Talk:Vaccine hesitancy

peer reviewed from HET: vaccination links to child mortality (!)

Miller, NZ.; Goldman, GS. (2011). "Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?". Hum Exp Toxicol. doi:10.1177/0960327111407644. PMID 21543527. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

link 79.180.196.238 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a convincing paper. American children receive a lot of vaccines, but the US ranks only 33rd in infant mortality rate. So therefore vaccines must cause infant mortality! I can think of absolutely no other explanations or confounding variables. Well, actually, I can, but apparently the authors of the paper couldn't. But at least now I have (yet another) useful illustration of the correlation/causation fallacy, which will be handy for educational purposes. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I might have gone with Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because it sounds fancier! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I can barely read the paper. However, it seems to be an interesting article to condemn the quality of the US health care system. Oh, that's not the point. Again, since I can't read it (probably an issue with my browser), do the authors discuss what would happen to the infant mortality rate if we eliminated all vaccines? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Critiques:

1. Neither author is an epidemiologist nor has any credentials in medical analysis.
2. Both authors are well-known in the anti-vaccination circles (which doesn't necessarily exclude their theories, but doesn't make you think that they are truly unbiased)
3. As stated above, proving causation cannot be done by showing correlation. I'm sure that there are huge number of children who broke their arms after getting a vaccination. One cannot therefore conclude that vaccines cause weak bones (though, I wouldn't be surprised if someone did)
4. Authors ignore ALL other causality for increased infant mortality rates.
5. Author's description of the number of vaccinations is miscounted in some cases (specifically the USA), and plainly wrong in others. They seem to wander between counting the number of antigens or the number of shots just to fit the number of "vaccinations" to their beliefs. I cannot believe a peer-review system would not uncover this.
6. If this were a real causation, why wouldn't they do this study over a huge number of years. There's data on both vaccinations and IMR going back 30, maybe 40 years. If their "theory" were right, we would see changes in IMR as the number of antigens or shots changed by country.
7. The "goodness of fit" of the data is really bad. r² is just under 0.5. Again, why would such a lousy result pass peer review.
8. Ooops. Different countries count infant mortality differently. No mention of it.

I could go on. This is enough. Bad article, fails WP:MEDRS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys are being biased and POV. You just can't see the genius behind this study because it refutes your precious "established" science. N^oformation ^Talk 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You better watch out. Your irony may pass for a belief, and some Anonymous IP will latch on to you! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding to Orangemarlin's analysis above, I also have some serious concerns about the data set the authors chose to analyze.

• The countries chosen were the bottom (best) 34 by infant mortality rate. Why 34? Because the United States came 34th. In other words, the authors deliberately ended their analysis with a data point that they knew would sit in their preferred corner of their chart. They provide no justification for this arbitrary cutoff.
• There is no mention of whether or not the children considered in the study actually received the vaccinations scheduled, or even that they survived long enough to receive them. (Having 26 vaccines on the schedule is meaningless unless the children actually received all of those vaccines. The largest contributors to infant mortality in the U.S. are congenital defects and complications due to premature birth and low birth weight; both are likely to kill infants very early—before their first vaccination.)
• Our infant mortality article provides a number of interesting statistics related to the U.S. IMR figures, including a table by state. Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Utah all come in with IMRs under 5; that would place these states in 24th to 26th place if inserted among the countries. Mississippi, meanwhile, has the worst IMR at 10.74; that would place it at number 58 on our List of countries by infant mortality rate. The IMR among white and hispanic Americans is around 5.6 or 5.7, while the IMR among African Americans is a shocking 13.6; if they were a separate country, they'd rank 92nd in the world. The assumption that such an obviously heterogeneous population can or should be treated as a single data point is nonsensical.
• One wonders why the authors did not choose to examine a more relevant statistic like childhood (under-5) mortality.

The U.S.' high overall IMR reflects serious disparities in access to healthcare; it is not caused by vaccinations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your last point is telling. Wouldn't it be interesting to see what the child mortality rate for those who do not receive vaccinations vs. those who do. Even there, it would be difficult to determine causality or lack of causality, but I'd like to know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would wager that the childhood mortality (ages 1-5) in the United States would be significantly lower among the children who received their full schedule of vaccines than among those who missed more than one or two. (Of course, honesty compels me to observe that that could readily be attributed to those children being in higher-income families with better access to health insurance and health care in general.) It's also worth bearing in mind that as long as vaccination levels remain high enough to maintain herd immunity, then the risk of disease (and death) from the childhood diseases on the schedule will be low for all children—not just the ones who got the jab. (The ones who skip their vaccines get a 'free rider' benefit.) It's difficult to properly account for the protective effect of being surrounded by vaccinated children. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in other news, I'm contacting the editors of Human & Environmental Toxicology to offer my services as a peer reviewer. They seem to need some help in that department. :P MastCell ^Talk 07:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a peer review paper from a respectable publisher - if i remember correctly - this is more authoritative than the poorly demonstrated personal-research that i can see in response by the CIA shills or whatever they are. it should get into the article per wikipedia policies as the highly reliable, peer-reviewed information. 79.180.196.238 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the paper DOES NOT focus on USA, but the poorly executed personal research on this threads can give the impression that USA is what it's all about. USA is simply another country in the very VERY strong case presented here: "Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRsshowed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasinginfant mortality rates, with r= 0.992 p= (0.0009). 79.180.196.238 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

CIA shills - seriously IP79.180.196.238? Wikipedia operates using consensus and you think you can come here and convince editors that your edits deserve note by calling them CIA shills. How about you go away and grow up a bit, then come back, start up an account and give adulthood a go. Jeeze, CIA shills. Shot info (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

CIA shills. That's an interesting charge. I wonder if you've read the paper that you're cheerleading for here. The CIA clearly has a hidden agenda aimed at concealing the fact that the United States engages in grossly inequitable and inefficient distribution of its healthcare resources resulting in an embarrassingly high level of infant mortality; the Agency carries out this deception campaign by regularly publishing and freely distributing the infant mortality data on which the authors of this poorly-written paper rely. I'm disappointed that you're not putting a little more care into your conspiracy theories. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What's amusing is that the authors were so lazy that they used CIA data for the infant mortality rate numbers. Real researchers would have contacted each country to get data AND how that data is counted since apparently every country counts infant mortality in a different manner. Another anonymous IP troll that needs a real education in science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy or not - this new data about vaccination from a respectible peer reviewed source that is being used in wikipedia quite a bit, and should be included in the article per Wikipedia policies. all the "critique" is irrelevant to those very real facts. Eyalmc (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess you failed to read the critiques. It's a crap article from a crap journal. Oh, by the way, no one here claimed there was a "conspiracy." Anti-vaccine types do. Now, how about getting an education?

Not even listed in pubmed and their website was updated in 2005 and doesn't even appear to be a journal. N^oformation ^Talk 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even bother to look on PubMed, because I just assumed it would be there. How bad of a medical journal do you have to be that after five years, you're not indexed on PubMed. Wait, it's a conspiracy!!!!!! Big Pharma blocks the journal!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is indexed on PubMed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn search terms N^oformation ^Talk 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on my experience, the POV pushing crowd will use this one error against you for at least 5 years, ignoring all your other proper comments and edits. They do that because they lack any intelligence, knowledge or logic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good. so it is on pubmed - meaning It is not a crap journal, and it is not a crap paper then. Therefore it should be in the article. Eyalmc (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, you have failed to read anything above. Just because it's on PubMed doesn't preclude its being a crap paper in a crap journal. It is a crap paper, period. The only article it should be in is Feces. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

i did read it. appereantlry, the claim that their "website" wa not updated for 5 years is also a lie. Can you explain on what exactly you base your "crap journal" allegation? seems to me a request for comment is needed Eyalmc (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That a journal publishes this article is incontrovertible evidence that it's a crap journal. There are so many fallacies in this article as to make me think that the journal actually doesn't have a peer review policy other than to check spelling. And again, you didn't read a word of our criticism. The article failed on so many levels. And yes, some of us here are pretty fucking smart. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

your "critique" is an original research. This is a valid source, however, your original critique of a peer reviewed article from a respective journal - is not. Eyalmc (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. The article sucks. It's not going to be included, because it is a heaping pile of shit. AND, employing undue weight, let's look at the literally hundreds of articles that say there is no link, written by real researchers with real backgrounds in epidemiology publishing in real journals with real peer review. So, this article FAILS on WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOTAFORUM. That last one has nothing to do with the article specifically, but more on your continued rants here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times, fails WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. That the article is of such horribly low quality is just the icing on the cake of why we shouldn't use it. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To amplify on Yobol's comment, our job is to honestly and accurately convey the current state of human knowledge on this topic. There have been well over 1,000 papers published in peer-reviewed, MEDLINE-indexed journals on vaccine safety (virtually all of which appear in more established and "reputable" journals). There have also been a number of efforts by national and international expert groups to synthesize the available evidence (e.g. U.S. Institute of Medicine, U.K. General Medical Council, U.N. World Health Organization, etc etc).

