Talk:Vaccination

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jessicasibal.

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Robertzhou24.

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amschie.

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 29 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thayermartin. Peer reviewers: Manuvenkat.

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JasperT888.

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

revert

‎@SkepticalRaptor: I see that you reverted me here [1], stating that it was POV, why? what was POV about this? I expect that if I try to remove a POV some will disagree, but most of my edit was not even intended to remove POV, why did you revert the whole thing? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You have made several attempts across various articles to push an anti-vaccine POV. The same here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Vaccination saves lives

Orenstein WA Ahmed R

Simply put: Vaccination saves lives.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Apr 18;114(16):4031-4033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704507114. Epub 2017 Apr 10.

PMID 28396427

PMC 5402432 [Available on 2017-10-18]

DOI 10.1073/pnas.1704507114

@Ocdcntx:The talk page is for discussion about how to improve the article, not general discussion of the topic, why are you putting these studies on the this talk page? What are you suggesting should be changed about the article based on these studies? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The study is embargoed until on 2017-10-18. Upon its release, it should be included in the section presenting claims (made by individuals and not peer reviewed) to the effect that vaccine benefits are unproven. The non-peer-reviewed remarks are repeated without close direct rebuttal. On this subject, the PNAS review of evidence is relevant. "Simply put: Vaccination saves lives." Upon release, the study should be added to balance the currently-unbalanced section.Ocdcntx (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ocdcntx: What section do you consider unbalanced? I was thinking this study would go in an effectiveness section, similar to the effectiveness section at vaccine, which I just realized this article doesn't have (I think it should). Tornado chaser (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness section.

Our article lacks and needs an effectiveness section. Should be first section after intro.

A thorough exposition on the burden of vaccine preventable diseases, and on vaccine's role of saving lives and health is needed.

Simply put, diseases sicken and kill. Immunization protects from vaccine preventable diseases. If you don't understand diseases, you won't understand what vaccine do.

Our current article's intro. mentions vaccine's proven effectiveness, but does not discuss it. Rather it simply points to the studies. More detailed discussion of effectiveness of a particular vaccine does occur later, but only in the context of rebutting "controversy" as to effectiveness.

We should re-outline so that our article begins with a clear exposition of the compelling benefits. With attention to presenting how those benefits have been proven. "Controversy" should then be introduced, so that there is a frame for evaluating, e.g., non-scientific studies. This avoids "controversy" inserting itself as a section headline and so becoming the cognitive frame.

The intro. of the current article includes brief effectiveness information, which might be enough if a "controversy" had not been declared. People interested would then simply click through the footnote links and read the sources cited.

... The effectiveness of vaccination has been widely studied and verified.[1][2][3] Vaccination is the most effective method of preventing infectious diseases;[4] widespread immunity due to vaccination is largely responsible for the worldwide eradication of smallpox and the elimination of diseases such as polio, measles, and tetanus from much of the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that licensed vaccines are currently available for twenty-five different preventable infections.[5] ...

Unfortunately, there is a lucrative business in vaccine denialism, (e.g., by the selling of books). Hence vaccine's proven and ongoing contribution of the well-being of families via the reduction of disease burden deserves space at the top of this page, right after the intro. The organization of the Influenza vaccine page could serve as a model.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ocdcntx: I have added an effectiveness section, copied from vaccine with a few minor changes, I'm not sure why vaccine and vaccination are separate articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

While I don't have a moment to actually *rewrite* any section here, I will note that there is a terrific US non-profit and non-partisan authority on the topic here: https://www.historyofvaccines.org

"History of Vaccines" is a project of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia and is supported by Physicians and not by either Pharma or by Anti-Vaccine activists. This makes it a unique source that gets around some of the concerns expressed by partisans. There is a very good basic article here that could be easily cited.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/why-vaccinate BrooklynBen (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC) BrooklynBen

References

Merge

I have CSD'd this article after merging it into vaccine relevant discussion may be found at Talk:Vaccine. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge undone, per same discussion. --GRuban (talk)`

Aluminium adjuvents

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccination&diff=836221458&oldid=833502726 I added a paragraph on evidence of the influence of aluminium adjuvents on the brain, something for which there seems to be a growing amount of evidence (but I did not put it in those words as the "growing amount of evidence" is a subjective observations). (Something went wrong with the diff here; it's just the "Recent studies..." line.) In retrospect, my addition does not fit perfectly in this paragraph "Vaccination-autism controversy". For that, the sectioning in this article should probably be restructered a bit. Any ideas what's best to do here? Hulten (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional Supporting Source

I think in the MMR section related to autism another key thing to put in is the research done by the </ref>CDC. Including that article is also another useful source for this section as it is an ongoing debate between both sides.

