Talk:Immunization

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


First comments

My View on Immunisation By Emily Saville

My View on immunisation varies becasue of the side effects in which it is associated with on various occasions. I also don't think that immunisation of children as young as three months should be compulsory. Immunisation works on a basis that a small amount of a disease is injected into a human and the human then becomes 'immune' to that disease. My issue is the persons immune system, if it is a weak immune system then isn't the person who is getting the immunisation at risk of getting that disease —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.212.241 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :)looser


Reply: Your view, unfortunately, is invalidated by your lack of knowledge. Side effects depend on the vaccine administered, and in many vaccines have been repeatedly proven to pose a significantly lower risk than the disease itself. Immunisation DOES NOT work on the principle of injecting a small amount of disease into a human. This is a "lie to children", used by people who either dont understand or are unwilling to fully explain the underlying concepts. Please, do some research before posting a question of an academic nature; this is an encyclopedia after all. Also Wikipedia is not the place for personal points of view; it is unencyclopedic and, as in this case, often misinformed.--91.110.89.159 (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

immunization as homeopathy?

I am no doctor, but this thought occured to me... and was recently verified by another independent person... neither of us are related to homeopathy, but it seems that immunization might bare some relation to 'treating like with like'. At least a link might be justified...? I bow to the expert perspective of those monitoring this page... - unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidocancan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Treating like with like" is usually less useful than "treating like with unlike" (eg: hot with cold). But when that does not work then you try what you haven't yet tried. Unless you aren't guessing, in which case you just do what you know works. We know vaccination works. and we know why. We know homeopathy is quackery and we know why. If you don't know why, either believe the scientists and thier objective studies or study up on the facts. WAS 4.250 06:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The concept seems pretty much synonymous with Vaccination - is there any reason why Immunization wouldn't redirect to Vaccination and the info be merged into Vaccination? Jkpjkp 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't immunization be an intended goal, and vaccination one proposed technique?--SportWagon 15:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. But the current immunization article doesn't make that distinction.--SportWagon 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we mustn't lose direction to Immunization (finance) in the event of a merger. So instead, we should have an Immunization disambiguation page, which might direct people to Vaccination for one case.--SportWagon 16:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vital difference! see http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/611. A link would be useful, but a distinction must be drawn between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.177.52.22 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Immunisation is the intended result of a vaccination. therefore, there is a definite distinction between the two. However, the article should probably be merged. Bowsy (review me!) 09:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vaccination already has most material on vaccines, so I removed all material about vaccines and expanded on the immunological concepts here. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative effects

Is it possible to have any negative effects/side effects related to immunizations made available? or any history of unsucessful vacinations made available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.64.24 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean vaccination; there is more than enough of that sort of thing at Vaccine controversy. The negative effect of immunization would be, (I suppose) auto-immune disease. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more Immunizations, Another way?

What if there were no more immunizations would there be another way to protect us from health risks??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.205.26 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean vaccination here, and the answer is yes; you could go ahead and catch the disease and, if you survived, you'd then have a life-long immunity. Or you could rely on other people to get vaccinations, so the disease was kept at bay: but that only works if most people don't act the same way as you. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(PS)
OTOH most health risks are remedied by public health measures. People in developed countries don’t know how fortunate they are to be able take clean water, sanitation, safe food and a good diet for granted. And people in developing countries will walk miles and queue for hours to get vaccinations; so what does that tell you? That they know a good thing when they see it? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is My Name is Earl on this page?

Remove “my name is earl” in the Passive Immunization section.

After the third paragraph in the article introduction, add:

To-date, the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases is down to record lows.

Add site: http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=519933 as a resource.

Adding this sentence will further the usefulness of the article because it not only defines immunization, but it helps describe the prevalence of immunization, which is something readers would likely be curious about when reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.187.4 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved section to correct place in sequence Moonraker12 (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

the kid in that picture

whats the name of that girl? 74.249.139.86 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian leads immunisation revolution

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-10/immunisation-revolution/3723946 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.12.249 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Free review for 2012

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin quote

"In 1736 I lost one of my Sons, a fine Boy of 4 Years old, by the Smallpox taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly and still regret that I had not given it to him by Inoculation. This I mention for the Sake of Parents who omit that Operation on the Supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a Child died under it; my Example showing that the Regret may be the same either way, and that therefore the safer should be chosen." [Part III, p. 83] -- Benjamin Franklin

Brangifer (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric

The Polio discussion in the introduction is very US-centric; I have decided not to put a Globalize template on but it could do with a more global viewpoint. I am not sure how to do it though. GBM (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polio

This is a comment regarding an edit that should be considered. I am NOT presuming to make an edit. Unfortunately, polio is back, in a small way so far. Perhaps the article should be amended to reflect that. Thank you for your consideration. If I should have put this elsewhere on your site, please forgive my lack of tech savvy and please advise me on the appropriate place to input this comment. I am a good proofreader. Is there a way I can submit corrections for consideration by your editor, or whomever monitors this site? Thank you for this site. Where may I donate? Jane 2601:545:4400:1D70:B0F5:3FE1:D457:5D9B (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Immunization"