I've merged in the separate "Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes" article into this article. [[User:Andrew73|Andrew73]] 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I've merged in the separate "Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes" article into this article. [[User:Andrew73|Andrew73]] 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
: That has to be the classic POV. [[User:81.129.89.243|81.129.89.243]] 09:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Bit low in th page? Title on section it came out of is a way above. Doesn't bother me... [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:Bit low in th page? Title on section it came out of is a way above. Doesn't bother me... [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
I see an undefined term being bandied about. What is a "vaccine critic", as a definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs)
Someone critical of vaccines? Clearly, to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia it would have to be someone notable. Dr Yazbak is in favour of vaccination but he is critical of some aspects of current practice. The Invisible Anon20:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think that merely being "critical" of vaccines is being anti-vaccinationist. That would be like saying that anyone who is critical of using antibiotics every time a child has an earache is "anti-antibioticist." I have to imagine that every physician under the sun believes there are limits to the cost/benefit of vaccines. I would imagine that this article is about people who are categorically against vaccines as a medical practice. Midgely? --Leifern20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree...but I suspect that this article would apply to websites like whale.to which seem to be categorically opposed to anything associated with modern medical practice. Andrew7320:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Why would I know. Who preferred it? Who wrote a page about it? Whatever it is. Indeed, a reaosnable question, what is the concept? John? Ombudsman? Midgley20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the Anti-vaccinationists article - I would imagine Midgley has a view of what precisely defines and delineates an anti-vaccinationist from someone who isn't against vaccination per se but has misgivings about some aspects of it. I honestly haven't studied the ideological divides among those who oppose modern medicine, but it seems a safe assumption that those who are against all medicine would also be against vaccinations, but the converse is not true. --Leifern21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but the writings by some of the editors appear to be opposed to all forms of medicine...this probably plays a role in preventing constructive discussion about the limitations (and benefits) of vaccinations. Andrew7321:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we need to have articles that carefully delineate the topic they're discussing. An article titled Why western medicine kicks alternative butt might get popular support, detractors would have a strong case against it. We're seeing this in an article formerly titled HGH Quackery that is torn to shreds (and not by me) because it took on the form of a polemic. --Leifern21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And a vaccine critic would be what, precisely, before we lose sight of that question? THat is, if anybody can define the term Midgley00:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who started an article about a group of people rather than a topic. The term "anti" is typically used for someone who is categorically against something or another, and it's notable that most activist groups tend to avoid using the prefix as much as possible. If an anti-vaccinationist is someone who categorically opposes the medical practice of vaccinations, anyone who has a less rigid position must be skeptical, or critical, but I suppose anyone can be that given a given set of circumstances. I would imagine that you would be against vaccinations with a 10% mortality rate that was 60% effective against a disease that was 0.05% terminal but for which treatment as 99.9% effective. Would that make you an anti-vaccinationist, or merely a vaccination critic? Neither, I would think. --Leifern00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been forcefully suggested (see above) that antivaccinationist is a bad term since it is "not defined" and that "vaccine critic" is better term. It seems an entirely reasonable question to ask, presumably of those who have called for the use of that term (of whch I think Leffern was not one) in that case, what is the definition of "vaccine critic". I don't see the contributions above as actually addressing ether that, or anythig that has not been done to death above here. Midgley01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any idiot can define that, even me. A vaccine critic covers anyone critical of a vaccine or vaccination in whole or parts. I think I first collected them together [1]. Anti-vaccinists are a subset of that, obviously. Edward Yazbak is a vaccine critic, not an anti vax yet, for example. Neil Miller is a critic. Robert Mendelsohn was an anti-vax. If you delete all pages to vaccine critics, then they can't appear on this page, so where do you put them? john20:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I added the indentation above (just add one colon to the front per level of remark). I could cheerfully go with "apparent to any idiot", and nested sets (as well as overlapping sets and intersets) but Ombuds/Manon objected to it, causing a scholar nearby to dig back to the root of "anti-vaccinationist" - available for people to read, still. The problem wih the definition as given, once one actually igs down to it, is that vaccine critic turns out to include most of the articulate world, and yet doesn't quite manage to say whether it is a vaccination, vaccination or vaccinations that is being discussed. Convenient in some situations, and in others being able to look for "rough concensus and running code" is also handy, but less than fully defined. Midgley22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
john, filibustering is a no-no on Wikipedia I am told, so maybe you might just want to note the details of this "dialogue" for future reference. Like you I agree, I think we all know what a vaccine critic is. I did not realise before reading this that Midgley accepted there were quite so many of them "vaccine critic turns out to include most of the articulate world". Instead we have this very determined attempt to resurrect and apply a term from the 19th Century "anti-vaccinationists" to the 21st. The likelihood of anyone taking your side if you complain about the way this dialogue is running is, on current form, akin to the snowball's in hell and this one will just run and run with no progress. However, if you think it worth persevering, do not let my comment deter you. The Invisible Anon00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good example of a quality and type of argument, which might distinguish the anti-vaccinationist from a member of the Dutch Orthodox Reformed Church. Within an inch of my writing "The problem with the definition as given ..." this chap is saying I accept and advance it. The religious types are far more straightforward and honest, and say god told them so. I suspect that we should classify religions who deny themselves immunisation in order to trust in god's will in a different classification. I've not observed one demand that other people abjure immunisation, except as a tiny subsidiary part of their argument that everyone should accept their view of god and worship accordingly. And usually, quite a polite argument. Midgley19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any problem with the definition vaccine critics, only to vaccinators who want to keep their arguments out of the public domain, with arguments of the type above. I have had a page to them for 10 years [2] or so, which I don't have any problem with. I haven't had a page to anti-vaccinationists. I don't think anyone is going to better my format. I did organise them into categories [3] but I haven't felt the need to do anything else. Vaccination can be demolished not by collecting critics, but by their arguments, which you can see on the bottom of this page you want to delete National Anti-Vaccination League. I bet you can't wait to delete that and put a few lines in one of your boxes. john09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging in ...