We need to somehow convey all of this content proportionately so that the reader gets an accurate sense of the weight of evidence and opinion. So even if we put aside the glaring methdological flaws of the article as original research (for now, although several of the better medical blogs have already debunked the piece in detail), I don't see why we should prominently cite this one article in preference to the other 1,000+? Is it because this article reaches a specific conclusion? Or because you honestly believe that it's had, or will have, a major impact on expert opinion in the field? MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the content of this Wikipedia article should be derived to the greatest extent from secondary sources, such as reviews and meta-analyses, as dictated in WP:PST. A single (laughably bad) primary research article, written by questionable "independent researchers" with minimal relevant research experience, from a bottom quartile[1] journal in toxicology is not going to be an appropriate foil for the numerous high-level sources that directly counter some of the nonsense presented in that HET piece. — Scientizzle 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As I sad above, these two are just not worthy of respect, compared to some of the clinicians who published in the over 1000 paper published in real journals. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Following the heaps of WP:OR above, this is obviously not a high quality paper. However, it comes from a peer-reviewed, indexed journal - therefore it meets WP:RS & WP:MEDRS. We can't use our own OR to critique the quality of the source. However, if it is to be added to the article, a balancing POV should also be used, and if this paper is getting this much attention, I'm sure there will be a critique published somewhere that can be used. It is important to note this claim from WP:MEDRS - "individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim" so we should definitely take care in using this (primary) source outside of this article. DigitalC (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First, who gives a shit if the talk page has original research? We criticized the piece of shit publication on this talk page, because we seem to be quite a bit more intelligent than the authors. And once again, there are literally over a thousand (according to PubMed) articles that say there is no link between anything but preventing diseases and vaccinations, so adding this piece of shit citation is so beyond undue weight as to create a whole new definition of undue. This article is crap. The journal is mostly crap with as low an impact factor as you can get and still have an impact factor. But case closed, we're not going to use this piece of shit citation, because it's such crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"It comes from a peer-reviewed, indexed journal - therefore it meets WP:RS and WP:MEDRS." What? Not only is that not what WP:MEDRS says, but MEDRS was drafted specifically to counter the assertion that "it's in a journal, so it belongs in the article." MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Knowing the quality of the evidence helps editors distinguish between minority and majority viewpoints, determine due weight, and identify information that will be accepted as evidence-based medicine. In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. The medical guidelines or position statements produced by nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies often contain an assessment of the evidence as part of the report. Hmmmmm. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the study does come across somewhat biased and the interpretation of the statistics indeed debatable, but it does nonetheless satisfy (sufficiently well, at least) the conventional requirements qualifying it for some sort of inclusion into this article, if nothing more than a footnote. Sebastian Garth (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat biased? Wrong. It satisfies NOTHING to be included in here, unless we want to say "this is what the anti-vaccine idiots have to do to fake and lie their way into a Wikipedia article." So, WRONG. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, certainly no more biased than the prevailing editorial contributions being made here, anyway! I do realize that categorical denial seems to be the status quo these days, but it's really unbecoming of a Wikipedia article, frankly! Most reasonable people are going to read between the lines anyway; might as well be forthcoming about it... Sebastian Garth (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion per WP:MEDRS - seriously, have people not read MEDRS or the discussion about it up to this point? WHat part of secondary sources like medical reviews do people not understand? Yobol (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A primary source can be used according to WP:MEDRS, however that doesn't mean it should be used, and in this case it shouldn't, because there are high quality secondary sources to use. DigitalC (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, this paper doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential." This does not seem to be controversial to include if there are no better sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of a quote from a poorly-written, sloppily-designed, badly-biased primary research paper based on cherry-picked data and published in a low-impact journal would indeed be one thing we could choose to do. Or not. When writing articles, if one's only source for an issue is a single low-quality publication, it is our responsibility as editors to decide whether or not a subject is appropriate for Wikipedia coverage at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand now. Editors can reject a source based on MEDRS or WEIGHT. We will have to wait for a review. QuackGuru (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

My edit mentioning the unscientific nature of the arguments is reverted[2] with the following summary "rvt good faith changes; many of the arguments ARE "scientific", they are just cherry picked and based on bad science and poor studies"

Several observations

• cherry picking, bad science and poor studies is difficult to reconcile with "scientific" arguments,
• any argument that does not adhere to the scientific method is by definition unscientific, unless you can clarify that failing the scientific method still is science.

In light of the above I fail to see which arguments ARE "scientific", could you explain the inherent contradiction in objecting to my qualification while admitting there is no argument based in science, i.e. scientific method, peer review to be found in medical literature. --- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 18:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My objection came from this phrase, "It is essentially based on non-scientific -i.e. religious, ideological- arguments" - this implies that the arguments aren't based on "science" but on religious principles, which is not exactly correct. The arguments are based on bad science, which the rest of the intro I think makes clear. Your point being bad science is not really science at all seems a philosophical argument that could be misleading to the average reader. Yobol (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you refer to Wakefield's work as "scientific?" My argument may be somewhat philosophical but you cannot deny I am right. We have certain requirements before we are allowed to call something science, i.e. Intelligent Design. Once something does not meet those requirements we should not hesitate to call a spade a spade. And not many, if any, of the claims made against vaccination can stand the scrutiny of science. As to religion, ideology, just look at arguments and you see they are based in one of those, or both.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 18:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield's fraud obviously doesn't count as science, but of course that's not the point. There is plenty of bad science out there that anti-vaccinationists are relying on, and it's not just Wakefield's one study. Again, you are making the personal philosophical point that bad science isn't science; while I personally agree with you, I think that writing a neutral article doesn't allow us to let our personal feelings like that intrude on the article. Let's see what others think. Yobol (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I won't press the point. Only one observation, it is not my personal opinion that bad science is not science: that is what science itself says. Hence the fact that science has dismissed the arguments against vaccination. The scientific community has defined what science is. In all the manufactroversy-debates you will find that the reason it is called manufactroversy is that the arguments against the scientific consensus are pseudo-scientific at best and straight out anti-science, i.e. denialism, at worst. What I know about the vaccine non-debate is that the arguments are (mostly) based on refuting science itself, if that isn't unscientific I don't know what is. Which, incidentally is what this article also states. Thank you again and let's see what others think.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can wikipedia editors reject the finding of a relevant peer reviewed paper and not include it in the article?

see: Talk:Vaccine_controversy#peer_reviewed_from_HET:_vaccination_links_to_child_mortality_.28.21.29

