facts.

Please abstain for misusing the discussion site for personal "thoughts". --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline and name

"It has existed since the invention of vaccination, and pre-dates the coining of the terms "vaccine" and "vaccination" by nearly eighty years." appears in the lede. Vaccine was coined by Jenner, who was the first person to publish, systematise and define inoculation with Cowpox. Vacca means cow, and he probably took all of 5 minutes to come up with it. There's a clear line of continuity with the anti-inoculationists, but that's a badly edited sentence. (BTW, I wrote the first version of this page, calling it anti-vaccinationism.) Midgley (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post: Concerns about missing work may be a barrier to coronavirus vaccination

I'm not sure how or where to include this, seems important to have in the article https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/27/time-off-vaccine-workers/

Here's a the study they are reporting on https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-april-2021/

John Cummings (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Incentives

Here is a list of COVID-19 vaccine incentives in the U.S. should that be deemed appropriate/notable for the respective article section. Mapsax (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Mapsax thanks for this. We also have incentives to deter vaccine hesitancy in the Philippines, though it's still a little chaotic as they are disbursed on a local level [18]. I have created a Incentive Programs subsection of the Dealing with vaccine hesitancy section to cover this topic with good sources. CutePeach (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Unlock

Locking the page is unhelpful. We don't want the official establishment line, we want the truth. (unsigned edit made by IP address [36.11.xxx.xxx])

You can't handle the truth! ~Anachronist (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The internet is full of places selling Truth. You may find those places more compatible with your version. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This page is not locked. Anyone can edit it providing they

1. Register an account.
2. Make factual 10 edits.
3. Follow Wikipedia's rules.

It is not unreasonable when a page is subject to vandalism to require that people do not hide behind an anonymous IP address. 10 edits is an incredibly low threshold. And if you are going to play here then you should play by the rules. If you don't like the rules then you can raise a discussion to get them changed but you had better have something better to offer. OrewaTel (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The only reason this page has been locked is that there has been rampant vandalism on it with the promotion of pseudoscience, falsehoods, attempts to remove correct, well-sourced information, etc. So, in short, no. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

The linked article does not support the general claim.

Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of large-scale vaccination campaigns is well established.[25 81.224.67.78 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Without a specific request, there is nothing to be done here. Also, your statement is false. Like, breathtakingly false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Dengvaxia controversy in the Philippines

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions

This incident has been the spark of vaccine hesitancy issues in the philippines over the handling of Dengue Vaccines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.179.250 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Side Effects Conspiracy

With the release of the vaccines to combat the covid-19 outbreak, several conspiracy theorists online have made up false stories about medication having potential and unknown to them side effects. Some even brought up the existence of allergies as part of this conspiracy theory. Things that are done for the greater good never have negative consequences, that's why it's called the greater good. 92.5.188.1 (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You have a suggested edit, backed by RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

In the section 'vaccine overload', please change from :

"A study published in 2013 found no correlation between autism and the antigen number in the vaccines the children were administered up to the age of two. Of the 1,008 children in the study, one quarter of those diagnosed with autism were born between 1994 and 1999, when the routine vaccine schedule could contain more than 3,000 antigens (in a single shot of DTP vaccine)."

to:

"A study published in 2013 added up the antigen number in the vaccines administered to 1008 children, a quarter with autism, and found no correlation between autism and increasing antigen number through completion of the vaccine schedule up to age of two. These children were born from 1994 to 1999, when the routine vaccine schedule could contain more than 3,000 antigens (in a single shot of DTP vaccine) " 

A little rewording/rephrasing to make it more clearer(and less confusing) that the study found no relation between increasing antigens and risk of autism.

Thank you! 2409:4042:2E13:BF34:8C83:1F7C:DF48:34DB (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, how is 2013, just published, it was published 7 years ago.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I did it anyway. If I wasn’t meant to you can revert it. Tintinkien (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You should not have done, you knew it had been objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, now I've now made the correction by removing the word 'just'. I initially copied it from the source(which was published in 2013) and while editing forgot to correct it. Now that I've made the corrections, please consider accepting my request. Sorry again for that mistake. 2409:4042:2E13:BF34:8C83:1F7C:DF48:34DB (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, it's not acceptable to copy & paste content into our articles, even with minor alterations. see WP:COPYVIO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. No consensus for inclusion as well as copyright concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That part kinda needs rewording/restructuring because it wrongly reads that only the ones diagnosed with autism(the quarter) were born in that high antigen time period(between 1994 to 1999), while every children involved were selected from that same time period(between 1994 to 1999).2409:4042:2E13:BF34:CCB6:68EE:E6C:F106 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with that part.  Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Also please consider changing "one quarter of those diagnosed with autism" to either "one quarter of those were diagnosed with autism" or " of which a quarter were diagnosed with autism". 2409:4042:2E13:BF34:F803:4070:FA16:2CBF (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Changed it to "one quarter of whom were diagnosed with autism". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Just in case it comes up

PhDs and hesitancy.[19]. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Vaxxers stopping other people getting the vaccine.

The anti-vaxxers have been attacking the vaccine bus and throwing objects at it not only because they don't want to get the vaccine they also want to prevent anyone else getting the vaccine too. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/14/gp-staff-receive-abuse-every-day-over-covid-vaccine-reminders 194.207.86.26 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we can have a small section, as long as more incidents can be shown.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/24/tennessee-coronavirus-covid-delta-variant-cases-vaccines <quote>"outside the city of Knoxville, a woman attempted to drive her car through a state vaccine site, reportedly coming within inches of mowing down a dozen healthcare workers as she shouted “no vaccine”."</quote> 194.207.86.26 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That isn't vaccine hesitancy. I'd call it "anti-vaccine militancy". If there are enough sources on that, perhaps it would warrant a separate article. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's an extreme example. As discussed in the article, vaccine hesitancy encompasses a spectrum from the person who is uncertain about whether to vaccinate to extremists and everyone in between. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is called "vaccine hesitancy" but also covers anti-vaxxers. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

This paragraph is fine:

"Parties opposed to the use of vaccines frequently refer to data obtained from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This is a database of reports of issues associated with vaccines which has been useful for investigation, but since any claim can be entered into the VAERS, its data is not all reliable. Dubious claims about vaccines against hepatitis B, HPV and other diseases have been propagated based on misuse of data from VAERS."

However the OP/Creator or a consensus should be discussed to add wikipedia to this paragraph or separate paragraph below it. Anybody can add a VAERS item but anybody can add their own opinions to Wikipedia also. For example, much of this article is biased yet again. I mean seriously, is Wikipedia strictly liberal thinking heads? Also Anti-vaxxers should not be included in this "Vaccine Hesitancy". When you are hesitant, you may decide to get it later because of new found information. Anti-vaxxers aren't hesitant, they are not getting it because they don't believe in it and/or have a vaccine injured family member or friend. I am an example of this. I am anti-vax because I don't believe in them and I believe they cause more harm which is actually proving my point in the COVID 19 results of the vaccinated tha the media isn't covering.