The organisations and individuals of whom it is known that they were formed in order to, or opposed, at some time, vaccination, and of whom no great detail of the rest of their lives has been presented would do well to occupy boxes or table cells on this main page. Those of whom there is a greater volume of material would do best as sub-pages, where their being almost but not quite completely unlike biographies would not be the slightest bit remarkable, and where if an individual one became long, complete, and notable in some other way it could be moved to a page in its own right. Midgley21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup
Midgely, can you please let us know when you are done introducing content into this article? I would like to start editing it for clarity and style, but don't want to waste time until you are done putting in the material you want. I guess there are many ways to write an article, but right now it reads more like lecture notes than an encyclopedic article. In the future, please tag your articles with the cleanup tag while you are developing them. --Leifern21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told there is much other material, don't you want others' contributions? I had in mind asking Acadian to have a look at it, having been impressed by his ability and thoroughness. The WP policy I was thinking of, which was aplied to the article - speedy keep - was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closings
I'm unconvinced that anyone expressing themselves in the tones Leffern did in the AFD, and moreover making assertions such as "no hits on a Google search" which turned out to be wrong by a wide margin can show an NPOV. Accordingly, it would be as well to leave the task of imprioving the article to someone who has not already decided it is unimprovable. Nothing stops people adding material, of course...Midgley01:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, while Leifern definitely seems to have a POV... two opposing POVs can in fact become much closer to NPOV than one alone. Besides, the most important thing to do to this article isn't even to NPOV it, it's to make it legible. Anyone from any POV or level of knowledge can do that - the skills required are decidedly non-domain-specific. Plus, I have seen Leifern make some perfectly good-faith edits to vaccination-related articles, even if it seems like it takes someone staring over her(his?) shoulder to achieve it (witness the eventural outcome of the Thimerosal Controversy - which I think we can all agree was superior to how it originally was.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thsgrn (talk • contribs)
The example is certainly correct. Minus the turbulence it would merit applause. The turbulence is the problem (Roy's phrase on the superseded RFA page is apt). Is it a week since I asked for assistance with what is now Anti-vaccinationist/Assertion_table ? Open season on that, then. How I think it should go, and there are traces in it of this, is to line up assertions, (those were kindly provided by John here), arrange them into a logical nesting order, such that those which depend on others could be tested in order rather than individually, and then test whether they are common or essential elelements of a body of thought held by an identifiable or postulated concatenative assemblage of people. I suspect that the responses to them although surely they belong somewhere, don't actually belong there - for instance the law in Georgia...but that links to the pages they live on might. The first documented person to present them, and the date of it are encyclopedic, but perhaps the date and author of their refutation isn't worth tabulating there - it depends if it can be fitted sensibly in.
From the above description (diff [[4]]) this looks it will create the impression of an organised coherent "anti-vaccinationist" "movement" by making a mosaic of the views of vaccine critics from around the world. The Invisible Anon11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "vaccine critic"? Are there as many as two who agree on as many as one thing in common? If so it wouldn't be a mosaic, although the Romans made many useful and interesting pictures out of mosaics despite each individual cracked ceramic piece being a different colour and shape and even some thicker than others - rather it would be a classification and description of the breadth of what might be called by some "vaccine criticism" if they can define the group who do it, and has been called anti-vaccinationism for 2 years less long than there has been vaccination, at least. One suggestion in discourse above seems to be that one group is an included group in the other, another possibility would be that the groups merely overlap but this would depend on the definition of "vaccine critic". Is it possible for the author of a previous page called vaccine critics to tell us what definition he used for his subject material? I'm sure we are agreed the groups are not disjoint. Midgley12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vaccine critics is self explanatory, I don't know why you have to complicate it. But I will spell it out. Anyone who is critical of vaccination in parts or whole, a vaccine or vaccines, or vaccine ingredients eg mercury. Anti-vaccination folk are a small subset of that. john09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reinsertion of an article on Thimerosal
I think we came to something like a consensus on two things here:-
1. That there is a better place for an article on the Thimerosal controversy than this;
2. That extensive material on Thimerosal is out of place here.
I trimmed the Thimerosal paragraphs down to a very short indication and the pointer at the whle page on just that...
and Ombudsman then reintroduced all the material, and more, all of which according to his own contributions on the talk and AFD discussion pages belongs not here but elsewhere. Why? Midgley01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is badly wrong.
There is no ethyl mercury in the vaccines, it is a metabolite.
TCV is an abbreviateion we really don't need.