• The editors in the above section were having a bit of fun. A primary research paper produces results and conclusions that have exactly zero WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia requires we "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". Have the conclusions of this study been discussed and evaluated by reliable sources? Not that I can see. If no reliable publications consider this study worth mentioning then neither should we. Colin°^Talk 18:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know much about various wikipedia policies but I have some understanding of how research publication works and how reliable findings are at various stages of publication. Long story short, the vast majority of primary sources simply suck. There is a reason we have secondary and terciary publications (weeding out the obviously bad stuff and promoting the well done research as well as evaluating for relevance and coroboration). I think primary sources should be rejected unless there's some other fact involved.--U5K0 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• This question, as phrased, is ludicrous. If Wikipedians were forced to include any article solely because it appears in a journal claiming to practice "peer review", then vaccine controversy would need to include all of the >1,000 such articles published on vaccine safety and efficacy. In reality, editors choose from among these peer-reviewed sources in order to honestly and accurately convey the current state of knowledge. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• The quality and relevance of a medicine paper can't safely be decided by anonymous Wikipedia editors. We rely on published independent high quality reviews by subject experts for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hah! While I was reading this I thought the article was on Vaccines! What a shock when I found it was on the Vaccine Controversy!! There is a serious category error being made by editors here. This is not an article on medicine or medical research, it is a sociological piece on a controversial topic that contains scientific elements. As such it is silly to be bickering about such an article in this context. It is absolutely central to this article to present the views associated with the controversy, and clearly (judging by the heat generated in the talk page) this article contributes to at least one of those views and should be included accordingly. It would be a serious violation of WP:WEIGHT to exclude controversial views in an article explicitly dedicated to controversial views... what else can it contain?!? And to quote from WP:MEDRS (which is barely applicable in a sociological article) "make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers". MissionNPOVible (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't read too much into the section above. As I said, it was just editors having some fun. You are right that context is vital when considering the use of a source. That context is not just the article topic (which you correctly say is about the controversy rather than the vaccines themselves) but any statement included in the article using the source. I can imagine circumstances where this source could be used, though presently, WP:WEIGHT makes this unlikely. Without knowing what text the OP wants to insert, it is hard to give a definite reply. But essentially, have any reliable sources, when discussing vaccine controversy, mentioned this study? WP:WEIGHT doesn't take into account the voices of WP editors on talk pages, only reliable published sources. Is it a notable event in the history of vaccine controversy. Who says so? Are they reliable. Colin°^Talk 07:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For further clarification, WP:MEDRS applies to any medical claim in any article. I should also note that WEIGHT doesn't require all viewpoints be given an airing on Wikipedia, as implied by MissionNPOVible above; it requires us to show all significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the medical literature. As this study has not been reviewed by a secondary source, there is no prominence, and no indication that this study is significant in the grand scheme of the medical literature. Yobol (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, you don't know it is being used to make a "medical claim". The study could be legitimately noted in this article even if nobody in the reliable medical literature accepts the conclusions (i.e., the viewpoint has no weight). One issue is whether this study is an important aspect of "vaccine controversy", which is the subject. And such a controversy is a sociological issue to some degree, as MissionNPOVible says, though not entirely so -- for any discussion of a controversy is likely to include the merits or otherwise of each side's arguments, and those aspects are science/medicine issues. MEDRS will apply if someone is using this source to make a medical claim (or imply one). Colin°^Talk 16:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article inherently makes a medical claim, which makes parsing a bit tricky. While I agree with much of what you're saying, the central point is that one can't make an end run around the need to provide accurate, reliable information simply by adding the word "controversy" to an article title. The same policies and standards (on source quality, undue weight, etc.) apply whether the article is vaccine or vaccine controversy, which I'm not sure MissionNPOVible has appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

@Colin: Agree that sociological discussion of the controversy do not need to meet MEDRS as they do not apply, but I was clarifying the original poster's comment that MEDRS "is barely applicable" here because this is a "sociological article." This is completely incorrect; MEDRS applies to any medical claims on any article, sociological or not - and there are numerous medical claims made in this article that fall under MEDRS. (As an aside, I can't really see how you could use a primary medical article like this to support a sociological point without running afoul of WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT in the process). Yobol (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all on the same page here. I didn't say the study paper could be used as a source for a sociological point. Only that study itself doesn't need to be considered valuable by the medical community to be notable in the controversy. For example, Wakefield's study has zero medical relevance but is highly notable from a sociological aspect. BTW, I find it best to cite policy whenever someone gets all wikilawery about whether MEDRS applies. After all, MEDRS is just the application of policy. Colin°^Talk 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the seductive nature of this category error continues! Interpolating from comments here, there is no Vaccine Controversy in medicine per se. There is, however, a vaccine controversy in society which draws on all manner of sources. I did not say that "this is a sociological article therefore WP:MEDRS never applies" I said "WP:MEDRS...is barely applicable in a sociological article" - because it is rare for a sociological article to make medical claims. Of course, WP:MEDRS would apply to any medical claims that are made in a sociological article, but what exactly is the medical claim being made by citing this source? In fact, where are the medical claims in the RS in question? There are no medical claims, thus WP:MEDRS is inapplicable and being a RS is enough. And without wanting to further distract from the main issue, even WP:MEDRS makes provisions for primary sources, and it is actually other editors who are violating WP:MEDRS by attributing conclusions to the RS that are clearly not made by the authors i.e. they are not making medical claims, but rather statistical ones. As for the WP:WEIGHT issue, the author of this source is obviously a significant contributor to the vaccine controversy debate and it is therefore essential that his views be included. This RS is a recent contribution to his views and should be included accordingly, if only as a note.MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Debates about what is and is not a RS or acceptable source are pointless without someone giving the text and context they are intending to use the source for. That is why the RS noticeboard requires both. I'm afraid a theoretical discussion over whether "WP:MEDRS makes provisions for primary sources" or the paper "being a RS" are naive and misguided. To quote WP:WEIGHT: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.". The author of this source may well be a "significant contributor to the vaccine controversy debate", in the opinion of one editor here. That argument is merely an appeal to (dubious) authority. The only way we can gauge whether this study is notable in the debate is to see what reliable sources have to say about it. That requires secondary sources. Colin°^Talk 07:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• As I said above, this article fails WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT, due to it being a primary study. Yobol (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• As I understand it, we are all on the same page about this article being inadmissable on scientific grounds. There is now a discussion wether it is admissable on sociological controversy grounds. As I see it, this point is irrelevant since, to my knowledge, the article in question has not been part of the public controversy and therefor has no sociological relevance. Am I missing something?--U5K0 (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest two things you may be missing; i) there is no such thing "being inadmissable on scientific grounds" in WP, the main test is WP:RS which the source in question passes; ii) the author is a significant participant in the debate, and this RS is part of his view and case. MissionNPOVible (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The paper is a primary study that, as far as I can tell, received no secondary consideration. While it's true that primary studies can be used, WP:WEIGHT applies, as has been said multiple times in this discussion. N^oformation ^Talk 03:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT makes no mention of primary sources, only RS. And to quote "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". The RS in question is from a leading proponent of a minority view, and while its prominence and use in this WP article is a reasonable discussion to have, there should be no doubt that its inclusion in some form is both relevant and appropriate. MissionNPOVible (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we're hairsplitting, WP:NOR actually refers to primary vs. secondary/tertiary sources (see WP:PSTS). Since you seem to be the only one arguing in favor of using the article, it's kind of silly to assert that "there can be no doubt" about its inclusion. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I wasn't splitting hair, I responded directly to a dismissal based on faulty information, but then I didn't say 'there can be no doubt' either. I merely, and perhaps naively, said there should be no doubt. So I guess it's kind of silly for me to think that a reasoned and reasonable response to this RFC would be immune to ad hominen characterizations of being a silly hairsplitter. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be conveniently overlooking the various policy-based arguments against the likely ability of any editor to use it as a source. Merely repeating that the study paper is an RS is missing the point. Nearly every published text is an RS for something. And RS is not the only factor. We don't include facts or opinions merely because they can be reliably sourced. The WP:WEIGHT policy is not just about opposing viewpoints; it states that "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject" (my emphasis). Colin°^Talk 07:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Peer reviewed is not a magic phrase that renders all other considerations moot. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. The paper by Neil Z. Miller, Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute and Gary S. Goldman, Editor-in-Chief of Medical Veritas: The Journal of Medical Truth claiming "nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates" has WP:REDFLAG problems that I would consider grounds for exclusion (see Storks Deliver Babies (p= 0.008)). Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