Wikipedia really need to have their articles microscoped for factual content, not partisan hack material. Jrm1776 (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Although ScottishFinnishRadish has answered the request, Jrm1776 raised a valid point about the validity of Wikipedia. I know this is not the correct forum but I believe an honest question deserves an honest answer.

It is true that anyone, including people who have no knowledge of the subject, can edit Wikipedia and this leads to ludicrous statements being made. But, and this is the Wikipedia's saving grace, most pages are monitored by many people who do know what they are talking about. And what's more most of us are not sheep! If someone posts rubbish on one of the pages that I monitor then I will try to revert as soon as possible. But if the post I think is rubbish is backed by a citation then I will always check the reference first. if the reference is good and solid then the post must stay. If the reference is not good enough then after reverting, I'll start a section on the talk page and seek consensus. Sometimes the consensus that I requested, disagrees with my point of view and the post that I thought was wrong gets reinstated with a better reference. That is fine and that is the reason why Wikipedia is not broken. It doesn't matter whether a point of view is popular; it doesn't matter whether you know or like the editor proposing the point of view; all that matters is whether a point of view is supported by credible references. OrewaTel (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit by Jrm1776 - Valid points and I'm actually learning this platform every day so not sure if this is how you respond to someone. Thinking about edits... I guess I would have to request that "Anti-vax" people be taken out of this page and if someone is interested that much into Anti-vax people, they can create it's own page without biased content either. I'm Anti-vax but I don't have any problem if you're not. So those choosing any vaccine for themselves should not have a problem with us that don't receive it due to whatever beliefs we have. If you believe in them, that is not my business. That is the point of wikipedia correct? To give good factual information without opinions. I've specifically done a lot of research and that's how I operate but then I come on wikipedia only to find some article that has false information in it. Luckily we're not on some social media platform because I wouldn't be aloud to speak my mind, just shadowbanned for misinformation.

The term "hesitancy" has nothing to do with "Anti". That really doesn't need reliable sources. It's common sense. If someone doesn't understand those two differences, than you may want to grab the good ole Encyclopedia instead of a person driven site like Wikipedia. Not all information is bogus on here but it tends to be pretty false when it comes to opinionated articles written by someone that doesn't agree with their opposites. Also I'm hearing doctors that VAERS is monitored by and promoted by the CDC and usually it's the doctors that are inputting the data/event and then it's checked by the CDC. I've also heard from them that it's not utilized very much and its about only 1% of the reporting that should be on there.

I'm not sure if people on wikipedia are only listening to a specific side and not the other but it sure seems like it sometimes. For instance, the whole Ivermectin debacle and one side hurrying to call it a horse dewormer before doing the research and how and when it was created. It was created for Parasitic and viral infections and then animal form of the drug was created. The creator was awarded for it in 2015 for helping so many people. But yet the main stream media gets their garbage talking points out and many people flow with that. Many people that have died from COVID or the Vaccine for COVID could have been saved with the right prescriptions. Anyhow, sorry for the long speech... hopefully that helps someone but I guess my only edit request is the taking Anti-vax people out of this article because we are not "vaccine-hesitant". If we are Anti-vax, we will never get it as opposed to "maybe we'll get it if it's finished going through clinical tests".

OK, one study that says it works against Covid, just one. Not a study asking for more tests, or a study that says it might have an effect.14:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33065103/ and this is from the NIH. There's many 3rd party censored doctors that are screaming Ivermectin but they get ignored. Why else do you think these corrupt government agencies are hiding treatments that I have personally taken and many people have improved dramatically due to Ivermectin. There's more: Hydroxchloroquine.... Funny how they say "there's no scientific evidence that meds like HCQ or Ivermectin don't work but take my vaccine". Well supreme doctor of the world, get yourself into the lab and clinically study it like so many of OUR doctors have over the past 18 months or more. These "MEDS" are being censored because they are cheap in price and Big Pharma doesn't get paid as much because people wouldn't need the "vaccines" that are apparently free. Many readers still believe they are free. No, they very much cost everybody just not on the day you get it. Also another interesting point I'd ask some people, You do know this "virus" only affects those that watch tv or consume information given to them. We have any data of this affecting HOMELESS? How about Animals? Do they not have respitory systems in their bodies?

I'm thinking about being a monthly contributor to Wikipedia to keep it online but not until it's articles resemble Encyclopedia's that we once referred to. Wikipedia is simply the "extended main stream media" throwing out their opinions and not just reporting what some content actually is.

And there is where I now lose interest in furthering this "corrupt government agencies are hiding treatments". We do not deal in Fringe conspiracy theories, end of the story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jrm1776: Please read WP:NOTFORUM. If you have any suggestions for improvements, backed by Reliable Sources WP:RS (actually, for medical claims in this article: WP:MEDRS.

The article is titled "Vaccine hesitancy" because it is a "big tent" phrase designed to include people who might be reluctant to get a new vaccine to anti-vaxxers. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but we do not give equal weight to ideas based upon "These "MEDS" are being censored because they are cheap in price and Big Pharma".Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not really a myth, as is almost immediately revealed in the article

The article currently says "that the immune system produces a better immune protection in response to natural infection when compared to vaccination", then says in the next sentence "In some cases, actual infection with the illness may produce lifelong immunity". The reason given for it being a "myth" is that natural infection can have serious health consequences. Even in cases wherein that is true, it doesn't change the fact that natural immunity is superior to vaccination-induced immunity in many cases, thus it is NOT a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"In some cases", or "It is a myth in some cases".Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not what it says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar~enwiki (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

So, feel free to propose a specific change in an X to Y format. The misleading claim is that obtaining one's immunity from natural infection is the preferred course of action. If anyone has access to the full PDF of the cited review and sends it to me, I'm happy to take another look at the review and reword what's written if necessary. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The statement, "In some cases, actual infection with the illness may produce lifelong immunity." is very dubious. In some cases a single vaccination also produces permanent immunity. Alternatively, catching the disease naturally may only confer limited and temporary immunity. In some cases a natural infection can seriously compromise the immune system. I suggest that this sentence should be deleted unless someone can produce a reference to support it. I cannot read the cited article but the abstract suggests that it does not praise natural infections. OrewaTel (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks to the "Natural infection" section, as well as added significant content about the serious consequences of natural measles infection. It seems to be important enough to warrant such coverage in that section. Anyone who then comes away with the impression that natural infection is benign enough to justify vaccine avoidance is a worthy candidate for a Darwin Award, except it will be their child who suffers the consequences. You don't want to hear my real opinion about which part of Hell antivaxxers who harm children belong in , but Jesus did have this to say about those who harm children: "It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

Feel free to improve that section, remove any unnecessary duplication, or fix any other problems. -- Valjean (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

Under 'Safety Concerns' please link to YOUR OWN PAGE on Pandemrix safety concerns: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pandemrix#Adverse_outcomes

Link to it at the top please, as it is the most credible and serious of all, and its omission from this page is a form of bias. Doodle19000 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm... not quite sure what you are requesting. Are you saying a link of some kind to that page should be at the top of the section "Safety Concerns" before any content? That would require consensus for inclusion as, though my knowledge of WP:MOS is not very strong, that would be an abnormal thing for an article to do. If that isn't what you are requesting, then I am at a lost as to what you would like a reviewing editor to do specifically. Feel free to reopen this request in "X to Y" format or, if you prefer, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and make your desired edits yourself. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine eagerness