Kisbell1 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add a section on public opinion of vaccination, or add some more information to the opposition section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amschie (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If all the opposition was listed in this article it would be really long, we actually have a whole other article about vaccine controversies. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amschie:. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

UCSF Wikipedia Elective Plan

Hello! As part of a course through UCSF School of Medicine, I am editing the Vaccination Wikipedia page. Below is my work plan for the month:

- I will streamline some of the language in the article

- I will assess for the presence of any potential plagiarism or paraphrasing

- I will ensure that information is up to date, and if there have been changes in the field I will update them

- I will reorder some of the sections to improve the flow of the article

- I will expand on the section that talks about vaccination on a global scale

- I will include a section to talk about vaccination recommendations and schedule

- I will include a section to talk about some of the controversial ingredients in vaccines

Timeline:

March 4: first meeting

March 5: pick topic --> vaccination

March 5-8: first collect sources, make work plan (post to public talk page)

March 8: first WP-WiP

March 13: second WP-WiP

March 15: match day, take today and next 2 days off

March 18: third WP-WiP, start working again

March 25: fourth WP-WiP, peer review work

March 27: make last edit

March 28: end course, 10-12 wrap-up session — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thayermartin (talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer feedback for Thayermartin for UCSF Project WikiMedicine Edits Spring 2019

Thank you for giving me the chance to provide peer feedback on your edits so far. This is an important topic and you've made excellent choices in terms of what sections to flesh out more. Overall your edits were very effective in conveying complex concepts like chemistry and the vaccine regulatory process in easy-to-understand language.

Lede

• Excellent and easy to understand language in 1st and 2nd sentences.
• "it helps" should be "they help" if referring to "vaccines" from previous sentence
• I agree with your decision to make minimal edits to what is generally a well written section

Mechanism of action

• Good choice of exemplars for various vaccine applications
• Pronouns: "its" referring to plural rabies vaccines in P2 should be "their," and the "This" starting sentence 2 of paragraph 1 should be more specific or be "They" if referring to vaccines.

Safety

• Definitely a good choice to make Safety the main header and to beef this section up
• Excellent description of vaccine development in terms of clarity and ease of understanding
• I think the first two paragraphs could go under a sub-heading along the lines of "vaccine development and approval process" since they focus on that specific topic rather than summarizing the entire Safety section
• "thoroughly" is a subjective word that you could consider deleting, even if your citations use that word.
• Great decision to include a table of resources. The table format works better than paragraph format.
• Conveying event rates as "1 in #" format makes them easier to understand -- good choice
• I liked the conciseness of the description of metal salts vs the elemental form

Vaccination-Autism Controversy

• Well organized, concise description of the Wakefield paper and its fallout
• It was a good idea to flesh out this section even though there is a parent article, as many people coming to the vaccination page may be interested in this topic
• In this section or elsewhere it might be valuable to have some quantitative data on the scale of the anti-vaccination movement and the platforms it was most active on.

Again, I think you've done an excellent job so far!

Manuvenkat (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vaccine failure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to merge the article Vaccine failure into Vaccination. I've merged in a couple sentences and redirected the article, but any editor is free to tweak it by merging more or less as they wish (be bold). Mz7 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

---

I'm proposing a merger of any usable content from Vaccine failure into Vaccination because the content in the other article logically belongs within Vaccination and the length of this article is well below the guideline caps. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: There are some merge proposals that look like a straight forward slam dunk and then turn out to be anything but. I note that that this was merged in 2017 and then de-merged again; I would be inclined to support though. CV9933 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Vaccine failure has been a poorly-sourced stub since 2006. Other than one link added yesterday it is an orphan. However, the concept itself is probably notable, so I would redirect it here for now with no prejudice against someone fleshing it out in the future with proper sources. Bradv🍁 13:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Bradv's reasoning. The concept is notable, but the article itself is pretty barebones and seems unlikely to be expanded much further in the near future. I say it gets a sentence, or at most a subsection, on this page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 07:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Small poorly sourced article, no real need to have this separate. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Much better service to all by including it as a section in the main article on vaccination. I had no clue of its existence. Spyder212 (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2019 (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.

Global Vaccine Safety

I noticed the vaccine safety chapter features predominantly US regulations for vaccines. From my point of view it would be nice if there were some paragraphs describing the handling of vaccine safety regulations in other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C9:3F22:3301:452B:18F9:849E:7A8F (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference to Miller, Goldman papers

The claim in the article that the Miller, Goldman studies "have shown that current vaccine schedules increase infant mortality and hospitalization rates, arguably an effect of synergistic toxicity." is simply false. Their findings are consistent with that conclusion, and supportive of that conclusion, but there are numerous problems with the studies, and at a more fundamental level, because they are rather simple correlational studies, they cannot show anything about causality with confidence. Accordingly, I'm making wording changes to that section of the page to put the reference to the Miller/Goldman studies in a more scientifically grounded context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regutten (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This article looks like it was written by the AMA & CDC

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.