"An example involves the debate over the the removal of mercury from thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs). Recently, but largely in the United States, it has been suggested that thimerosal in childhood vaccines could contribute to autism or the autism epidemic. This debate has escalated due to recent research indicating the chance that some individuals are less able to excrete heavy metals normally, and reports that the type of organic mercury used may be more toxic than other types for which exposure limits have been set. Government agencies and pharmaceutical companies clearly have an interest in denying this, and there are potentially gains for litigants if a connection can be shown in court."
"
TCVs are being phased out, although some TCVs (e.g., flu vaccines) are still routinely administered to children, as well as pregnant women and nursing mothers. Vaccines in use in the UK are largely free of it. There is no suggestion that it is required for the immunogenic effect of the preparations, therefore it is thought that TCVs will eventually discontinued entirely."
"
In 2004, an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel favoured rejecting any causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. However, critics allege that the statistical evidence upon which the IOM based its conclusions has been difficult to independendently analyze, due in part the fact that access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink database has been restricted due to privacy concerns, and possibly because of the alleged secrecy surrounding the proceedings of the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference.
"
This is spreading out into yet another article that already exists and is reference from teh Thiomersal contro one.
Midgley01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages
There are many subpages, some done, some not, linked from this article. As I've only passed by and touched up a few things, I didn't want to change that, but subpages are not allowed for articles (they are OK for talk pages and user pages). See Wikipedia:Subpages. Wikipedia is not a hierarchical collection of information. I'd rather have very short sections merged into the general article, and empty sections deleted outright until there's some content to put into them. The last part of the article is still in need of cleanup, BTW.
I didn't understand why the potato thing had any relevance, so I took it out. It's sufficient to say that religious leaders had opinions against, or doubts about, vaccination, without making an analogy that requires an extra explanation. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)17:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone seen a moderately-sized table in a sub-page as was linked from the specific people section and containing a moderate amount of them? Midgley18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time to reconsider renaming article?
Now that this article is no longer being considered for deletion, perhaps it may be worthwhile revisiting the idea of renaming this article. I agree with some of the other editors that this is not the best title for the article. It seems overly narrow, and now there are additional articles like Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes! A title like "anti-vaccination movement" may better capture the spirit of the article and be more inclusive. Andrew7314:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-vaccinationism would be OK too. The additional articles should really, really be condensed and merged. One doesn't need to take every bit of information; an encyclopedia is not supposed to be so thorough. If sources are given, the interested reader can go there.
I've replaced the two equal signs == in the wikicode of this section, since the single equal sign is not to be used like that. The first level heading uses two equal signs. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk)15:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at the first paragraph, and considering "In 1798 a group of people announced themselves as the Anti-vaccination Society. Since then, anti-vaccinationists have continued to ....". It doesn't seem to me ridiculous to call a page that starts off with that, and is about the people and actions from then to now, and their consequences, what it is called at present. Admittedly, the pre-Raphaelites didn't think up their own name, but there is a reasonable impediment to that... Picking a different form of the word - with -ism or whatever does no harm, but I'm not convinced it does much good. Nor terribly bothered, really, it is just etymology and we have seen the assertion that there are no such people, never were, different now demolished rather thoroughly Midgley15:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the term "anti-vaccinationists" seems rather dated. When I think of anti-vaccinationist, I think of people in the late 1800s and terms like "consumption." A new title to reflect what is going on with the modern day controversies (or perhaps hysteria!) surrounding thimerosal, etc. may be more appropriate (though I agree, the arguments being advanced now are not that different from a century ago). Andrew7315:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With numerous publications showing the similarity between modern-day "vaccine critics" and earlier-day "anti-vaccinationists", I'm not sure how dated the concept is. But I'm all for using present-day terminology. The world is indeed watching, 86.10.231.219. Like Big Brother. JFW | T@lk17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orwell's Big Brother would prefer they din't exist, ie were ignored, but if that breaks down then demonise them. john21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Big Brother watcher[reply]
Got it. There is a point to tabulation. I didn't understand how the various names of the organisations - or perhaps orgnaisation - related to people and to the org through time. After tabulating it, I did. Deeper and more information reasonably belongs on a page devoted to one org, if it is notable, but if a putative reader has only a minute to get the gist of the history of a movement, then looking at a table is a good way to do it. Midgley22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your 1 minute reader can see your table, and the 2 or more minute readers can see the NAVL page. You do the pocket version for vaccine critics, while your vaccine pages get the full works. Have you done any research to prove Wiki is designed for 1 minute readers? john20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At last look, it had five organisations entabulated. I'm minimally surprised there are no more. I worked on an electronic library project of very large scope, and we evolved a canon on information organisation which seemed to us good for people needing healthcare information for serious purposes. How far that extends to WP is a reasonably debatable point, but the key thing about tables is that they allow comapirson of some salient features of several entities in a small space. I am surprised to be laying _that_ out for someone with a collection of information. Midgley22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a valid case for deleting NAVL page. You can keep your table, I agree somewhat with that. I collect information on vaccination and my site is the best source of information on vaccine criticism, which your Wiki actions will ensure it remains that way for the forseeable future. My page is alreday better than the one you want to delete [7]. 09:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That page is a list, giving no comparative information on the people listed. For someone who for instance wanted to compare the sort of criticisms that Alan Yurko makes with the criticisms that Dr Bayly did would have to read both pages and make their notes... the next person along would have to read both pages and make their notes... the next person along... the next... Tabulating the nature of criticisms, given the assertion that there are critics who are not all of one piece and do not share all criticisms and are in favour of some vaccinations but not of others - the one listed who is in favour of all vacciantions except those preserved with Thiomersal, for instance, would allow anyone trying to analyse objections or observe what others had said about a topic that bothered them to pick out the relevant ones.