edit clash - Those category errors just keep on comin'!! What exactly is it about this RS that is not relevant to the Vaccine Controversy? The quote you provide is exactly why it should be included! This gentleman is a leading proponent of an alternative view that is the very topic of this WP article. You are completely misusing WP:REDFLAG - which, incidentally, does not say says 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence', but that "exceptional claims require high-quality sources". The claim you quoted is not an exceptional claim of this particular author, and it is contained in a very high-quality source anyway! So it is totally reasonable to say something like: Miller recently argued that "nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates". -ref goes here- I'm not intending to get involved in contributing to the actual writing of this article, so I don't put this forward as an example of what should be written, merely as what could be written whilst abiding by all of WP policies. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-We cannot say it like that because that comes off as if we're purporting it to be true when it's not true, and it would make it seem like we were attempting to source the claim rather than the claim that he said it; inherent trouble with quoting fringe claims. N^oformation ^Talk 07:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no attachment to the phrasing, and am happy to embrace improvements, but you usefully touch on the core of the matter - being able to express the truth (that he said it) without implying the truth of the statement. I don't see that being a very difficult problem to overcome for those wishing to work on this article. I'm just trying to tease out that there are the two truths here, one of which is appropriate for this article, the other of which I have minimal interest in. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ArtifexMayhem is quoting Sagan on the exceptional claims bit. WP has merely adopted the phrase for its own purpose. MissionNPOVible is right that the Truth or otherwise contained in that study is irrelevant wrt a discussion on vaccine controversy. Otherwise, we wouldn't be mentioning Wakefield because that's not just a False finding but a Fraudulent one too. Whether or not the authors are respectable parts of mainstream science or complete nutters doesn't matter either, other than for documenting which side of the controversy they fall into. MissionNPOVible, please stop making the error that just because someone is notable or relevant, that everything they say or write is also notable or relevant.

I'm glad you've finally given some example text for us to use. You are right that the research paper would be a reliable source for that statement and satisfy WP:V on that point, but our policy pages state upfront that the "three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another" You have been repeatedly arguing that because the source can be considered RS (for some facts/opinions) and because the author is a notable part of the controversy, that we should include a statement about the study. But anyone who reads WP:NPOV carefully will realise that secondary sources are essential for determining whether something should be presented as a fact, as a possibility or as an opinion, and for working out the weight we give to that text in our articles. Editor opinion cannot be used to gauge whether this study's findings are universally accepted, universally derided, universally ignored or all the variants in between. What we need are reliable sources commenting on this study in the context of vaccine controversy.

You do touch on a difficult issue that including a statement will appear to give it legitimacy. This is exploited by POV pushers all over WP who would like to include "A peer-reviewed study published recently in XXX by professor emeritus YYY found that ZZZ" as a way of avoiding the need to show whether anyone other than the great prof actually believes ZZZ. This is why we have other policies than just "can it be reliably sourced". And why MastCell makes the point that sticking Controversy onto a subject does not allow it to be filled with an arbitrary collection of opposing views just because someone somewhere has made them. Colin°^Talk 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was quoting Beyerstein[3], quoting Sagan paraphrasing Truzzi paraphrasing Laplace and Hume. Everything else is spot on :) - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question - The topic of the proposed Miller/Goldman journal article, even though a primary source, is certainly within the scope of the Vaccine controversy article. Whether or not it should be included depends on how significant the article's content is. I think it should be included in this WP article if either (1) the Miller/Goldman article is referenced by a significant number of secondary sources commenting on vaccine controversies; or (2) there are several other sources which discuss similar purported correlations (hence Miller/Goldman is just one example of a larger body). So my question for the editors that want to include the Miller/Goldman article is: can you supply any additional references that satisfy either of those two criteria? If neither criteria is met, it should not be included. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been here 5 minutes and I already know this guy is a leading proponent of the anti-vaccine movement - he's written at least 7 books on the topic and has evidently got at least one article published in a RS. And yet somehow he doesn't qualify as significant enough for an article in WP on the Vaccine Controversy!! I would have to say that if I was a long term editor of this article I'd be hanging my head in shame that such a person is not mentioned, and what's more, that an article deemed fit to print by a peer review journal is brought to these talk pages to be made fun of!! I don't know what people think WP is for, but displays of arrogance and POV entertainment aren't on the list. I have a "Question" of my own: Please explain why this man's work does not rate a mention in this article? MissionNPOVible (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments might be reasonable if the person writing this article was an academic or a science journalist, who knew the field, and can use their own judgement to decide what to include or not. Wikipedia is different to those publications. We are simply not allowed to make these calls ourselves. We must wait for reliable secondary sources to judge whether this study is as flawed as it seems or some amazing shock discovery that will bring down vaccination. And then it will get a proportion of coverage due, according to these reliable sources, not according to WP editors, or according to how important the study authors are in their field (in your opinion). Lots of crap get published in "peer reviewed journals", and frankly the authors and publishers deserve all the ridicule they get. But don't let the above section distract you because that's not really what WP talk pages are for. Instead of "arrogance", we are in fact completely humbled by not being allowed to put our own opinions into articles. Think of the above section as simply letting off a bit of steam. Colin°^Talk 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@MissionNPOVible - You ask why the Miller/Goldman journal article should not be included, since it is clearly on-point for this WP article. The answer is: There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of journal articles on the topic, and this WP article cannot mention them all. The criteria to decide which journal articles to mention in this WP article is either (1) the journal article is referenced by some other significant sources; or (2) the journal article is representative of a large class of similar articles. I'm willing to concede that the Miller/Goldman article meets one of these thresholds, but some evidence is needed to demonstrate that. If the Miller/Goldman article is important, other sources will mention it, and it should be easy to provide such references. --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Can wikipedia editors reject the finding of a relevant peer reviewed paper and not include it in the article?" - Yes, there is wp:UNDUE Bulwersator (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