A small sub-section on "vaccine eagerness" could be created within this article. DTM (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Why? Can you present any solid sources that discuss such a phenomenon in detail? If so, please present them here for further discussion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It "could", but why should it? Does the anorexia article have a subsection on people who like to eat? Does the article on paedophilia have a subsection on individuals who are sexually attracted to adults? Trilobright (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

What the hell is "Vaccine eagerness"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine eagerness is a pejorative term used by anti-vaxxers to suggest the other side is as flawed as they are. It has no place in an encyclopaedia. OrewaTel (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

John Williams

Could the link to John Williams (minister) please be changed to John Williams (New England minister)? As the title John Williams (minister) is ambiguous, it is being redirected to the disambiguation page. Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for that catch. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

More hesitancy examples

Great article - thanks for the brilliant work. And folks, shouldn't there be more hesitancy articles in WP, like?:

• Eco mode car driving hesitancy
• Veggie-meat hesitancy
• Seat belt fastening hesitancy
• Death penalty execution hesitancy
• Central bank interest rate revival hesitancy

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy is a well established syndrome and is a commonly accepted name. If any of the other 'hesitancies' become well known then a Wiki page may well be appropriate. But to create a page because a disagreement could be given a similar label to an existing page would not be useful. Of the 5 suggested topics, only Seat Belt Hesitancy makes sense. There are people who, against the evidence, declare that seat belts put the user at risk of becoming trapped in an accident. That is analogous to Vaccine Hesitancy whereas choosing to meticulously drive at all times to conserve fuel or just driving normally is more about what people think is important. And that is completely different. OrewaTel (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:N. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

From the 315 references in this article, only 14 do actually use the term "vaccine hesitancy". So ok, the article may not be the best example, but certainly an interesting variant - inside WP itself - for: original research, fueled by - may we call it vaccine activism? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous title was "Vaccine controversies", it was changed per this discussion: Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism/Archive_3#Time_to_move. Btw, did you actually check the full text of all those 315 refs? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead paragraph states that the term 'Vaccine Hesitancy' is a catch-all name for several issues. These vary from ignorant, absolute anti-vaccination to honest, thoughtful doubt about one particular vaccine and include not only every intermediate shade of opinion but other, some good, reasons not to take the jab. With such a vast gamut of opinions it is not surprising that only 4% of the references actually use the term 'Vaccine Hesitancy'. OrewaTel (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So it's a good point, and personally I was vaccinated asap and applaud the attitude of the article - but it is an attitude article, and thus IMHO questionable for an encyclopedia. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:FRINGE, WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia articles taking the side of science against its enemies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating an attitude. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That isn't an attitude, it's the wikipedia attitude, by policy. Mainstream scientific POV. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That’s mistaken. The WP *policy* is NPOV, to fairly present all significant views published in WP:RS in proportion to the prominence per WP:DUE. The WP:FRINGE is not policy, it is a *guideline* and note it in part says “simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources”. Just try to do accurate objective reporting, not “taking sides”. Intentional article bias or advocacy will be a distortion that both fails to inform readers plus produces mistrust of WP content. The WP:LUNATICS and WP:QUACK are only essays, and WP:YWAB is just a redirect to a User talk page of Guy Mason. They seem likely to run afoul of WP:BIASED, WP:OR, MOS:PEACOCK, and/or WP:HARASS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:NPOV contains the sentence While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.. The guidelines and essays in question just supply further explanations, but they say exactly the same thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong argument - nobody asked here for or defended against deletion of an article that explains the Corona vaccine enemies ("minority view or extraordinary claim") positions. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You missed the "as if they were of equal validity" part.

Your whole attempt does not make sense. We have sources talking about vaccine hesitancy, but no sources talking about the stuff you made up. That is why we have this article, but not articles about the stuff you made up. How is this difficult to understand? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

So do you have a suggestion?Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Rename the article to "Vaccine political discussion", and change the content accordingly. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This illustrates the 'Neutral Point of View' paradox. Many publications state that they wish to show all sides of an argument. They get a scientist who has spent many years learning the subject and who has published many peer reviewed papers. Then, on the other side, they present a professor from a worthy university but they don't declare that it is a professorship in country dancing. And they give equal prominence to both sides. Not all points of view are equal.

You cannot simply take the number of references. There are more references on most subjects than you can possibly read and it is far easier for a loony to publish something than than it is for a sensible person. A sensible person has to check facts and try to make sense. A loony simply has to talk about 5G micro-chips. I don't care how many references you can dredge up, if something is a lie then it does not deserve to be here. We need to check the validity of references rather than just going for a sort of referendum of ignorance. OrewaTel (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this is the vast bulk of medical experts do not agree there is any debate to be had. We go with what the bulk of experts say, especially when the other side often resorts to the likes of Andrew Wakefield who was struck of for fraud over anti-Vaxxer propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That is always the problem when a case is so clear cut. Sometimes there simply are not two sides to an argument. However, whilst 99% of vaccination facts point in one direction there are exceptions. The CIA setting up fake vaccination centres is one - Surely that is an evil thing to undermine World Health for short term gain. Some types of vaccines can cause the illness they are intended to prevent but these risks are known and drugs companies work so hard to prevent this. So we must report both the problem and solution. Of course mRNA Covid vaccines cannot cause a Covid infection (it is actually impossible) but we should report that some people mistakenly (or is it simple lying?) claim this to be the case. We should also report that some people believe that it is possible to fit a working microprocessor with power supply through a fine bore hypodermic syringe. But despite the vast amount of mis-information on the net, we should not assert statements that are known to be completely false. OrewaTel (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Covid Vaccine can't cause AIDS

I know this is obvious, but conspiracy theorists are spreading misinformation claiming that the Covid Jab skips HIV directly into AIDS, which is impossible because you can't develop AIDS without an HIV infection. I suggest adding this basic medical fact.

A person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV PeterMcCormac (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Your source does not seem to mention Covid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

More to the point, we need evidence that there is a noteworthy rumour that Covid vaccine causes AIDS. I sure that such a rumour exists because the tin-hat brigade will believe anything but it needs to be sufficiently widespread to be noteworthy before being added here.OrewaTel (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Overwhelming consensus

The claim "There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective.[7][8][9][10] " is not supported by the given sources, and should either have its sources changed, and/or the claim should be changed, for instance to "according to various sources, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of nationally recommended vaccines".