The difference between a table on WHale, and a table here, whcih I suspect would arise after a period of collaborative editing, would be that the WP article would attempt to note why (or at least following what) the objections were elaborated and the reason they were published. THis is something which passes many people's test of interestingness, being about actual people rather than a single aspect of their behaviour. Midgley12:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered improving the Wikipedia page? Or alternatively, if it is less good than other resources, perhaps we should not bother to keep it at all. Surely there are several organisations as yet unrepresented in that table? Midgley14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leicester
Perhaps you could help. Leicester was clearly interesting in the mid-19th century. There is an awful lot to [8] but I wodner if you could eithr boil down to a couple of paragraphs, or point to the right chapters to read first to get the answer to this question: Why were Leicester more able to do sanitation than other places? Who were the people who made a difference? What was it about the area that was different? Midgley22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean of course, Leicester which curiously seems to have nothing in its main article relating to sanitation, smallpox, vaccination, being a beacon of freedom in the C19 or indeed the health of the populace. What I remember it for is the 33degree banked wooden track, that and th rain that fell upon that track... Midgley22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise there, vaccine truth is rare on Wiki. I think Lily Loat put it best: "The town of Leicester rejected vaccination in favour of sanitation. Her experience during the past fifty years makes nonsense of the claims of the pro-vaccinists. When her population was thoroughly vaccinated she suffered severely from smallpox. As vaccination declined to one per cent of the infants born, smallpox disappeared altogether." As William White said: "It would seem that when the human mind acquires a certain set, something like a surgical operation is requisite to reverse it." I can try and remove your vaccination mind set, but I think I'll have to use my chainsaw. john09:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd read that, the question, which perhaps I didn't make clear enough, was why Leicester was able to do it, where other cities didn't or couldn't. There was a bit about who was involved and so on... Midgley12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was perfectly clear. John, you've been asked many times previously to respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please provide the information without the cocktail of abuse, preaching and presumption of bias. Here is all that was required:
See [9], Chapter 69 onwards. The Leicester Sanitation Committee, particularly under the Chairmanship of Alderman Thomas Windley (date?) had adopted a policy of strict notification and quarantine. If someone contracted smallpox, the householder and physician diagnosing had to report it pronto, on pain of penalty, then the smallpox van would come round and cart away all concerned (patient to isolation in hospital, contacts to quarantine) and the house would be disinfected in their absence. Tearlach12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That is toward where I am getting. SO was the reason it worked in Leicester that Mr Windley was a hero (and if so how about a bio) or that Leicester, not now specially noted for fraternal comradeship, was then a very ciohesive social grouping. Why were other towns less able to organise such effective measures? Was the Policing particularly good for instance? OUt of the number of towns in England, would you expect that there would be a range of effects from a disease with some almost wiped out, and some hardly affected - a statistical fluctuation? It is like school history - that something happened is perhaps to be noted, but to whom it happened, how they were different from elsewhere - that is interesting.
A little problem here, early on in that chapter given above... "a theory hardly consistent with the observation that the commencement of the decline is usually at the period of highest development and spread. " Does anyone else have difficulty seeing that crushing dismissal of the germ theory of infection (presented in the context of discussion of quarantine) as a bit like the Daily Mail? "Shock horror: 50% of British teachers found to be below average We demand action!. " Or is there some other explanation than the fact that the descent from every mountain, oddly, commences at the peak. Midgley00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the other obvious question is - as a citizen in a town unable to do whatever it was that Leicester did to make this work... what is the best plan for your town (second best if you like). Midgley13:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and their power in Leicester (not a big place) failed because ...? Answering only one of a set of questions is a very political approach. I suspect that there may have been more going on in the UK in the 19th century than that, but if so, what was the source of the vaccinators power, and why wasn't it in Leicester? Midgley13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Political factors would certainly be in the mix. If you have a district where one faction is heavily in charge - for instance, factory owners - that faction can set the agenda. For instance, to this day Bournville has no pubs due to its origins as a factory village of the QuakerCadbury family. In 19th century Leicester, the Biggs family (who owned the hosiery factory that was a major, if not the major, employer there) had similar pull, with reformist interests in a number of sectors [10][11][12].