WP is about providing balanced, accurate, NPOV information. Some editors seem to be saying that an article explicitly dedicated to a topic should exclude referring to prominent proponents of one side of that topic because of tortured logic relating to secondary sources. Let's be clear, primary sources are not excluded from WP, but they are not to be the sole source. The gentleman in question is not mentioned in this article - presumably due to similar tortured logic. WP policies are designed to establish veracity and apportion appropriate weight, not to exclude views. The treatment of this RS appears to be symptomatic of a broader, more troubling, exclusionist mindset dominating this article. Note that I am not arguing that this article should be quoted extensively, or even quoted at all, but it should be referenced as a significant part of one side of the debate. Note also that I am not arguing that all sides of the debate be given equal weight, nor am I saying that secondary sources are not needed, nor am I saying that there shouldn't be an appropriate disclaimer about mainstream views. I am simply advocating for some intellectual honesty here by acknowledging in the article who the leading proponents of the anti-vaccine movement are and what their arguments are. This particular RS has shone a light into a bit of a shabby corner, and I think it could do with a tidy up. MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, me again. As I see it the issue is with the idea that the primary publication in question is a significant part of one side of the debate simply and exclusively because it was authured by a prominent player on one side of the controversy. I think this is not sufficient to establish the Miller/Goldman journal articles' significance. In my opinion there needs to be something more than just 'the author is important'. Again I'm not up to speed with WP policy... I'm just giving my Wiki-Ignorant opinion for what it may be worth. --U5K0 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Providing "balanced" information is a non-starter per WP:WEIGHT: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't using "balanced" as in see-saw, I was using it as an adjective - much as one would use 'level headed'. So even though you seem to have managed to miss/ignore the entire point of my post, your quote from WP:WEIGHT is useful since it reinforces exactly my point - Miller is a significant contributor to the anti-vaccine subject, and yet he is not mentioned at all in the article, this is a clear example of a violation of WP:WEIGHT. As for U5K0's comment about needing more than 'the author is important', it is perfectly understandable how you might get that impression from this talk page, but if you do get a chance to read the WP policy you will find that that is exactly what matters, except the word used in WP is notable, not important. MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@MissionNPOVible: You say that excluding the Miller/Goldman source is excluding "prominent proponents". I ask for the third time: can you provide some evidence that Miller/Goldman (or any other source you want to include in the article) are "prominent"? Can you provide secondary sources that refer to them? Can you provide vaccine controversy documents that describe them as key researchers? Until such evidence is adduced (and I have no idea if it exists or not) they are just one of thousands of researchers doing research in a huge area. If they are indeed "prominent proponents" it should be easy to find many sources that describe them as key authorities. --Noleander (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely my point!!!!! It should have been easy to find such sources. As I said, I have no interest in contributing to the writing of this article, but those who are interested should have had no difficulty finding such sources because, as I said, in the trivial amount of research I have conducted into the matter I have already found that this guy has written over half a dozen books on the topic and been published in a peer reviewed journal - making him a notable contributor to the field. At the very least his work is specifically related to the topic and should be reported on in it's own right, and there are undoubtedly other RS's that refer to him. But if you are trying to make the case that his work is not appropriate because it's all primary, if I'm correctly interpreting what seems to be implied by some editors here, then there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant policies. If you could only refer to work that refers to him, then you couldn't refer to that work unless something else referred to it first, and so on ad infinitum. That's a complete misreading of secondary and primary sources. Beside which, why haven't editors seen this peer reviewed article and said to themselves, "gee, this looks like a point of view that's relevant to this article, maybe these authors have other work that should be included". Without claiming any expertise or even knowledge in this field, I would imagine that an anti-vaccine article getting published in a peer reviewed journal is a pretty big deal for anti-vaccine advocates, a pretty big deal for the whole field, and a pretty big deal for this WP article. I don't think the appropriate response in an intellectually honest article is to ignore it or laugh it away. MissionNPOVible (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) MissionNPOVible, our point is that unless someone produces sources that say Miller is a signifiant player in the vaccine controversy, we don't cover it. Unless someone produces sources that say this study is an important one in the vaccine controversy, we don't cover it. Please try to get this point because it is a core policy. If you have no interest in finding such sources, then it is fine to leave a comment that in your opinion they should exist and the article should cover these topics. Someone with enough time and access to reliable sources may pick up on it -- we're all volunteers and not everyone here has access to a university library, say. You may well be right that WP should include Miller or this study in the article. Or perhaps we will include the study in six months, once a few reviews or such have been published. But you will not get this study or this person into the article simply by arguing the case, from your own research and opinion, that it/he should go in. And you cannot demand that other editors do the research to find the sources. I think you've made your point enough. It is taken. Let's see if the rest of the world agree that this study is a "pretty big deal". We might have to be patient. Colin°^Talk 07:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm intrigued to discover you speak for a group - or is that the royal "our"? ;-) Anyway, you still seem to miss my point, apparently regardless of how often I say or rephrase it. Miller is already a secondary source and contributor to this debate - he comments on, about, and contributes to the Vaccine controversy. In fact it seems he has been relatively prolific in doing so. If you are arguing that you have to wait for someone else to mention his work before he can be included in this article, then I say that is a perverse interpretation of WP policy which results in a logical infinite regress, whereas a simple trip to the page on the man in WP will show that he has satisfied notability. If he warrants a BLP page, then surely the things that make him notable are appropriate for a WP article on the area of his specialisation. Note that I have extended my comments to Miller, not just this RS, and if you (or others) include Miller as a notable protagonist of one side of the Vaccine Controversy then it would be eminently sensible to include some kind of reference to this peer reviewed article. Note that I am also not demanding "other editors do the research", I am observing that what has passed as NPOV on this WP article is a pale imitation that demonstrates a considerable POV bias against including notable contributors to the debate. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to be not getting the point and I'll only end up repeating what I said already, I'm done with this conversation. Colin°^Talk 11:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this reached and breached ad nauseam around 4 iterations previous and there's nothing more to talk about here. We'll have to agree to disagree and move on, but consensus is clearly towards rejecting the source. N^oformation ^Talk 11:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's frustrating having one person respond to many people's perspectives - it seems like they just wont shut up. I'm happy to leave it there because I'm getting sick of it myself, and I'm only replying to those who have replied to me - it's just that there's been quite a few. And yet nobody has addressed my core point - Miller should be in an article on the Vaccine controversy since he has written many secondary, and primary, RS's on exactly that topic and is notable in his own right per WP:BLP. I too shall bow out now. MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will note that Neil Z. Miller has a substantial list of books to his credit, but it appears that they're principally (exclusively?) printed by New Atlantean Press. Our article identifies Miller as a publisher of New Atlantean Press. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources

The Lancet, apparently doing penance for unleashing Andrew Wakefield on the world, is running a fairly decent series of articles on vaccine safety, efficacy, and research. We might want to consider using PMID 21664679 ("Addressing the vaccine confidence gap") as a source here. It's a fairly thorough if somewhat dry summary of a lot of the issues covered in this article. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"repeatedly disproved and denounced..."=

At the moment there's a lot of back-and-forth over this content, which is fact-tagged: [4]

• Now, I think it's likely to be substantially true, but that's not good enough. If unsourced content is challenged and removed, warring to return it without change is not the right answer. The right answer is to find a source and then restore the content. If you can't find a source that says what you want to say, don't add content back in. Please.
  
• Repeatedly re-adding contested content with a fact tag is not far from an admission that "I know it's true, I just don't have a source that says so..."

bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Content from the main vaccine article

There's a bit in the main vaccine article I've removed since it's in the section that's supposed to summarize this article, but the topic, while clearly part of the controversy, is not mentioned here. A copy-paste if someone wants to include it:

A more extreme response to this concern is the claim that spreading false information about vaccine risks amounts to involuntary manslaughter, claiming that celebrity promotion of the vaccine-autism link was followed by "an increase in the number of vaccine preventable illnesses as well as an increase in the number of vaccine preventable deaths" and thus "may be indirectly responsible for at least some of these illnesses and deaths."

It probably needs some better (i.e. third-party) sources. SDY (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename proposal

"Controversy" is a very loaded term. I'd suggest this article would be better named "Anti-vaccination movement", which'd only require a rewrite of the lead, and maybe a slight copyedit of some of the content. It would also give this article a much-needed focus. It would also allow for easy contextualisation of what's fringe, and what's science, something this article muddles horribly at times. 86.** IP (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, a title such as Anti-vaccination movement better describes the article, and upon reading it you already have a clear idea about what the article is about. Where as Vaccine controversy is rather vague.Meatsgains (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a different article? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not signficantly. All sections except the lead could largely stay as they are, though the order might change a little bit. But it'd provide a much-needed focus to the article: as it stands, it flounders a lot of the time, such as in the safety section, which includes a lot of unsupported claims by the antivaccination movement, mixed in with things like Vaccine controversy#Prenatal infection, which is on the dangers of NOT taking vaccines. With the refocus, this could easily be dealt with by having sections such as, say, "common claims" and "dangers of failure to vaccinate". 86.** IP (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Movement" isn't an appropriate term. The dictionary definition of that requires an organised collective moving towards a common goal. But reading the article shows there are multiple and distinct issues with vaccines that various groups have raised (rightly or wrongly) and that these groups do not all share the same goal nor do they all work together. For example, it is possible to be opposed to or have doubts about one vaccine but approve of vaccination in general. Wakefield, for example, suggested using single vaccines rather than using MMR.