For each source:

1. For the source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689193/ : The original text writes "overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of nationally recommended vaccines", which is very much different from the claim that vaccines in general (including vaccines that are not "nationally recommended") are favoured. This is especially relevant in cases such as when different countries' authorities drop certain vaccines (see for instance https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/14/denmark-to-drop-astrazeneca-jab-from-covid-programme , https://archive.li/RVEKY , https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59418123 ), as well as when specific candidates for new vaccines do not pass the tests and trials of authorities (which at least before Covid-19 were typically very thorough and taking multiple years). The source furthermore comes with the claim of "consensus", but the only source for this is a quotation from "Dr Giovanni Rezza, Director of the Department of Infectious Diseases at Italy’s National Institute of Health.", no statistics or opinion polls in the relevant scientific communities.
2. For the source https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17588104/vaccine-opposition-anti-vaxxer there is only a repeated claim, no arguments, sources, references or other for the claim (and this source itself seems considerably pauper).
3. For the source https://theconversation.com/defending-science-how-the-art-of-rhetoric-can-help-68210 the word "consensus" is not even used about this claim. This source should be removed. (it also begins writing about "rhetoric"). Some of the links in that source also might be dead (see for instance "manufactroversy").
4. For the source https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/safety/index.html the description is similar to the first source, namely that the authorities in the USA as such (at least pre-Covid-19) are very thorough and careful and test vaccines thoroughly (for instance "These tests can take several years and answer important questions like:" ). And the word "consensus" does not even occur in this source. The source is fine and good, but it doesn't support the claim, at least as the claim is written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA7:4009:AA66:19E7:3750:50:C830 (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nah, we dont do handwaving, and those sources support what we say very well indeed. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfair Analysis

I think this is an unfair analysis. 2600:1005:B113:B815:9007:44F7:A504:4FE6 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to explain why, with reference to reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Vaccines cause autism. -2600:1005:B113:B815:2CF8:9781:EDFD:F5A1 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What all of them? got a source for that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Autism claim is discussed in the article where reliable sources refute the assertion.OrewaTel (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Fringe claim in the lede

Hesitancy primarily results from public debates around the medical, ethical, and legal issues related to vaccines. This is a straight up false claim. Vaccine "hesitancy" does not result from any sort of "public debate", or otherwise if this is what public debates are about these days, then we should all be concerned about the future of society. Vaccine "hesitancy" results from conspiracy theories, lack of education and right wing anti-intellctualism, not any sort of "public debate" on any real "medical, ethical and legal issues". 46.97.170.225 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is still debate in public, it's just that one side does not have a case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely I cannot be the only one here who believes that framing antivaxxers as "one side of a public debate" is deceptive. When I hear about a public debate where one side doesn't have a case, I think of the christianity vs atheism debates of the 00's, or the debate around late stage capitalism and the failure of trickle-down economics. Framing a fringe position as "a side in a public debate", even one with no leg to stand on, is in itself enough to legitimize them. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcguigan.m.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment (2)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benjy Hall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

More vaccine examples

Lyme vaccine

"In 1998, the FDA approved a new recombinant Lyme vaccine, LYMErix™, which reduced new infections in vaccinated adults by nearly 80%. Just 3 years later, the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew its product from the market amidst media coverage, fears of vaccine side-effects, and declining sales." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ Simplulo (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Natural Immunity not a "Myth"

This sentence is misleading and misrepresents the referenced paper:

• Another common anti-vaccine myth is that the immune system produces a better immune protection in response to natural infection when compared to vaccination.

The reference is only refuting the notion that "natural infection is better than immunization." This takes into account the risks of natural infection. The sentence in the wiki article quoted above contorts this into the assertion that the produced immune protection from natural infection is not better than that of vaccination. This is not supported by the reference, which takes into account the negative effects of the disease in the natural immunity case. This is further confirmed by the rest of the section. Why must everything be spun!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.88.50 (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well yes and no, if you are naturally immune it is better than a vacine, the problem is if you are not naturally immune. As all the science says. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, I am discussing the comparison between naturally induced immunity and vaccine induced immunity. This is what the sentence I quoted is discussing. 128.12.88.50 (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that your reading of the section is accurate, it seems to say that yes (overall) there are fewer risks (and better efficacy) with immunization than with naturally gained immunity. I will have to ask others to check the paper, as I do not have access to it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have a reliable sources that says it is possible to have "immune protection in response to natural infection" without a natural infection, there is indeed a difference. If not, it's not misleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It is in fact misleading. The comparison at issue is between "immune protection in response to natural infection," and "immune protection in response to vaccination." It is not between "immune protection in response to natural infection" and "immune protection in response to natural infection without a natural infection," as you suggest. That interpretation ignores the words, "when compared to vaccination," and is also logically incoherent. 128.12.88.50 (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It is important to read exactly what this sentences says. "… myth is that the immune system produces a better immune protection in response to natural infection …" This does not say anything about the dangers of wild viruses. It also does not say that vaccination is better than natural infection. Whilst I am sure that you can find a case where a vaccine was ineffective and a natural infection produced good immunity, the reference clearly states that it is not true that immunity gained through infection is generally better than immunity gained through vaccination. Consequently it supports the statement that the proposition is a myth. And so the bullet point is not at all misleading. OrewaTel (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong here.

As already pointed out there is the myth from anti-vaxxers that the real disease will result in a better immune protection.

In regards to infections like tetanus there isn't even a "immune protection" as you die normally. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is only problematic if taken in isolation from the sentence which directly follows it, and which qualifies it.

Another common anti-vaccine myth is that the immune system produces a better immune protection in response to natural infection when compared to vaccination.[2] However, strength and duration of immune protection gained varies by both disease and vaccine, with some vaccines giving better protection than natural infection.

It's not an absolute statement of 'superiority' (however that might be defined, which can be challenging in and of itself) for vaccine-induced versus disease-induced immunity and immune response. (In any case, as far as preventing infection goes, disease-induced 'natural' immunity starts in a pretty deep statistical hole, since by definition 100% of its beneficiaries have had to suffer at least one infection.)

The 'myth' in question is that "disease-acquired immunity is inherently superior to vaccine-acquired immunity"--and that's demonstrably not the case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

Last edit accidentally replaced the short description of the page with the citation/reference that they used in their change further below. Please revert just that part, to what it was before. Thank you. 2804:F14:80A7:D01:2C85:E4B:A15C:9EB (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Already done. [20] --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I saw the polite request and immediately implemented. Then I was called away and so didn't report back here. OrewaTel (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Safety Concerns - Antibody-dependent enhancement

Antibody-dependent enhancement is left out of this article despite being one of the most scientifically grounded arguments to be hesitant about getting the COVID-19 Vaccine.