That approaches very interesting. Did he use it? (Or alternatively, being recognised as an effective organiser of the whole for the benefit of the whole, was he attended to when he made suggestions) Midgley22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks on a broad front
Unless you can prove that these objections to certain elements of vaccinations is part and parcel of a general rejection of vaccinations, the section must go. It is original research, opinionated, and frankly offensive. --Leifern02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is referenced in the article. It is not original research. At least one other contributor to the article has displayed the opinion that more should be included on at least one of the topics exampled. It is not offensive. It isn't even unusual, a part of the political process has commonly been to seek avenues of attack in order to eliminate a government for instance where the aim has little to do with the actual attack. Midgley13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article now commits a serious fallacy, namely to assume that the motivations of a few who make an argument can be projected onto everyone who makes them. Actually, the article commits many rhetorical fallacies, but we'll have to take them one at a time. I'm going to wait things out a bit, as the article is barely readable at this point, both because it appears to be written in Victorian English and because it is incoherent. --Leifern14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is far from perfect, and being about rhetorical fallacies, in part, no doubt it also contains some. The particular one mentioned though, no, it does not. The objection above moves steadily from an association (which is what is asserted int eh article and references, and is visible on the Web and possibly on this page) to an assertion in its turn that this is tantamount to asserting the sets are identical - it isn't, it is an assertion tehre is an overlap in sets, and that some of one set adopt arguments of another not becuase they believe them (although they might believe them) but because they see them as "legitimate tactics in the struggle against repression". I suppose I may be wildy wrong, and by all means correct me if so, but I suspect that English, of the relevant period or the modern one, is not Leifern's first language. It is mine, but I agree, on a good day my language betrays a commonality with a tongue spoken and written by Mr Shakespeare, and indeed Austen et al. They were both better at it, but a man may learn.
Ah, I love these ad hominem attacks - if you're interested in what languages are native to me, you can simply go to my user page. You might want to read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" for a good introduction to writing. --Leifern15:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if I wanted to see what language is Leifern's first language, going to the user page would not tell me, although it looks like a Scandinavian one. The difference between "first" and "native" is subtle. I suppose one can have more than one native language, but hardly more than one first language. The English, it is very good, lefiern. Midgley16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine, so many people who have not edited this article, and not had such good reasons to share with us. What admirable reticence as to their motives they have shewn. Midgley15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. All you have to do is go to my page, click "User contributions," and you can see my work. Your charientism needs some work. --Leifern23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"However, recent evidence suggests that is not necessarily the case. "
POV
In October, 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review [[13]], [[14]] of 31 epidemiological studies of the MMR vaccine. The Cochrane press release [[15]]
I suggest considering the report, written by scientists, rather than the press release whcih is of a lower order of information.
used to announce the study stated:-
"MMR is an important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death .... "
"However, in the same week the Cochrane team was contradicted by the science journal "
It isn't a contradiction. Not even as written here. Driving at 100mph is risky. Many people ahve driven at 100mph for 10 miles without crashing, it doesn't affect the level of risk, the second finding tdoes not cotnradict the r=first, they are two separate findings.
"[[Nature {journal)|Nature]], which published a correction to its own claims:
"Contrary to a statement in the Editorial “Responding to uncertainty ” (Nature 437,1;2005), there is no evidence that lives have been lost as a result of the significant dip in take-up in Britain of the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella.""
Yet.
"In London, England uptake of the MMR vaccine is approximately 50% [[16]] and in some areas uptake is a low as 10% [[17]]. In other parts of the UK the uptake is similarly low. [[18]]
"
London as a whole? All London? Is that what we are being told that reference says?
"The Cochrane review has been undermined by subquent further reports of harm caused by the MMR vaccine raised by the former senior UK government scientific advisor on vaccine safety. [[19]]
"
From other reports of that Mail article, I am less certain of the provenance of this. It is in any case today's news, which is not encyclopedic. Yet.
Again, it is possible to crash and be killed at 30, that doesn't affect the safety of ordinarily driving at that speed.
Try this
Preferably in the page on MMR I'd have thought, since there is one, or alternatively if it is dispute that harm comes as part of increases in infection, and that some increases in some infections have followed some reductions in some vaccines some of which have been partly as a public response to information some of which has been presented with care and effort by some people who some people regard as conveniently labelled by "anti-vacinationists", then on the page linked by "harm alleged" in the section this collection came from. (Are Nature cvaccinationists, or anti-vaccinationists, or neutral scientists?)
In October, 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review HTML, PDF of 31 epidemiological studies of the MMR vaccine. (Press release used to announce the study stated:-
"MMR is an important vaccine that has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death .... "
NPOV - OK?
In October 2005 the science journal [[Nature {journal)|Nature]] stated there was currently no evidence lives had been lost as a result of the significant dip in take-up in Britain of the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. (A correction to the Editorial “Responding to uncertainty ” (Nature 437,1;2005))
I'd suggest sitting on the current stuff for a day or two, since, given that we are re-factoring a correction from Nature into teh article it seems unlikely that there will not be further material than the Mail on SUnday (for non-English residents, not one of the most highly regarded papers).
In particular, I'd question the references:-
"In London, England uptake of the MMR vaccine is approximately 50% [[20]]
this is a link to the Mail article, in a news summary on the BMJ site. Quoting it as BMJ rather than Mail could be seen as an effort to raise its status from newspaper to learned journal, whjich, it has been asserted, is a common behaviour in anti-vaccinationist publication.
Reading it, what it actually says about uptake is "The report reveals that in seven London boroughs, uptake of MMR remains below 50 per cent. "
Not in London therefore, since there are more boroughs than that. One could easily think that was a deliberate misrepresentation in direct speech. You know, a lie.