"Controversy" can be a problem word, particularly when used in areas where there really is no controversy among reliable sources. For example, there was a point in time around 10 years ago when it would be acceptable to say (in news reporting, say) "the controversial MMR vaccine", because there was an ongoing controversy. The use of that phrase now would indicate a bias because the controversy has died. Regardless, the MMR vaccine controversy was a historical situation. The theory of evolution is controversial among the US population, but not among biologists say. So I'm saying the word has its problems but can be the correct word at times. Colin°^Talk 07:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Would "Opposition to vaccination" be a reasonable title, or would that have problems of its own? Jakew (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only word I can think of reliable sources use in connection to this is "anti-vaccinationists"; we might be able to get away with just using that? If not, "Opposition to vaccination" is by far the best term of the remaining. 86.** IP (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Both terms assume the arguments or people are opposed to vaccination rather than to certain vaccines or components of the vaccines. This is true for many but not all. The danger with grouping terminology is that it leads to an us and them mentality that polarises debate. Colin°^Talk 12:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority are, though. Anyway, the current title is highly POV; that there is a range of opinion is to be expected, and can be dealt with using reliable sources. 86.** IP (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that "controversy" does tend to overstate things; as I understand it there is a small fringe of opponents, but no real controversy at present. For that reason I agree that another title would be preferable, but I'd prefer not to adopt one that introduces more problems than it solves.

Colin, I do see what you're saying: that "opposition to vaccination" could imply opposition to any and all forms of vaccination, but isn't it also reasonable to read it as "opposition to at least some forms of vaccination"? I think that, as long as we clarify the scope in the lead, this should be a solvable problem. But maybe "opposition to vaccines" might lend itself to a narrower interpretation? Jakew (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My impression from having followed the subject a while is that the vast majority of antivaccination in the West is to all vaccines; there are a few major exceptions, for instance, the HPV vaccine was attacked because it protects against a sexually-transmitted cancer, and was attacked by religious groups because they just want women to be "pure". One might also discuss the (mainly Africa and East Asia I think) rumours about the polio vaccine that caused the polio eradication program to stall.

However, in the West, as I said, it tends to be more all-encompassing, but - and here's where we need to be careful - the public statements and the more private statements of groups can vary, because full-out antivaccination is very bad PR. A good example is the Australian Vaccination Network, which positioned itself to the media as a reasonable and reliable campaigner for safe vaccines, then got caught out attacking the parents of a child who died from a vaccine-preventable disease, because supposedly such childhood diseases couldn't kill people. So, yeah, a little caution is needed, because while there certainly are single-focus issues, there's also some groups that may be a little deceitful in their PR.

This shouldn't be an issue unless we go into a lot more detail about specific organisations and people than would be reasonable, though. 86.** IP (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how the "current title is highly POV". We have lots of articles that either have controversy in their title or are categorised as controversies. That vaccines (or certain vaccines) are controversial is an indisputable fact. We'd have no article if some people didn't strongly object and their objections weren't strongly disputed. It's a term used by Paul Offit, for example, just as it is used by Jenny McCarthy.

Wrt Jakew's question, no. If you read it that way then you are reading it wrongly. Would you think it acceptable to group the scientists objecting to the teaching of creationism in science lessons as "opposition to education"? Colin°^Talk 15:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The opposition to vaccines is, in the abstract, a fringe view (in medicine; obviously it's important in popular culture). For articles on scientific subjects, "controversy" implies a scientific controversy, and by and large, none exists.

Now, obviously, like any continuum of views, there's going to be some exceptions. Some of the obvious ones was the controversy a few years ago about preemptive vaccination against a theoretical weaponised smallpox; I also seem to recall that the polio vaccine was changed to a different sort in the US as well recently, but can't remember the details of the science. But, as anti-vaccination is commonly understood, there is no evidence for almost all the claims, so controversy - a loaded word - shouldn't be used. 86.** IP (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that's a reasonable analogy, Colin. It's like opposition to water fluoridation: does that imply opposition to people adding fluorides to their own glass of water? It seems unlikely. Or opposition to abortion: does that imply opposition to emergency abortions needed to save a woman's life? My guess is some would say yes, but at least some opponents would tolerate such procedures. In each of these cases opposition to X doesn't imply opposition to every possible form of X, and it's reasonable to suppose that exceptions exist. But the term conveniently conveys the idea of opposition to some forms of X.

The trouble with your analogy is that "opposition to education" is so over-broad that it doesn't remotely convey the idea of opposition to teaching creationism. Opposition to vaccines, on the other hand, is a reasonable description of the views of many opponents, as many of them do oppose vaccination as a general point. Jakew (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[Unindent] ...Before we go any further: Are we horribly misunderstanding your point, Colin? 86.** IP (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to vaccination per se is fringe. However, there are issues surrounding vaccines that are not fringe concerns. Establishing vaccine safety and producing large, expensive studies to show the lack of any links to dread diseases is not done because the scientists have nothing better to do and governments and drug companies are awash with spare cash. Some governments choose to spend their money offering free vaccines and encouraging parents to vaccinate their children. Others spend their money elsewhere. That's a controversy. In the UK, chicken-pox vaccine is not offered freely to all, partly because of the fear it will increase rates of shingles. In many US states, it is compulsory for attendance to government schools. That's a controversy. That the UK chose Cervarix rather than Gardasil as the HPV vaccine is controversial. See this essay for some of the issues arising from these HPV vaccines not offering complete protection against cervical cancer. That's a complex issue. In the UK, our legal aid system was sapped of £15 million fighting the MMR vaccine controversy. The legal system didn't just say "that's fringe, go away". They spend £15 million of my money! Was that worth spending? That's a controversy. Colin°^Talk 19:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You make some very good points there, Colin. Jakew (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some variation of "Anti-vaccionation " is the best page title, then, since that explicitly refers to the fringe movement, and excludes the cases that are scientific controversies. If our subject's too broad, it's almost impossible to write a decent article on it. Mainstream, scientific contoversies should go into vaccine (or possibly Chicken pox vaccine, not a sub article. 86.** IP (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean, put all the nutters together? That would be bad IMO. This article would be stronger if it covered the above scientific, political, ethical and economic controversies, which are just a small sample of the reasonable issues surrounding vaccination. It is good, healthy and required by NPOV for us to show that vaccination is a complex issue. Making an "Anti-vaccionation" article would just polarise things and give the reader the wrong impression that any concerns about vaccination are stupid. One aspect of unbalance in this article is the "Events following reductions in vaccination", which has very little to say about controversies but reads like a long argument saying "Look what terrible things happen when we stop or reduce vaccinations". Colin°^Talk 09:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: There are notable scientific controversies, but they're relatively minor - and then way out there in left field, we have dozens of notable organisations, with no science whatsoever. the latter needs coverage, and covering it with the minor scientific disputes tends to justify the nonsense. It's like saying that we shouldn't have an article on creationism, because of punctuated equillibrium. 86.** IP (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What about "Opposition to vaccines"? This skirts the problem of whether the oppostion is to vaccination in general, or only to particular vaccines. I agree that "controversy" overstates the case, and that "movement" implies a level of organization that isn't there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. 86.** IP (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't think this helps, nor is necessary. You don't seem to accept there is a controversy about vaccines. It isn't just that their exists a number of arguments for vaccines and a number of arguments against (reasonable or otherwise). The actual controversy is an issue in itself and part of the article subject. If there was no controversy, it wouldn't be all over the news on a regular basis. What exactly is the problem with the current title. Colin°^Talk 07:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See Manufactroversy. 86.** IP (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this. See my comment at Talk:Andrew Wakefield. Controversies come and go. They can remain even when the scientific debate is settled. See Creation–evolution controversy for a biggie. Over at Andrew Wakefield, I stated that his claims were no longer "controversial" and shouldn't be labelled as such. Only a tiny fringe hold onto their belief in him and his claims. I think you need to separate the scientific controversy from the controversy in the population, which very much exists. And there are less-hyped more-rational controversies surrounding certain vaccines, which this article currently neglects. Type "vaccine controversy" into Amazon or Google Scholar and you'll find papers and books on the subject, mostly from a scientific POV. Colin°^Talk 11:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I think this is a bad term. We ought to be able to discuss the historical antivaccination somewhere, without hitting issues where it's no longer controversial. "vaccine controversy" implies A. that there's only ONE controversy, which all things discussed are a part of, B. that these are similar to each other - when they aren't, they arise for many reasons, some justified, most not - and C. that they're ongoing debates.