Can we just add this link to the safety section? It's got all the citations.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement

Mishka909 (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't got the citations found in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy#Antibody-dependent enhancement. As for it being "one of the most scientifically grounded arguments to be hesitant", what is your source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ADE is an excellent reason to be hesitant about taking an untested vaccine but as the Antibody-dependent enhancement article clearly states this a subject of vaccine tests. So rather than being a reason to be hesitant about fully tested vaccines, this is another reason to praise the volunteers who act as test subjects. OrewaTel (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So rather than being a reason to be hesitant about fully tested vaccines, this is another reason to praise the volunteers who act as test subjects. Framing people who get vaccinated against Covid-19 as "voluntary test subjects" is both counterfactual, and plays into antivax conspiracy theories. This makes vaccine mandates sound like the government is forcing people into becoming test subjects which is conspiratorial hogwash. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood @OrewaTel, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Not my fault. The wording sounded like they were implying that people who get their jabs are volunteering as test subjects, which is nonsense because 1) it sounds a lot like what antivaxxers are saying and 2) vaccines aren't voluntary anyway, or at least shouldn't be. If I'm misunderstood, I'm open to being corrected. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I read it as reason to praise the volunteers in clinical trials. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång is exactly right. Once initial test are complete, it is necessary to test any medicine on humans. Some people volunteer to be test subject. My father had a relationship with St. Batholomews Hospital in London and tried out many new drugs. Only when these clinical trials are complete can the medicine be offered as to the general public. OrewaTel (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, let's see some RS that its "one of the most scientifically grounded arguments to be hesitant", We are not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're even having this argument. If there were any scientifically grounded arguments to be "hesitant", we'd hear them from medical scientists, not anonymous people on the internet. I get the impression that wikipedians overseeing this article and talk page aren't very confident in combating misinformation on this topic. See my earlier remarks on fringe claims in the lede. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what is my point. We are having this argument to inform people what our policies are. IN this case without RS is a no go.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, one has to wonder what is the threshold where the people who need to be "informed about policies" cross into WP:SEALION territory, and if that didn't already happen. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

maybe Myocarditis (includes terms: Inflammatory Heart Reactions & Myocardial), Thrombosis (includes terms: Thrombotic & Thromboembolic & Thromboembolism), Thrombocytopenia and Cerebral Venous Thrombosis should be sided to ADE as the most scientifically grounded arguments to be hesitant about getting the COVID-19 Vaccine. Those together pile up to several hundreds of scientific articles and thousands of secondary sources. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

primary sources ehre btw https://criticalresearch.freecluster.eu/docs/Updated_Peer_Reviewed_07_04_2022.pdf 150.145.142.8 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

add to your list a further recent paper (preprint accepted for publication): https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1, Cardiovascular Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents, stating in the abstract Cardiovascular effects were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia, palpitation, and myopericarditis. ... Hence, adolescents receiving mRNA vaccines should be monitored for side effects. 151.72.8.216 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A Sense of Bias

Discussion closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After reading the entire article, I feel as if there exists a very moderate amount of bias. For example, the phrase "lack of properly scientifically based knowledge" can be considered to be a form of bullying to some and could imply that those who are anti-vaxxers are judged as being "dumb" as opposed to those who are for vaccines. I think it would be wise to rework that statement so that it does not come off as misleading and/or bullying. Thanks. -HumbleConservative (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC) And what would you have us do, imply that they do not ignore the science? It is not misleading, and we do not spare people's feelings, we are not censored.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC) I just think it should be worded a different way to not cause friction between anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers. -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC) We are not here to do that, we are here to reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Okay, thanks. I'll fix it when I have access. Thanks. -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC) As we do not say it is the sole factor, just one of them, I would not. Are you really saying that some do not lack this knowledge?Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC) My apologies. Thanks. I think some may not be that educated, but I would not upright call them "uneducated" when it comes to vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC) MAybe you would not RS have, so we do.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC) in fact, I would neither. Is it present a section on demographics of vaccine hesitancy? I think this article is pretty variegated in describing all the spectrum of different vaccine hesitancy colorus https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/demographics-of-vaccine-hesitancy-in-the-age-of-vaccine-mandates It has 50 different and seemingly interesting soruces linked. Do you think it is possible to add it? 150.145.142.8 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Some random blog by some random CAM proponent? Of course not. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC) I understand. Thank you. Sorry if I got off as being rude or conceded. Also, what does RS mean? Thanks again. -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC) wp:rs reliable sources, (also please read wp:rsp).Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Will do, thanks! -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC) and could imply that those who are anti-vaxxers are judged as being "dumb" as opposed to those who are for vaccines - I fail to see the problem. it should be worded a different way to not cause friction between anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers - that is exclusively on the antivaxxers and nobody else. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC) An encyclopedia is neither a skeptics' bible nor a place to "fail to see the problem" when one party may be insulted. At its' core, it's a dictionary entry expanded from a sentence to a large article. I despise this kind of attitude (I'm sure you don't care), and it only took me one reverted edit to realise that such action was useless given the culture here. So I'll just say it again: we're not here to 'bully', or disdain "anti-vaxxers" or even something as absurd as Holocaust denial. Because this is an encyclopaedic article.. Not an opinion piece, or a polemic. If you can't grasp what I mean by that, there's nothing to be done. Seneillion (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC) No we are here to reflect what RS say. 11:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC) To put it another way: we will not write that 2+2 may be 4 or may be 5 just because some people cannot add. If you want to read your own opinion, go to another website. On this website, you can read what competent people have found out and written down. That is its intended function: to list the knowledge of mankind, not the ignorance of mankind. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Science is debate and reverted its positions several times during its growth. Science is experiments, models, verification. One thing is to say the scientific consensus is that, and RS are those, one thing is excluding a-priori what is on the frontier of current knowledge. Experimentations is ongoing for many vaccines. Epidemological studies (including pharmacologial and vaccines ones, not only viruses) last by definition decades. Your comment suffers of reductionism: 2+2 = 4 or 5 is not at all similar to vaccinations studies. Also, an homologation bias is induced: not all vaccines are the same (as long as not all medicins are), while the tone of your comment is how to say, all vaccine hesitancy positions are the same, is intrinsically saying, all vaccines are the same. This is anti science point of view. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Sadly not, as "what is on the frontier of current knowledge" is also often to be shown wrong, be it N-rays or the Piltdown man. This is why we must go with the scientific consensus, and not "the frontier", we may miss the next Radium sure, but we may also not give credence to the next canals of mars. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC) yes in fact. one thing is to say consensus is this, one thing is to label something under research as clearly antiscientific. the entry here suffers of a generic tone labeling. as per your words: as what is on the frontier of current knowledge" is also often to be shown wrong is exactly and precisely what you should apply to vaccine efficacy and effects. Hundreds of scientific works are being published: the topic is under research, experimental data analyzed and will last years, if not decades. You may say that something is undemonstrated, not that is absurd as the genric label here suggests [i.e., biasing opinion]. In fact, as stated in the conclusions here: "The human population presently partakes in the exposure to foreign DNA in a huge experiment. After the completion of worldwide vaccinations, a post-vaccination sentinel program should be set up to monitor the exacerbation of unexpected, possibly novel, human ailments in vaccinated individuals." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168170221001738 150.145.142.8 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Because that is what the bulk of RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC) which bulk you mean? if 80 pages of bibliography of scientific literature [up to April] are relating on cov vax adverse effects and events, the bulk shows that these effects are under study. This makes antivax POV reasonable, intelligent, cautious. https://criticalresearch.freecluster.eu/docs/Updated_Peer_Reviewed_07_04_2022.pdf 150.145.142.8 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Read wp:npa and sp:soap. Ohh and wp:or, yes we go by what RS tell us, not our own research. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC) ok sorry removed comments. but I am talking of 80 pages bibliography of scientific articles list. not my OR. so which is the resources you refer to as RS instead? we are talking about making this entry neutral and encyclopedic, while at the moment looks more as an attack voice. please have a look at that list and then tell me it is not RS. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC) because there is a level bug here: you see, if primary sources can be scientific articles, secondary soources mainstream newspaper and media, ad thirs sources blog or even wikipedia [is that correct?], but secondary sources pretend to substitute (cherry picking, maniuplate, distort) to primary soruces, what should tertiary source or we do? relink to primary sources is wrong? 150.145.142.8 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC) read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC) in summary: secondary sources should be preferred to primary sources, isn't it? 150.145.142.8 (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Also, "secondary source" does not mean what you think it means. There are studies that summarize other studies, weighing them by quality. Those are secondary sources, and your distrust of them is completely unjustified. You will also find lots of other info on that page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC) I do not distrust those as a collective. I only would like to ensure that cherry picking of secondary sources is not done in the opposite way. As I told you, the voice does not look as really representative, there is a general sense of bias and bullying., or if you feel this too much, of non-inclusivity. For such reason, assuming a mutual good faith , I would like to see sources like this included https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/demographics-of-vaccine-hesitancy-in-the-age-of-vaccine-mandates 150.145.142.8 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC) and would like to discuss which would be the best position and in which terms/refer to it. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC) There are no 'terms' or 'positions' relevant to the inclusion of random antivaxer blogs in this article. We aren't going to do so, per the core policies under which Wikipedia has operated for many years. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC) OK. then we should have to select what a representative and inclusive source for the POV under object is. Because what I mean is that the voice looks in many points more like a POV on the POV itself, rather than an academic or enciclopedian entry. The blog I propose maybe random, but representative of thousands of similar ones, should be replaced by more authorative sources? I am only saying the voice does not look inclusive. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC) neither neutral nor aseptic 150.145.142.8 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Blogs are not RS unless provided by a subject matter expert (and even then may violate wp:undue), end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Our article on the Earth states that it is (approximately) spherical. The existence of a multitude of blogs, YouTube channels etc suggesting otherwise isn't going to change that. Same applies to antivaxxer nonsense. 'Neutrality', in as much as Wikipedia claims to reflect that, is based around scientific consensus, and not around the wishes of cranks to have their prophecies of doom and batshit-crazy conspiracy theories misrepresented as credible 'science' here, having failed to convince the scientific mainstream. That is how Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC) just to understand how it works, is there any link to Kennedy movement and site, for example? is that supposed to be RS? 150.145.142.8 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC) We do not use anything (or anyone) called "Kennedy movement", nor do I know what it is. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Presumably a reference to the nonsense Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been peddling. And no, being a Kennedy doesn't make someone a reliable source on vaccines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC) but I though the voice is on vaccine hesitancy?!? so the source should be reliable on such POV? or on vaccines? getting confused. it is not the fact of being a Kennedy, rather an association with millions of supporting people. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/ should not be added as a link and maybe commented? repeat, just to understand how it works 150.145.142.8 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC) We are under no obligation to keep responding endlessly to your repetitive posts. You have already been told what Wikipedia policy is regarding appropriate sourcing. That you don't agree with it, or can't understand it, is your problem not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC) This is just getting wp:tenditious and needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Maybe it is getting tenditious because what they try to tell is that the voice as a whole reads tenditious. 151.72.8.216 (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC) One of two things have happened. Either we are talking about whether this article is biassed when the full consensus is that it is not. (Or rather that it is biassed in favour of rationality.) The alternative is that this section has been derailed into a different discussion. Either way this section has run its course and no benefit is gained by continuing. I suggest that all future posts in this section be reverted. If more discussion is needed then start a new correctly titled section. THIS DISCUSSION IS CLOSED OrewaTel (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Educated or not educated