"Figures from the Department of Health for 2004-05 showed that in Westminster, London, just 11.7 per cent of children were immunised by their fifth birthday."
One area. Not actually, quite, if one were trying for accuracy, as low as 10%. In fact a completely truthful description might be more like "no area was as low as 10%"
In other parts of the UK the uptake is similarly low. [[22]]
Was that referring to this quote: "Craven and Harrogate areas featuring among the country's 10 poorest performers at 52.8 per cent,"
52.8% similar to 10% which is not the level which Westminster fails to achieve by age 5 (note that the Torygraph picks up that single jabs mean the course is completed later - if it is - so if you look at later ages you'll find a slow pickup from that.)
after that short intermission we return to something that might be science
"The Cochrane review has been undermined by subquent further reports of harm caused by the MMR vaccine raised by the former senior UK government scientific advisor on vaccine safety. [[23]]
"
I think he might be a former senior ... rather than the singular definite article. Otherwise it would be creeping up his status, don't you think?
GOing to that article we see:-
"after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers,"
...
"He called the sudden termination of legal aid to parents of allegedly vaccine-damaged children in late 2003 "a monstrous injustice"."
Please also see here (emphasis added) the use of "anti-vaccinationist" as a pejorative term "For your work against quacks, viz. anti-vaccinationists and others, I award you this picture of Sir William Osler and three colleagues!" [[24]] Please note the context of the comment and the individuals involved. Clearly, the choice of the term anti-vaccinationist will be taken by some readers and possibly editors of Wikipedia themselves to be a personal attack on all mentioned in that page and that indicates anti-vaccinationist is taken to be a pejorative term. Perhaps it is an inappropriate page title and needs to be changed to avoid causing offence.
The Invisible Anon21:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true. I never used the term "anti-vax" term as it is perjorative (new word for me, but just the one I've been looking for), and for that reason you wont find anyone who is anti-vax describing themselves as such. It has always been thus, eg this 1895 book by Hutton "Anyone who adopts the cause of the "anti-vaccinator" is, ipso facto, reckoned by a vast number of people—who on any other subject would judge fairly and patiently—a crank, a faddist, and a fool." You can see this in front of your eyes by reading the page Midgley has created. You can see his intent by the way the more suitable and non-emotive term Vaccine Critics was deleted for this page. He may believe sincerley that anti-vax are psychotic, but that doesn't make it OK. Also anti-vax are a small section of vaccine critics, so he is effectively deleting 90% of vaccine criticism. And to get an idea about the term, I would have to ask people if they were happy to be termed "anti-vax", as I wouldn't list them as such otherwise. john15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen the term "vaccinator" used anywhere except by me, apart from old smallpox books where all medical men were know as such. So I don't see much case there, and anyway, there isn't a page to ""vaccinator"", or anyone trying to use it to slag off vaccinators. As to allopath, I have yet to see it appear in any media in all my years of reading that source. I detect allopaths are sensitive about the terms, but I feel that is more down to their desire to hide the fact they have a professional and financial interest in vaccination and pharma med. Anyway, anti-vax are a small minority and minorities are usually the ones who get shat on. It is a bit supicious when the ruling majority complain about terminology. I don't know how many GPs there are but is 100,000 in UK a fair estimate? All pro-vaccine apart from about 2, what I could call anti-vax, that I know of. john18:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that by extension, you would have thought that "vaccinator" was perjorative! And the medical profession is already tightly associated with the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not sure why the term "allopath" makes that link more apparent or something to be hidden. Andrew7318:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the forbidden term is "allopathic medical monopoly". See how that term hits your biocomputer. I don't have any emotional investment in think my opponent is mentally ill. If I was in his shoes I'd be doing the same thing, so I try to avoid judgement. Judgement is just PROJECTION, anyway. john20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hotairballooninflation.jpgA useful side-effect of the argument on vaccination was the development of lighter than air aviation (joke)"anti-vax are a small section of vaccine critics" John, above. And this is a page about anti-vax (surely an abbreviation of anti-vaccinationist). What is so hard about that? If someone believes that there should be a page about the larger population, critics as distinguished by them from a-v, then they will write one. If we write a page about airships do we expect to be told that the page should really be about Lighter_than_air, or do we expect that balloonists will write a page about balloons. Someone wrote a page about that topic, but that was that page, this is this page. Anyone who wants another page should write one. Midgley01:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did, Vaccine critics and you medical editors deleted it and merged it with this perjorative one, while you attempt to delete other ones with the same suspect intent Charles Pearce, National Anti-Vaccination League etc. Also revealed by your attempt to delete the main anti-vax man of the 20th century [25]. Your balloon talk is typical distraction. Anyone who wants another page should write one is pure brass neck!, given your behaviour. john08:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John, I have no idea why you are so stuck on the idea that "your" page was merged into this one. It was not. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the history. Midgley01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page started from blank formless void, upon the face of which I cast a single paragraph. There was no text of Johns or anyone elses in the initial state of the article. A surprisingly small number of pages have had material taken out and merged into this one, which suggests that it is a page about something different from other pages.
John's page was "Vaccine Critics" I'm told. Is it not clear who deleted it? I don't think I even noticed, but I expect someone did...