At the very least, we should move to something like "History of vaccine controversies", which avoids those implications. 86.** IP (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the arguments presented in this thread, I favour no change to the title. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be moved to something without "controversy" in the title, as that description is clearly pushing a POV. It suggests that there is mainstream scientific controversy, or notable controversy. The complaints themselves are not notable but fringe. What is notable is that these fringe beliefs exist. The existence of a Flat Earth Society does not mean we should have an article titled Shape of the world controversy. DreamGuy (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I proposed changing "controversial" to "discredited" in the Andrew Wakefield lead for the reasons raised here by 86, but I don't believe those concerns apply to this article which is about various controversies, popular and scientific, historical and current. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with changing the title, and just as a random comment, the singular "controversy" is inaccurate. I agree that the title of the article should change, but we should really be clear on what the content is before we try to find a title for it. If this article is going to cover modern and historical anti-vaccination movements, that's a reasonable scope for the article. The actual debate over the validity of the claims should be covered in WP:DUE weight in the relevant sections of the relevant articles (e.g. claims that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective shouldn't get shoved in the corner nor should they get a special soapbox to make their claims). SDY (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the title, but a more appropriate one needs to be carefully thought out (at the minimum, it needs to be changed to "Vaccine controversies" as SDY has noted). Should we try to separate out the anti-vaccine fringe from more science based controversies? Yobol (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a very interesting idea. If we were to cover the two issues in separate articles, as you suggest, we could have more appropriate titles for each: "opposition to vaccination" for the fringe lobby, and "vaccine controversies" for the remainder. Jakew (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This would not work. Most vaccine controversies are seized upon by the anti-vaccine groups so it is difficult to separate them. Colin°^Talk 12:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has given a satisfactory explanation for why "controversy" in the title is POV or inappropriate. It appears in lots of other articles, as I've already noted, even where the science is conclusively on one side. BTW: WP article titles are typically singular but I've no strong feeling against the plural. Controversy is a term that can be problematic but is perfectly appropriate here. It is a term used by both sides of the debate, and indeed is included in the title of various scientific papers and books. In contrast, "Opposition to vaccines" is POV because it assumes that acceptance or promotion of vaccines is the default and opposition a notable deviation. I've already given the example of chickenpox vaccine being practically mandatory in one country but almost unavailable in another. Another example is the BCG which has never been widely used in the US but was in the UK until recently. There are interesting rational and irrational controversies with vaccines that this article should cover. Vaccines have complicated ethical, political, economic, social, health and scientific aspects. Those are lost if we create an article that just lists the grievances of nutters alongside the rebuttals of scientists, which is what "separate out the anti-vaccine fringe" would achieve and would be a NPOV nightmare (is the UK position on chickenpox vaccine reasonable?) If someone wants an article on the anti-vaccine movement then write that article. If someone thinks this one is inherently POV, then send it to AfD. Colin°^Talk 22:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling that "controversy" is inappropriate. I have worked closely in articles where the science is clear (thiomersal controversy, aspartame controversy, etc) and do not find the title particularly POV, as long as the article makes clear that the controversy is from the fringe side. Yobol (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if it was pluralised, but unpluralised, we risk encouraging people to treat things without scientific justification and things with scientific justification as the same thing. Even then, there's a difference between an incident like the MMR vaccine flareup, and an ongoing pseudo-movement stretching centuries. 86.** IP (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c, reply is to Colin) I hear what you're saying about "controversies not related to opposition" but is there necessarily a reason they have to be included in the same article? A "things people whine about when it comes to vaccines" article veers far too close to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTFORUM. Vaccines have complicated ethical, political, economic, social, health, and scientific aspects, and trying to cover them all in one article (other than Vaccine and Vaccination, obviously) isn't necessary or useful. What I'm proposing isn't really a rename - it's splitting up topics that shouldn't have been covered together in the first place. All controversies in one article is just a recipe for troll bait. SDY (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. 86.** IP (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:PLURAL seems to allow us to rename this Vaccine controversies as it discusses a class of controversies rather than just one. The MMR vaccine controversy would be one specific example.

Vaccine controversies are a suitable subject for an article. They (both individually and collectively) have been the subjects of books and papers. They range from the rational to the irrational, from the scientific to the religious or political. This article hasn't been "troll bait" any more than any other controversial article. I really don't see how, on WP, you would be allowed to create an article for the silly controversies and one for the serious controversies, or however you wish to frame the differences. The current article could be greatly improved and would be a brilliant example of our policies if it carefully explained all the controversies so the reader understands that there are complex issues to think about, not just sides to take. Colin°^Talk 12:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are complex issues to think about, but putting them all into one article just because they're all controversial doesn't make a lot of sense. Part of our job as editors is slicing up messy reality into digestible pieces, and presenting multiple morasses of meandering as one article doesn't fulfill that obligation. I especially agree we should not be splitting this into subarticles of "real controversies" and "fake controversies" because that makes the same problem worse - it becomes the opinions of our editors, not a neutral organization of the facts. That people write books about controversies-in-general-as-controversies-in-general means they want to sell books to the partisans looking to prove a point and win an argument (i.e. "vaccines bad" or "vaccines good"). Wikipedia should not follow that lead. SDY (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. We need an overview article on vaccine controversies, there is nothing POV about this article's title, and it could be better written. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Certain parts of the article are already in summary style. Perhaps a constructive approach would be to move and expand coverage of the anti-vaccination lobby in a separate article, and include a short summary section here in this article. As others have noted, this article should also be renamed to the plural 'controversies'. Jakew (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what SDY is proposing. If you like the individial controversies as individual articles (or sections within the article on the vaccine) then we have that. We also have this article that discusses the various controversies both historical and current. Perhaps there's a separate article on the anti-vaccination movements but I'm not sure. Many of these "movements" are only anti-vac as a side issue (they are peddling some autism quack cure, or are legal bods seeking compensation money, or they have some religious or political angle). Colin°^Talk 13:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