Just to let this clearer for what related to previous "bias" sec; as related to what said by user:HumbleConservative and by user:Seneillion. The phrase "lack of properly scientifically based knowledge" can be considered to be a form of bullying: maybe; should ask how they get these words.

What if we start considering if it is completely misleading ?

Anat Amit Aharon, Haim Nehama e Shmuel Rishpon, Parents with high levels of communicative and critical health literacy are less likely to vaccinate their children, in Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 100, n. 4, 2017-04, pp. 768–775, [[21]] ==> The results indicate that parents with high functional, communicative, and critical HL (health literacy) are more at risk of not vaccinating their children. The results are contrary to expectations in which people with high HL adopt more positive health behaviors.

Or in the words of this (not an anti vax) doctor http://drninashapiro.com/portfolio/why-are-rich-to-not-vaccinate-their-children-in-the-us "It is surprising that more educated people, which is supposed to be more receptive to what the doctors say, that decides not to vaccinate their children", says Professor at Cornell University, who believes that “for these parents the apparent risk of vaccines is greater than the benefit they receive. ”

I do not link again the blog on demography of vaccine hesitancy since you do not consider it a RS. But the sentence lack of proper scientifically based knowledge is misleading. 151.72.8.216 (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between intellectualism and knowledge. Intelligent, learned people possessing a large vocabulary and good language skills remain ordinary people outside their fields of study. This is a danger that university graduates must guard against. It is too easy to say, "I have a degree so my opinion on medical matters is as good as a doctor who has spent seven years studying the subject." Intellectuals are no more likely to make the wrong decisions than uneducated folk but they are more likely to have the ability to articulate and publish their opinions. OrewaTel (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

health literacy means health literacy. the phrase "lack of properly scientifically based knowledge" is misleading. then do as you want. 151.72.8.216 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

for these parents the apparent risk of vaccines is greater than the benefit they receive Risks can be computed. They are not a matter of opinion.

Even if the risks from infection were lower than the risk from the vaccine at a certain point in time, it will not stay that way, since the number of infections will increase with the number of unvaccinated people. This way of thinking, the thinking of a homo oeconomicus who bases decisions just on the comparison of two numbers, cannot be applied here. The homo oeconomicus is a shortsighted idiot who does not understand anything beyond their own immediate benefit and disadvantage. Infectious diseases, or climate change, for that matter, will come back and bite people who think like that, and everybody else with them.

So, no, the consensus is not changed by someone disagreeing with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

do as you wish, you are the one who thinks in terms of labels, not me. numbers are good when used by the oms or cdc, not when studied independently by a given person. It is not a matter of convincing you or OrewaTel or Slatersteven or who else to be vaccine hesitant or that hose people are right. But to talk about them in the correct way. They are not necessarily lacking scientifically based knowledge. That's it, then do as you feel.

On a different note, just a recent highlight:

If you check the current version and the one on the July archive, you may see that in the second blue summary, Facts About mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines, it is not present anymore the statement : [The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body.] with the two subrows on mrna and spike.

14/08/2022 - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

21/07/2022 - https://web.archive.org/web/20220721092000/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

There is a relative link now at the end of the page (How Long Do mRNA and Spike Proteins Last in the Body?);

upon clicking on it, a disclaimer will tell: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.

