Talk:Measles

Should this article mention "measles parties"? They were mentioned recently in a UK soap, so they're presumably still an occurence.

It does have a mention of them now (not added by me), but this could use some cleaning up. It talks about a "recent" event without an actual associated date or even year. Thayvian 11:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Measles and History

I plan to add a section on historic measles plagues, including the Antonine Plague (including Plague of Cyprion) and the impact of measles on the Amerind population at European contact. Ideas for inclusion?? WBardwin 18:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Measles epidemic

This article in the Guardian[1] sums it all up. It also has Simon Murch on the record stating that there is likely to be a resurgence of measles due to poor vaccine uptake. 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Measles in the USA

MMWR and JAMA have this report[2] about the 37 cases of measles in the US. Most cases were imported, e.g. from Chinese orphanages. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

NHS and measles parties

The reporting about measles parties is from 2001. I could not find a resource for official NHS discouragement of this practice with Google. Anyone noticed it? JFW | T@lk 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation

I believe I have found a citation to back up the statement about the NHS being opposed to 'deliberate exposure' of the child by parents, i.e. homeopathy. I'll put it up. DarkIye 12:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Love to edit but impossible due to allopath suppression

Allopath suppressing just a link, so text would be a waste of time. User:Davidruben "rv - remove unscientific, trolling blog site (article has link already to vaccine controversy))" [3]. 'Unscientific' is an allopath pseudonym for non-allopathic thinking. john 08:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from not calling myself an "Allopath" (indeed in context term is used, is this meant as a demeaning belittling term ? If so not in spirit of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:Civility ?), I removed the link as it did not add to the discussion on measles itself (which this article is supposd to be about). I do agree though that it is not readily apparent where to read more about the associated vaccine (on MMR vaccine page) nor where to look for issues on the controversy on the vaccine (does/does not work or does/does not have association with autism/bowel disorders). The current in-text link to vaccine controversy is a general article, rather than being specifically related to the measles vaccine.

There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views, and I suggest therefore it is more a issue of directing the reader to the relevant pages rather than duplicate information or assertions. Hence I have added to the "See also" a link to MMR vaccine which sets out in some length the 'controversy' and again to vaccine controversy. David Ruben ^Talk 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Feeble justification. Allopath isn't meant as a put down, it is meant to flag you as biased, hence your deletion of my edit. If you can tell me where the homeopathic, naturopathic & nutritional medicine view of measles is on Wiki then please do so, otherwise restore my link. john 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. That link is to a site which is an admitted clone of the portion of Whale.to that relates to vaccination. Whale.to has been determined to be an unsuitable site to link to, and it is not becuase of the name. This is a transparent and continuing attempt to get links into WP in defiance of policy established by RFC and with the effect of adding credibility to your sites - and gaining click-throughs. Unscientific, meanwhile means unscientific. Midgley 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You allopaths took it upon yourselves to ban links to whale, which you call an 'approved RFC outcome'---I'd like to see the actual wording regarding that, so SHOW ME THE DIFF on that. Your only argument was ad hominem, which isn't an argument in case you hadn't noticed. You can't use that argument with Vaccination.org.uk as it doesn't have any conspiracy stuff on it. john 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I see from WP that this was an RFC, so although John may choose to accuse various users of various things (contrary to various WP policies including WP:CIVIL) this is not here as elsewhere the case. John has previously stated, in agreement with whoever first noted it, that vaccination.org.uk is a direct copy of the subset of material from whale.to , as he says, the anti-Jewish propoganda, the allegations of alien infiltration and a bunch of other conspiracy theory has not been copied across, but that doesn't alter the provenance of the site, nor its control. John, the WP Policy involved is very clearly WP:RS. I'd be obliged if you now accepted that you have been told this, even if you neither believe nor subscribe to it nor propose to act in accordance with it. Midgley 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

These are your spurious reasons for deleting links----first it was ad hominem. Now it is WP:RS. Don't you wish you practiced a medicine that didn't require so much work in medical politics. john 12:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WP is somewhat more insistent on proper behaviour than the USENET fora where John has lambasted doctors for years while presenting his own advice or quotes stockpiled from many source to anyone who posts asking for advice. The above posting immediately upon return from a 24 hour ban for behaviour on WP suggests that such minor interventions are unlikely to be successful in moderating John's behaviour, or causing him to regard other editors of WP as anything other than obstacles to be got around where they cannot be ignored. Admins? Midgley 13:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins? I should think they are too busy with your antics [4]. You can get away with anything,it seems, whereas I have to suffer from your medical colleagues but even so have only been banned once, for the usual spurious reason. I wish I could ban you for calling me mentally insane.(John's writing is not very closely similar, one may have an idée fixée without being mad even in a lay sense)). One law for you one for me, that is the Wiki way on medical matters, as we can see with your medical colleague banning links he doesn't like. Don't you wish you practiced a medicine that didn't require so much work in medical politics? john 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeopaths support vaccination link

MMR the facts: MMR basics - What about homeopathic alternatives? [5] This gives the misleading impression homeopathy supports vaccination, but the Faculty of Homeopath is a minority, and all allopaths, so they would say that. "The Faculty of Homoeopathy speaks for a medically qualified minority. The more numerous medically unqualified homoeopaths belong to the Society of Homoeopaths, the Institute of Complementary Medicine, or the Homoeopathic Medical Association, totalling some 2000 practitioners. None of these bodies supports vaccination."--Peter Morrell john 09:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• These opinions (right or wrong) are about vaccination in general, rather than being specifically about measles. Hence they deserve to be more under the overall vaccination article, rather than a specific member of the group.
• I would totally agree that it is only this group of homeopaths who are generally strongly in favour of vaccination (interesting that they feel vaccines "prove" the homeopathic principle of a little of what causes a disease might be used to prevent/treat it - but that is another discussion) and the other groups are most clearly not. This divergence of opinion is I think confusing to the general public & doctors who are not aware of the different groups/traditions that homeopaths might belong to. John, is this a specifically UK division of opinion, or is a similar situation seen in other countries ? Should not this information be added to Homeopathy#Homeopathy and vaccination section ?
• I do not think that, in general, arguements against "all vaccinations" need be discussed in detail on each vaccination page (as duplication), but rather a short link to a single page that discusses the viewpoints seems a more sensible way or organising within wikipedia (afterall a single encyclopaedia). In particular links to problems with a treatment should be on the treatment article rather than a disease article (hence issues of antibiotics resulting in super-resistant bacteria belongs not under sore throat or otitis media, nor the specific antibiotics amoxicillin or flucloxacillin, but rather under antibiotics or the specific article: staphylococcus aureus). David Ruben ^Talk 14:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Davidruben is correct as above. Is this a description of the majority of homeopaths as anti-vaccination? Midgley 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The link is what I call 'lying with the truth' in that it is an attempt to give people the belief that homeopaths support vaccination, whereas the vast majority don't. Only allopathic ones, which tells a tale, although one homeopathic MD has written a book denouncing vaccination. john 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I note it is stated that (a subset of) homeopaths do not support vaccination. Are they neutral about it? Do they oppose it? Midgley 13:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nutritional vitamin C cure of measles left out

The Nutritional treatment of measles has been left out [6]. I would put it in but I am sure allopath Davidruben would remove it. john 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)