See also the "Additional source" MastCell links above. It is the sort of area this article should discuss. It wouldn't fit into an anti-vac movement article because the hearts and minds those authors are considering are ordinary folk who decide, based on what they've been told and choose to believe, not to vaccinate their children, but they don't have strong opinions on the matter of their own. Colin°^Talk 13:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, I'm proposing that 1) this article recognize that it isn't one controversy (I can think of four completely unrelated controversies without even trying), 2) that the history of anti-vaccination movements is a reasonable topic for their own article (most of which is here), and that 3) an overview of "all controversies" isn't really a logical article - the controversies aren't necessarily on common topics or from a common source. A reader shouldn't have to go to a subarticle to know which elements of vaccination are contentious - hiding disputes causes NPOV problems for the main article, and overblowing the disputes in a subarticle is equally problematic. SDY (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, as someone who works on a number of vaccine controversy articles, I do not see a significant NPOV problem being caused by the presence of this article. I agree that anti-vaccine movement can be spun off to its own separate article with a summary here, but I don't see how changing this article would help NPOV. Yobol (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure there's a problem now, but it seems like there's a possibility for a WP:POVFORK between this article and the parent article, and we can avoid even the possibility by just structuring things differently. The three points in my comment above are in general order of importance. I don't think we should have a dedicated controversy article (they're not encouraged, see WP:CRITICISM), but it's not an immediate problem. SDY (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: WP:CRITICSIM, read the last paragraph of that essay. Both individually and collectively, vaccine controversies are a notable topic in themselves and collectively and have dedicated books and papers (reliable sources). I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether this article is useful or whether a history of anti-vac movements would be useful. Given the recent name change, I suggest this discussion is now resolved. Colin°^Talk 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it's not binding policy, but that doesn't mean we should discard it out of hand. The last section, as I read it, is for individual controversies that are a parent topic by themselves (e.g. the Wakefield affair), not daughter articles of an obvious parent. I don't know that this is resolved, but I don't see any real resolution and agree that there's not a likely consensus in our near future, so we might as well leave it as is. I'm curious as to why you think a history of anti-vaccination movements (as a sub-article as Yobol proposed) would be a bad idea. SDY (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would work but movements are, as I noted above, "an organised collective moving towards a common goal", not just individuals or specific controversies. So this would concentrate on organisations like the historical religious ones and the modern day ones that exist to make money from the legal compensation system or peddle quack cures. But you'll have problems with the current ones because e.g., JABS and Generation Rescue both deny they are anti-vaccination organisations. Colin°^Talk 17:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversies is worse than controversy. Not only is it against the regular naming conventions, it gives more weight to the anti-vaccination aspect by saying there are more of them. (But the other titles suggested were much worse than this one.)

Also the move was messed up by not moving the talk archives. I just moved them, so archive again accessible. Zodon (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

100 peer-reviewed studies on the lethality of vaccines

An examination of peer-reviewed studies from authoritative sources shows that not only can many vaccines be considered to be subtly lethal, but also a source for the proliferation of new diseases. See the following collection of 100 peer-reviewed studies: http://www.archive.org/details/HorrorOfVaccinationExposedPottinger's cats (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, though. Please see WP:MEDRS for discussion of suitable sources for medical topics. Jakew (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:MEDRS. I just put forth this list to spark further discussion among editors, I was not intending to use it as a source itself. Perhaps some of the individual peer-reviewed papers may be used as sources in the future by editors. The information is quite unfortunate, and it pains me to put it forth, but it is independently verifiable, and shows that this practice has a very dark underbelly.Pottinger's cats (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "dark underbelly" is unnecessary hyperbole. Most of the papers cited seem to be individual case reports, which are a very poor standard of evidence (and, indeed, are generally unsuitable for use of sources). Because case reports are — literally — a report that A has followed B on a single occasion, they often fail to establish causation definitively. Moreover, they give no indication of the frequency with which a complication (assuming that it is a complication) might occur. What I would prefer to see is a modern, peer-reviewed review of vaccination risks, preferably placing them in their proper perspective: how they weigh against the benefits. Jakew (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times that talk pages are not to "spark" discussion. They serve one purpose and one purpose alone: to discuss specific changes to articles centered around reliable sources. You've attempted the same style of discussion at multiple pages now and it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and tendentious. Please stop this behavior. We have policies to which you must adhere if you want to work on wikipedia - the more you ignore this advice the less patience the community will have with you. You're off to a bad start, turn it around now before you pass the precipice.

FYI, per WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE we will not use primary studies to counter secondary sources. This is not negotiable - it doesn't matter how good you think your argument is because this is not a debate forum. Consensus is formed by appeal to policy. The mainstream medical community considers vaccination safe and that is always what our article will reflect until the medical community determines otherwise. It doesn't matter how much you complain or argue on this or other fringe pages - our policies are specifically written to not give a serious voice to fringe ideas. All you will accomplish is getting blocked. Take my advice or leave it, I have been around a lot longer than you and I have seen many a fringe POV pusher get blocked or topic banned due to their refusal to heed this kind of advice. N^oformation ^Talk 20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A massive list of unanalyzed studies with no indication of where the balance of peer reviewed literature lies, is not a starting point for a discussion of the bias of the page. If you were aware of MEDRS you'd know that we rely on recent secondary sources published in highly respected peer-reviewed journals to expand our pages. Not random lists pulled from internet archives. Find something in the real scholarly literature and we can talk - right now you give no indication of even understanding the significance of the "source" you're showing us. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a very poorly curated list of nearly-randomly selected publications. I get the impression that someone did some keyword searches in PubMed and dropped in any article that mentioned vaccines along with some negative consequence. We have an unsorted list that mixes in anecdotal reports, case studies, epidemiological research, hypotheses, speculation, and letters to journal editors. Unlike, for example, a comprehensive review article appearing in a peer-reviewed medical journal – which might serve as a useful starting point for improving this article – this list has not been vetted for the quality and relevance of its sources.

Neither the creator of the list nor the editor advocating its use here appears to have reviewed its contents in any way, let alone actually read the articles in question to determine if they support the point that they're trying to make. For example, two of the entries in the list (Lindley and Milla, and Bedford et al., both appearing in 1998) are actually letters to the editor of The Lancet, harshly criticizing Andrew Wakefield's now-withdrawn study that attempted to link the MMR vaccine to autism. (The study was withdrawn by the journal, and the unethical conduct engaged in by Wakefield in producing it led to the loss of his medical license.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I will admit error in this case. This list is all around the internet, and I copied it into an archive page. I am currently parsing it. You are right - that list needs to be more organized, however, some studies corroborate Wakefield, e.g. PMID 9756729

The authors of the study note: "As described here, the overall levels of measles antibody and HHV-6 antibody were not significantly elevated in autistic children but a high proportion (85%) of them had positive measles antibody titers. This was an excellent rate of seroconversion post-MMR immunization since virtually all subjects in the study had their MMR immunizations and none had any history of wild-type measles virus infection.": http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090122998945883

Wakefield has recently sued the BMJ and Brian Deer for defamation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/05/andrew-wakefield-sues-bmj-mmr

Other, independent research, has corroborated the findings of Wakefield: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.htmlPottinger's cats (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't "parse" the list you posted. The listed articles are a weird mix generated by a biased search and I doubt many or any of them would be selected by a proper review of the primary literature -- which Wikipedians are not allowed to perform anyway. We leave it to the experts to review the data on vaccine safety and publish reviews in respected journals. It is those reviews that we use as sources, for Wikipedia is based on secondary sources.

Please don't use this page to argue about Wakefield's research. It isn't the point of talk pages to convince others of an argument. And, by the way, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for anything. As others have pointed out, this is not a forum for discussing vaccine controversies. Future posts that don't strictly comply with what talk pages are for and what our policies require, may be deleted. Colin°^Talk 08:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I will not be using the archive list as a source. I merely stated that as a response. I'm finished with this discussion until I find modern meta-analyses on the subject of vaccines. I was merely responding to points others made.Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So far you have only provided one actual source - the pubmed-indexed article you linked to twice (the second time is ScienceDirect). That's a single, primary source that is from 1998 which can't be used to adjust the page. The two news articles are not MEDRS. The most recent is about Wakefield's lawsuit; it has no bearing on the effectiveness of vaccines. The other is from 2006 - and is a news article, not a journal aritcle. This is why your edits are being ignored, reverted or removed - you have shown no indication that you actually understand the requirements of editing to produce a reliable, authoritative, scholarly encyclopedia. Please don't bother posting on any page until you have reliable, secondary, recent sources to substantiate your point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a weak study, and an excellent illustration of why it is that we don't rely on primary sources. The best p-value calculated was 0.128. (The interesting finding was the presence of autoantibodies to neural proteins in a substantial fraction of autistic patients, not any useful correlation between measles or HHV-6 antibodies. Moreover, the control population included adults up to age 50, whereas the autistic population only included children up to age 12; this alone might explain why the control population showed a lower antibody titer against childhood vaccine antigens.) I'm guessing that you're reading abstracts rather than full papers – or perhaps hoping that the rest of us are just reading abstracts – if you're suggesting this paper is a useful and relevant source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)