So as you see, the CDC are more esitant now on something that they were granting before. 151.72.8.216 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

and also : since the number of infections will increase with the number of unvaccinated people. ==> not really like that for, eg, covid vaccines. these are not stopping infections at all. 151.72.8.216 (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Vaccines are for more than that. In the case of COVID-19, they reduce the chance of being infected, by varying amounts as new variants come onto the scene, and they reduce the severity of infection when it does occur, thereby reducing the load on the medical systems in society. These are old characteristics of vaccines, and are not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines. Knowing what I have just written is a matter of education. HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The IP has been misinformed and wants to put that misinformation into the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, sorry if you think like that.

I just shared before a list of 80 pages scientific bibliography on cov vaccines AR and think the only existence of such a greater number of studies tells the experimentation is ongoing, and think the vaccine hesitance is a decorous point of view and am worried for its representation here (to which extent I shared before a well done blog with 50 sources to hesitancy demography, plus another Doctors' article and science paper). Sorry for naivety and if those were not reputed RS or pertinent.

On your previous words, here one perfect example of the homo oeconomicus you say: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/15/health/pfizer-bourla-covid-positive/index.html

After using (...?) his multiple doses serum, he is advertising their further product (paxlovid, antiviral pills treatment at some hundred $).

In the end, if I can and with respect, I think you are not the one who can decide what misinformation is.

But please go on undisturbed, I beg your pardon and don't want to interfere anymore on this natural ongoing process. 151.72.8.216 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

A recent meta-analysis that investigated the role of play-based interventions in pain and fear or distress management in pre-school children (aged from 2 to 6 years old) undergoing vaccinations reported that play-based interventions associate with significantly less self-reported pain. 2A02:85F:F86E:2700:A8FE:BE1B:75E0:B8F0 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PepperBeast (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies

Enough. Please read WP:MEDRS.

This wiki page should include studies of vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies and their results. I encourage everyone to read the reference cited and help to add this section. I have tried several times to add the following and adapting to the suggestions: Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Studies Dr Paul Thomas performed a retrospective analysis spanning ten years of pediatric focused on patients with variable vaccination born into his practice. The study consisted of 3324 patients, of which 2763 were variably vaccinated and 561 were unvaccinated. Zero of the 561 unvaccinated patients in the study had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to 0.063% of the (partially and fully) vaccinated. The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated. The report "Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination" was published but later retracted however the authors did not agree to the retraction. High5sw (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Retracted primary studies don't belong in this article. Or in any other, unless they have been the subject of significant discussion in independent secondary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC) whether the study was retracted or not is irrelevant to the truth of the study. Please read the study yourself and let me know what you think. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709050/ or watch the first 15min of this video: https://rumble.com/v1oahrx-vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-dr-paul-thomas-and-dr.-james-lyons-weiler-put-cdc-vaccin.html High5sw (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC) You have been told to read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Do so. And stop wasting our time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC) References

Information warfare

Question asked and answered. This is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This scientific paper is a sort of review and pretty relevant to the section, "Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics", https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4 94.35.33.36 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC) We should not use it because Wikipedia is not the right place for supporting Brian Martin's information warfare efforts. He is not a reliable source on medical topics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC) If the voice contains a paragraph on "Information Warfare" and there is a scientific paper on such an argument and censorship etc, is it supposed to be RS on medical topics or on information warfare? The article can be cited as speaking about Info wars or actually as being part of it. Basically what you just suggest is that wikipedia is part of the information warfare... OK 150.145.142.8 (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC) We also have wp:fringe and wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Brian Martin is an anti-science, anti-vaccine, pro-quackery activist. So he got his opinion (that anti-science, anti-vaccine, pro-quackery activists are censored) published in some journal, which refutes his claim that anti-science, anti-vaccine, pro-quackery activists are censored. Big whoop. If that paper gets positive feedback from the scientific community, it could be used. But so far, that does not seem to be the case. There are many thousands of papers published every year, an Wikipedia cannot cite them all. We have to select them according to quality. Basically what you just suggest is that wikipedia is part of the information warfare The way Martin is framing the situation, of course it is - like everybody else who disagrees with him. But actually, we have science on one side and a bunch of ignoramuses on the other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC) For sure you are both "inside" and aside science, since science is also made by experiments and debate and you are participating in both, by the way one of the largest experiments in the human history. We will see the outcomes in the future but the current ones are already much worrying. 151.50.195.137 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

See also

The part See also could be integrated by links to these wikipedia voices:

• World Council for Health
• Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
• Health Advisory and Recovery Team
• Children's Health Defense
• World Doctors Alliance

Furthermore, it could be cited also https://feds4medfreedom.org/ and https://www.truthforhealth.org/ Are there any entries already for these two associations ?

Also, in the main voice, is the petition https://gbdeclaration.org/ mentioned? That petition has almost 1M signatures. 94.35.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for the propagation of pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

well, this is a voice on vaccine hesitancy, so one of the biggest anti vaccine initiative should be refereed, or not?

this one for example https://gbdeclaration.org/ 37.101.144.152 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Improving education for expecting parents

With recent outbreaks of Measles, vaccinations has become a hot topic in society, and should be discussed. Currently 91.9% of the United States population aged 19-35 months are vaccinated according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To reach Herd Immunity “is a form of indirect protection from infection disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune.” (Wikipedia, N.D.) as a society we must increase the percentage of children being immunized. Meissner, (2015) states “measles is one of the most transmissible infectious diseases; therefore, a high herds immunity threshold of approximately 95%.”

The U.S. needs to implement a large-scale education program that starts when expecting parents have initial contact with their doctors and follow the parents through post-partum pediatric visits. This will give expecting parents time to learn the positive effects of vaccinations on a society and allow doctors to educate and debunk the myths of vaccinations. Currently there is no system in place and typically the first point of contact with vaccinations is at the first pediatric visit where parents may or may not receive a pamphlet on vaccinations. This leaves parents to do their own research and can allow them to find misleading information. In recent studies, it was found that providing correct and positive information, their opinions on vaccinations changed. Of 15 studies evaluating the impact of educational information on parents’ attitudes toward vaccination, eight reported a statistically significant improvement says (Sadaf, Richards, Glanz, Salmon, & Omer, 2013)

By conducting education in early prenatal doctor visits, the negative view on vaccinations will decrease, which in turn, will increase the vaccination rate. Therfore, allowing the U.S. to reach the 95% herd immunity threshold that is needed to provide safety for the population that is unable to receive vaccinations and prevent future outbreaks.

References

• Meissner, C. (2015). Why is herd immunity so important? American Academy of Pediatrics.
• Sadaf, A., Richards, J. L., Glanz, J., Salmon, D. A., & Omer, S. B. (2013). A systematic review of interventions for reducing parental vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine, 4293-4304.

Wikipedia. (N.D.). Herd Immunity. Retrieved May 2019, from Wikipedia: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Herd_immunity

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlson.eric38 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

books

can a book like this be considered RS ? I ask because not an expert editor https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dissolving-Illusions-Disease-Vaccines-Forgotten/dp/1480216895 37.101.144.152 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a self published book. That book is self published, so cannot be used. - Bilby (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ok thanks, because CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform means that is self published. This one, just as an example, is not self published, just to understand... it says Publisher:Routledge. thanks... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844/ 37.101.144.152 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the book is self-published or not, it is highly unlikely to be suitable for citation in this article, for all the reasons previously explained to IP 37.101.144.152 regarding other sources. This article must comply with Wikipedia policies, which don't include promoting fringe perspectives on medical topics. This is not open to negotiation here, and these continued attempts to argue around the very basic principles upon which Wikipedia works are getting tedious to the extreme. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Figure 1 not complete.