We have established some sort of consensus that a class of people may exist who have some criticisms of some vaccines, but do not subscribe to most criticisms of all vaccines, and that they could be described in such a way as to distinguish them from another class of people who we can recognise as anti-vaccinationists either historically because they wore badges with that on (National Anti-vaccination Society).
An hypothesis I suggest John tries out is that the first attempt at writing a WP page is quite likely to produce a bad page. Perhaps so bad that after a deletion consultation it is deleted. The second or subsequent attempt might produce a better one. I note that at least one editor offered assistance at hacking a page into shape (see the MMR Talk page around the RFC on Tongalese cetaceans) .
It is possible that I might inspect a page by John, someone unidentified and a male Bod going "Om" critically - it is even possible that those authors would be seen to have established ground rules for criticism, but a page starting at a couple of paragraphs defining critic vs anti-vaccinationist, and splitting the history of that and those from the history of the campaign against compulsory Smallpox immunisation and the campaign against combined voluntary immunisation with M; M & R would seem to have to be written very badly to not find some interest around here. Go for it.
I do demand cessation of the untrue statement about this page's genesis, my understanding is that admins have taken note of it and acted on one repeater of it. Midgley01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the balloon... I thought it a nice picture, and a reasonable analogy, although most analogies are as bad as something only vaguely like one. This, on the other hand, is a sheer brass neck. My suggestion is not. Midgley01:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Value of an Industry: the economics of anti-vaccinationism
We could do with an economist along with the sociologist and Psychologist we need. Looking at sites presenting immunisation as a damn good thing fit for all (most of) the world, I'm struck by an absence of advertising. (I expect someone can produce an exception..., do so, but it is a general tendency.)
Equally, or rather more obviously, I'm struck by the sales pitches on anti-vaccination sites. Not lest one be thought unfair, on whale.to - whatever I might say let us be quite clear that John gives good indications of telling us things he believes in because he wants to.
Sales of objects have a value (as do performances of vaccinations, or for that matter, of juggling with running chainsaws while riding unicycles) and that value can be expressed in monetary terms. What is the annual € (Euro) value of the 30 + 300 main and subsidiary anti-vaccinationist websites' retail trade?Midgley19:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retail trade? I don't have any financial or emotional investment in being anti-vaccine, and I don't know any value in it apart from giving you something useful to do. No brain damaged kid or some group bunging me cash. Each vaccine generates sales of about $1 Billion. Then they create a vast industry of vaccine disease, eg ear problems [26], and asthma drugs. I want to tell the truth or get close to it, I wouldn't waste time talking propagada. Sites promoting vaccines are vaccine companies---isn't a vaccine a product they sell? THE CDC do their vaccine selling on the taxpayers cash, all of their output is flogging vaccines, mostly, or anti-virals. the best sellers are ones who pretend to be independent, like the CDC. You cans ee who pulls their strings when you look at the makeup and actions of their vaccine committee. john20:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't have any ... emotional investment in being anti-vaccine". Um... Can I come back to you on that one when I think of something to say? Suffice it to say, I am impressed by that statement. Midgley01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't sell vaccines to the public, only vaccination. If you sell vaccination, the vaccines sell themselves. Which is what government sites do, sell vaccination. That is the Golden egg of medicine. You couldn't put a price on the value of government vaccination advertising which you see on mmrthebullshit.nhss.uk etc. Priceless when it comes from a source the public view as being unbiased and reliable. "5 out of 6 members of the (UK) Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation had interests with Glaxo Wellcome, 4 with SmithKline Beecham (ref: May 1999 Secretary of State for Health). Sell vaccination and the rest of the pharma drugs are sold off the back of it, so that is worth a trillion or so every year, which the 100,000 or so GPs sell for you every day of the week. john08:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First indisputable error is in line 7 [27] "otitis media" is singular. It has the look of what happens when someone edits the vernacular and perfectly good "middle ear infections" into the more impressive looking "otitis media" but doesn't adjust the rest of the sentence. If the Australian ENT surgeon was referred to by name and if he had published the assertion alleged to come from him, we would be able to see what it is based on. Midgley01:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't believe any of that sort of stuff, as you believe in vaccines. one American child in 166 has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder...... 9 million American children under 18 have been diagnosed with asthma.......nearly 3 million children ..... learning disabled. ..... 4 million children between the ages of 3 and 17 years have been diagnosed with ADHD........206,000 Americans under the age of 20 have type 1 diabetes..... 1 in 400 to 500 American children and adolescents are now diabetic. Today, arthritis affects one in three Americans, and about 300,000 American children have juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis used to be so rare that statistics were not kept until its recent rise in children. ---Barbara Loe Fisher. Bit obvious really where all the disease is coming from. john08:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes these statistics are so clearly obviously related to vaccinations. But what about aspartame? Or maybe our increasing use of transistors instead of vacuum tubes. Or electricity. Maybe the vaccine critics who cite the autism data in the Amish community could investigate the link between their rejection of electricity and autism. Interesting statistics, but these don't establish causation. Andrew7320:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John, have you noticed that people have been reminding you that it is objected to by most WP users to make constant personal attacks on the other users, and yet most of your postings do so? The argument above may be very well for people who have alredy decided they think vaccines cause all harm, but actually makes no connection between vaccination and any o those conditions, proposes no mechanism, gives no actual incidences, is unreferenced, is in short a diatribe. The problem for me, and I suspect others, is that among the blizzard of material you toss there is an occasional link to soemthing interesting, and yet you hide it, and then resist attempts to get you to focus on it and reveal or discover more that is attached to it. Midgley10:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)#[reply]
Sorry, that is a big knee jerk for me. It is no excuse but medical people saying they are interested in vaccine damage brings out my cynic. The MMR fiasco has made it worse. I'll try and control myself in future. john19:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Single M;M;R as a business
From the Daily Mail article on the Chartered Physios' report referenced nearby: "An increasing number of parents are opting for single jabs through private clinics, due to fears over the MMR jab's safety. Each injection costs up to £100" (There are, of course, a total of 6 to make a course. £600 per customer.) This is a business that is worth advertising through Google, at least (observed yesterday). Midgley12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Reply. It would not be if the single vaccinations were available as an option on the NHS.
