This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The source was my first objection, and that still stands. Otherwise we don't usually list news items for this type of subject. If the subject is broad enough and of an enduring nature, then maybe.... It will to some degree depend on the sources and wording. I'll let others weigh in on the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It is mentioned very briefly in the lead and body, but not enough. There is a link to another article which deals with the subject, but there should be more mention here. Let me see what I can do. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have now given it its own section, with a link to two other articles. My edit summary notes that the section needs further development. No one has ever denied that vaccines, just like all other medicines which have any real effects, can have side effects. Therefore the subject needs mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Autism Epidemic Linked to Epidemic of Vaccine Induced Diabetes
July 12, 2013, The new data shows autism is strongly linked to type 1 diabetes another epidemic inflammatory disease where the epidemic has been proven to be caused by vaccines. The new paper is authored by immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD."We have been publishing for many years that vaccine induced inflammation is causing an epidemic of type 1 diabetes and other diseases. Our new data, as well as the extensive data from others regarding the role of inflammation in the development autism, leaves little doubt vaccines play a significant role in the autism epidemic," says Dr. J. Bart Classen, MD. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130712-904463.htmlProkaryotes (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
PRNewswire is not a RS. Classen, a known vaccination skeptic, is also not a RS. We need to stick to MEDRS compliant sources, not pr releases by just anyone. PRNewswire can be used by literally anyone to put out literally any kind of idea they wish. It sounds official, but it's not. Seriously, one should never read that source. It's like watching Fox News: "Is that true, or did you hear it on Fox News?"
Another thing about the subject of vaccine side effects and injuries, this is a new section here, which refers to existing articles on the subject. At Wikipedia we base this content on the existing articles, so develop the content in those articles first. We can then use the edit summaries of those articles here, together with the "main" links to them. If we develop independent and new content here, we create a problem. So stop development of the section here, or only use existing content from the other articles. Ideally use just the lead section from them, so this short section gives a complete summary of the subject, which is developed more fully in those articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that is a bad source but not sure i understand what you mean with the second paragraph. Do you mean i should post things for adverse effects first "here" on the talk page or on correspondign wikipedia pages related to the vaccine in question (and then possibly only in the leading part?)? Prokaryotes (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This happens to be the main meta article on the entire subject, and we need to keep each section here brief, yet comprehensive. Using leads from existing subarticles is the best way to do this. That's why it's best to go to the specific subarticle and develop that content using any new sources you find. If it is accepted there, you're on much more solid ground. Then use the leads from those subarticles, which briefly sum up the entire subarticle, as the only content of the section here.
So go to the specific subarticle that best applies and edit there. Don't edit the lead unless new content in the body demands it. If consensus is reached for new content, you're on solid footing for more editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has compiled a list of vaccines and their possible side effects. Allegations of vaccine injuries in recent decades have appeared in litigation in the U.S. Some families have won substantial awards from sympathetic juries, even though most public health officials have said that the claims of injuries were unfounded. In response, several vaccine makers stopped production, which the US government believed could be a threat to public health, so laws were passed to shield makers from liabilities stemming from vaccine injury claims. A phenomenon called vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease was first observed in 2009 in Canada and further studies could replicate findings which conclude that flu strain vaccines can raise risk of severe infection. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a phenomenom, and there are people, and orgnaisations, and they probably deserve a very small section here. There was a page called antivaccinationism, but a group of editors objected greatly to it, and it is currently called something else. It started before the word vaccination was coined - by Jenner from Vacca for cow - and is a continuation of the fuss over inoculation. One of the natural experiments carried out in the new American colonies around 1721 was kindly repeated in the 19th century, at the instigation of the antivaccinationists, and with the same result. http://www.ganfyd.org/index.php?title=Natural_experiments_in_medicine A pathognomic feature of these people is that they seek to turn every article touching on an aspect of immunisation into one on adverse efects, and are impervious to argument. Midgley (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The thing is that if you write such a page you have to write a page on the people who opt for vaccination. And how do you even define "Anti-vaccinationists"? And you have to write about the financial conflict all these companies who make billion of profits from vaccines, without proof or studies on long term impacts. Also it is not helpful to generalize. frame and make claims such as "pathognomic feature of these people". In agreement with wikiepdia means to present information based on the best science and facts from reliable sources, without conflict of interest (company sponsored studies that is or actions through think tanks). However, most the topics on vaccination can be considered 1 sided since they avoid the mention of scientific studied adverse effects and they lack basic science about vaccination in general. For instance = The Director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy said recently "It really drives home the need to be very cautious about what are we actually accomplishing."Both Crowe and Osterholm stressed that this phenomenon probably isn't exclusive to vaccination against influenza. I think as we move forward with vaccine for influenza, we need to understand ... the subsequent host-virus interaction with any response we get" http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/study-raises-red-flag-for-universal-flu-vaccine-may-explain-2009-canadian-problem-1.604465Prokaryotes (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)