The range of years in the x-axis of the first Figure looks limited. In such a way, the informaiton presented is misleading. It should be prolonged over the 100 years before. Have a look here to get the idea. Historical and statistical sources provided inside the link. https://www.onb.it/2018/11/05/vaccini-ed-evidenze-epidemiologiche-nellanalisi-dei-grafici-prodotti-da-alcuni-enti-internazionali-di-statistica/ 37.101.144.152 (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not "limited", and your source does not provide reliable data (only graphs) and also mixing it up mostly with mortality rates (a common trick of anti-vaxxers). But vaccines should not beat death, they should prevent infections. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok, so I guess many say the current covis "vaccines" are not vaccines for such a reason then. And after becoming clear they were failing to prevent infections and transmission (for which aim the pfizer itself admitted they were never tested due to speed of science), the RS :) main message was to use those to prevent severe disease. A bit of mess there.

However, what about the thirdlast graph on that link about flu mortality? The comment says "The graph is from the U.S. Historical Statistics and refers to mortality trends for influenza and pneumonia since the year 1960. Mortality shows having a declining trend until 1978. Influenza vaccination begins in 1972 and since 1978 mortality shows an increasing trend even though there was increasing vaccination coverage." I would agree with their conclusions, "Wanting to draw some conclusions, it must be said that the graphs on this page, document how, for some vaccines, a necessary scientific treatment of their efficacy is almost imposed. Probably scientific research needs further stimulation in order to understand our immune system and antigenic stimulation more thoroughly in order to redefine "the dogmas of the quiet past inadequate to the stormy present" and implement and retract the efficacy of some vaccines." 150.145.142.9 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia doesn't give a rat's arse what you "guess many say", or which conclusions you agree with, per WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Blood Transfusions

There is evidence of distrust of Covid vaccinated blood. A section Vaccine hesitancy#Blood Transfusion has been added. Since there is a current court case, this section is a placeholder. After the hearing on 6 December 2022, the section will need to be updated/rewritten to reflect the entire story. OrewaTel (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have WP:GNG sources, consider making a separate WP-article about that case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As you will notice, I've WP:NOTNEWSd the section. Shouldn't we wait till after 6th? -Roxy the dog 10:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

There's an argument for that, but the section didn't look glaringly awful to me. There's also Italian anti-vax parents lose appeal over unvaccinated blood donor request for child’s heart surgery from February. Perhaps there's more, apart from [22][23]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's a few more on covid and blood: [24][25][26]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This section is current news and probably is not encyclopaedic. But in 5 days time the court will have made a decision and it will become recorded history and then it will be encyclopaedic.The reason for making the edit now is to leave a marker. It has had the effect of alerting two editors and pulling out a very similar story from Italy.

The question has been asked, "Does this belong in this article?" I suggest that it should. A hypothetical case where parents would sooner their child dies rather than receive mixed race blood would a subject of a racism article.This article should be the compendium of all vaccination fears whether they be justified or irrational. We may well construct a separate article on vaccinated blood worries but such an article needs a reference here along the lines off. "Main article: xxx xxxxx xxxx" OrewaTel (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

And I think a more general "Blood Transfusions (covid)" section can be made per available sources, there's nothing on it in the article atm. Demand for unvaccinated blood may actually pre-date covid, but that's just a guess of mine atm, it may well be a covid "invention". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, there is obviously some sourcing, and I doubt that I'd notnews it in a few more days, but the bit I removed looked too weak for me - a single news item. we have more now, thanks to GGS, and progress can be made. - Roxy the dog 13:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If no one else tries again, I may. I'm waiting to see if Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Demand_for_unvaccinated_blood? gives anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@OrewaTel@Roxy the dog, other interested, see what you think: Vaccine_hesitancy#Blood_transfusion. There's more in those sources that can be added, and there's probably other sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The court case that prompted this discussion is now resolved. The court made NZ Health a temporary guardian of the baby so that the operation could go ahead. There was a demonstration outside the hospital by anti-vaccination groups. Since a precedent has been set, it is likely that no such future challenge will be made in NZ but if this is a global issue then it will become significant. OrewaTel (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

And the kid has been operated and is doing well as of yesterday, that's good. More on topic at Rival blood bank set up in wake of baby donor case would be 'breaking law' Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The case has been hijacked by Liz Gunn a well known anti-vacc activist. [27]. OrewaTel (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sue_Grey_(lawyer)#Baby_W_case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Demographics of vaccine hesitancy

The part on demography of vh is lacking, could be added as a section or some further refs added; here one article to start with, has 50 nice references. https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/demographics-of-vaccine-hesitancy-in-the-age-of-vaccine-mandates 37.101.144.152 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Wikipedia does not base content on antivaxxer pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ok then provide a better source and add the relevant paragraph 37.101.144.152 (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Unhatted because WP:FORUM applies only to matters unrelated to improving the article and that isn't technically the case. However, the source the IP proposes is clearly not reliable as it appears to be the soapbox of Geert Vanden Bossche, a fringe virologist known for his campaigning against COVID vaccines. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced nonsensical sentence in lead

This sentence in the lead is ambiguous, makes no sense, and is unsourced: "It has existed since the invention of vaccination and pre-dates the coining of the terms "vaccine" and "vaccination" by nearly eighty years." What?

I checked the prior and post citations to see if it's mentioned there; no, it's not. So I checked the edit history (thanks to WP:Who Wrote That? tool).

The sentence is a variant from prior to 9 years ago, when it was also unsourced, and today it barely looks like its earlier variants. These two edits show some of the history of this sentence: from 2014, from 2019

I recommend it be corrected, clarified and sourced, or — failing that — removed. Grorp (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It is correct, and probably easy to source, that opposition to vaccination has existed about as long as vaccination itself. The reference to pre-dating the term probably refers to opposition to variolation, the process that preceded vaccination. BD2412 T 03:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is neither ambiguous nor nonsensical. But it is wrong. It states that anti-vaccination movements date back to the invention of vaccinate and that is correct. However it also says that the opposition antedates the coining of the term and that is wrong. Vaccination is the original term for inoculation with cox-pox and was the target of the original anti-vaxxers. Subsequently the term vaccination was used to describe other forms of inoculation. The references attached to the sentence are totally inadequate.

If the sentence is intended to indicate opposition to variolation then it should say so and we would need references that say there was opposition to variolation. OrewaTel (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Vaccinationists" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vaccinationists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4 § Vaccinationists until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove racist language from the article

very strange request, irrelevant to general topic Dronebogus (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The racist term Latinx should be remove from the article. 84.203.60.124 (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC) The way that term is used in the article is as almost a direct quote from the source behind it, the Journal of Behavioral Medicine. It's part of the title of the article. We also have an article about Latinx, which says nothing about it being a racist term. Can you provide evidence that some people (apart from you) see it as a racist term? HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)