---

I hope that people do their own research, but few people have time for that these days, and Google blocks minority views now (just like Wikipedia).

I advise anyone who really wants some info on safety of vaccines to listen to what Del Bigtree is saying: https://www.spokanepublicradio.org/post/inland-journal-april-18-2019-vaccine-safety-pt-1-del-bigtree Or read the ICAN whitepaper: https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf

Take the CDC vaccine injury stats and multiply by 100. That's if you believe Harvard Medical School. I’ll quote the findings directly from their CDC-funded report, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.” https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

AMA has told doctors not to debate with ICAN. What is the AMA afraid of? https://thefedupdemocrat.home.blog/2019/12/06/interview-with-del-bigtree-the-great-harlem-vaccine-debate/

--Joelrosenblum (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I also believe that people should do their own research and I asked TylerDurden8823 if he minded if I respond to your sources.

I listened to the podcast interview you linked and reviewed his white papers. I also read the Harvard Medical report you linked.

That Harvard Medical School report, you read it right? Or did you simply listen to Bigtreee on the podcast say it was from the Harvard Medical School? I suggest you take another look at the front page. Does it come from Harvard Medical School? No, its a report from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. The CDC funded the report right? No, it was the National Institute of Health. Dr. Bigtreee is correct to say vaccine injuries are under-reported right? Yes, it does say that. But what is a vaccine injury? Well ever had a sore arm after a flut shot, did you report it? If not then its under-reported. They don't mean only serious vaccine injuries, they mean all vaccine injuries. Are double blind studies conducted to prove vaccines are safe? No they are not, but once again what is a double blind study? A double blind study is when you give one set of subjects an actual drug and another a placebo, generally a sugar pill. Would it be medically ethical for a scientist to tell a subject he's been given immunity to a life threatening disease and expose him to it? Dr. Bigtree apparently thinks so.

Why trust the medical expertise of a guy who cant read the front page of the medical report he's citing?

Here's some more information on that paper Are Fewer Than 1% of Vaccine Injuries Reported to VAERS?Kwwhit5531 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 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.

Pandemrix

> Pandemrix was discontinued due to lack of demand, not due to side effects

This is plausible however all the information included is also referrenced from high quality sources... I hope. There might be WP:DUE arguments. What do you think about the suggestions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pandemrix:_People_probably_have_an_opinion_on_this.

Would you prefer a different title for this section. Talpedia (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

After a little discussion, I've added a more general discussion "adverse outcomes identified after mass vaccination". I'm going to move the content written to the main Pandemrix page. Talpedia (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation for GWAR class

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, everything in the article was relevant to the "Vaccine" topic. The article mentioned the mechanisms and functions of a vaccine, vaccination versus inoculation, vaccine development and approval, side effects, severe side effects, the ingredients of a vaccine (varies on the purpose of the vaccine), monitoring, society and culture, litigation, opposition, and the costs and benefits of a vaccine. Nothing in the article distracted me because the information was concise and straightforward with no bias just useful information. Elyybeth (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)ElizabethA

"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)

Proposal to give this an A-rating on the Content Assessment Scale

This is a very complete and comprehensive article. If I were a major contributor, I would nominate it for GA status. But since I'm not, I'd like to give it an A rating, which is not frequent and per WP:CLASSES it should have at least one other editor agreeing with the assessment.

Would anyone agree to this assessment, and like to update the page? Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I can see a couple of ways the article could be more complete:

• Herd immunity is mentioned in the intro so I expected to see a section on it.
• I expected to see a summary section on "vaccines"
• The "Usage" section doesn't seem to give an idea of the number of vaccinations world wide for various diseases.
• The cause of the measles uptick in the US is asserted without a reference. Here is what the CDC site says:
  • The majority of cases were among people who were not vaccinated against measles. Measles is more likely to spread and cause outbreaks in U.S. communities where groups of people are unvaccinated.

The difference between B and the higher levels is to be honest unclear to me, but they claim that coverage is important. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

create page: vaccinophilia

• vaccinophiliac: A person who needlessly gets vaccinated* too many times.

2A02:2149:8B83:6500:9464:BD1F:2B81:D064 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The only reliable reference I was able to find:

• Neher, Jon O. (February 2017). "Vaccinophilia/phobia". Evidence-Based Practice. 20 (2): 2. doi:10.1097/01.EBP.0000541621.34008.4c. ISSN 1095-4120.

A definition for vaccinophiliac based on this reference would be more like "A person who likes vaccines because of their proven effectiveness against rabies, yellow fever, and meningitus."

However, this one reference was an uncited opinion piece and I did not see any secondary references. So my conclusion is that this word is not notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)