The UK government is also happy for only as few as 48% of London children (SE London) or 11.6% (Westminster children) or 58% of London children (overall) to be vaccinated it would seem. They are so concerned children might die (they claim) from measles mumps or rubella that they will not make single vaccines available at all. Surely that is intransigent dog-in-the-manger death courting behaviour for London children? (Source of stats: DoH) -
And "Death Courting" is inaccurate because government grossly exaggerates the risks
infant measles deaths fell from 3,367 in 1915 to just 4 by 1962 as a result of improved nutrition
well before measles vaccination in 1969
Source of stats ONS
Looks pretty much like good nutrition wins hands down over vaccination every time as a life saver. Now why was it drug companies were claiming vitamin supplements are useless? Find them in food don't we?
This section has been edited into unintelligibility. The first edit was to separate it into two topics, the second edit appears to have removed that, and my comments, in order to restore the pearls of 86.10.231.219 in their original form. Lets try again.Midgley23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Single M;M;R as a business
From the Daily Mail article on the Chartered Physios' report referenced nearby: "An increasing number of parents are opting for single jabs through private clinics, due to fears over the MMR jab's safety. Each injection costs up to £100" (There are, of course, a total of 6 to make a course. £600 per customer.) This is a business that is worth advertising through Google, at least (observed yesterday). Midgley12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reduction of the profitability of that business could be achieved if the DoH provided single immunisations. That they do not, in the context of theories of persecution on the part of some of the supporters of those giving or iorganising them, suggests the DoH believe what they say. (I said that earlier) Midgley23:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More tagslapping
A user completely new to the debate, WeniWidiWiki (talk·contribs), inserted the {{POV}} template[28] again. As I have stated before, it is completely pointless to insert this template without at least a modicum of effort on the talkpage to identify the biased material. Such actions polarise the debate and are detrimental to normal editing. JFW | T@lk20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realized you owned this entry. I did explain my edits, and specifically marked what I contested. However due to the unorthodox markup and references used in this entry, when I used the {{fact}} tags, it broke the formatting on the page. As evidenced here. It was either slap a tag on the whole entry or leave the formatting screwed up. I chose the lesser of two ills. WeniWidiWiki21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that I WP:OWN is a good example of assuming bad faith. You could have chosen an even lesser form of evil: simply discussing your objections on the talkpage. If your objections concerned the section "Anti-vaccinationist material", why not simply just mention what is wrong? Other editors may take your concerns seriously and provide sources. Slapping tags on articles is a last resort, and should be reserved for situations where no consensus can be reached on the talkpage. Usually the agreement to place the tag is mutual and sorta automatically should trigger an RFC if not already ongoing. JFW | T@lk21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality or factual inaccuracy warnings should be accompanied by an explanation (with details and examples) on the talk page. Otherwise they should be removed. Andries22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WWW - I for one am pleased to see someone new here, and also to see someone actually making edits rather than arguing on the talk page - but in view of the amount of discussion thus far, some of them seem a little quick. In particular I'm perplexed by seeing references removed and [citation needed] tags put in their place, or close proximity. I think that cross-referencing pages which refer to the same topic is sensible, rather than repeating arguments (although we do tht enough here...) Midgley23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After committing a faux pas and adding an NPOV template without asking permission, and then reading through the prior AfD, it appears from an outside perspective that there is obvious fanatical over-guarding and some editors who are attempting to assert ownership of this article. Note the absolute insistence of some editors to monopolize the presentation of facts in this entry, as well as the antagonistic atitudes of some editors. (One of them being an Admin who I feel should probably cease from editing this entry for having what I perceive as a conflict of interest). Continual insertions of See also: Cranks is blatant POV and bias. I have decided to re-add the NPOV tag as well as a tag to this talk page warning editors about the morass they are stepping into. I highly suspect this will go right back up for AfD or AfC since it is so blatantly POV and poorly written. I realize some here have a vested interest in the presentation of the issues either way, but regardless, at least try to *appear* NPOV - especially admins who should know better. Don't be fanatics, and if you cannot emotionally separate yourself from the issues at hand, take a break from editing the entry until you regain your composure. Look at the entry from a sheerly technical standpoint - it is severely lacking even the most rudimentary attempts of balance, rife with weasel words and undocumented assertions. That is my major complaint. WeniWidiWiki00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]