Talk:Vaccine hesitancy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcguigan.m (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benjy Hall (article contribs).

Reason for Controversy

Along with religious and political reasons to avoid vaccines, parents choose not to vaccinate their children due to the fact that they are too young to experience serious diseases. Vaccines were invented in the 18th century, and were used quite frequently since then. Because of vaccines, many serious illnesses have been wiped out. Parents in this generation have not seen what polio, for example, can do to someone, so it is much easier for them to say that their children do not need to be vaccinated. This can cause major problems down the road.

References

Information Warfare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/11/15/majority-anti-vaccine-ads-facebook-were-funded-by-two-groups/

In 2019 RFK Jr was named as one of the parties named in a Washington Post article saying that his group spammed Facebook with political ads relating to vaccines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:c600:3c20:8da6:85d0:334a:22d2 (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This is fascinating to me (if irrelevant to the comment here) because this is the first time I've seen a talk page comment deleted. I know talk pages exist for the express purpose of improving articles and gaining consensus, but I can't help but be overwhelmed with intrigue seeing something deleted. I agree the deleted comment was unhelpful and unsourced and certainly deserved an MEDRS source, but I have no dog in the fight so to speak.

Having said that, I do think this WaPo article is interesting, and I'm surprised no one as commented on this. However it's paywalled and I'm unable to access it.

What were the two groups engaged in this activity? Sloorbeadle (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have no idea which deletion you are talking about. (Maybe it was auto-archiving?) But what you say about it is also unhelpful.
• You should use the "Show preview" button. I fixed the indentation for you.
• If you cannot access the WaPo article, how do you know it is interesting? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Dengvaxia controversy in the Philippines

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions

This incident has been the spark of vaccine hesitancy issues in the philippines over the handling of Dengue Vaccines.

Improving education for expecting parents

With recent outbreaks of Measles, vaccinations has become a hot topic in society, and should be discussed. Currently 91.9% of the United States population aged 19-35 months are vaccinated according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To reach Herd Immunity “is a form of indirect protection from infection disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune.” (Wikipedia, N.D.) as a society we must increase the percentage of children being immunized. Meissner, (2015) states “measles is one of the most transmissible infectious diseases; therefore, a high herds immunity threshold of approximately 95%.”

The U.S. needs to implement a large-scale education program that starts when expecting parents have initial contact with their doctors and follow the parents through post-partum pediatric visits. This will give expecting parents time to learn the positive effects of vaccinations on a society and allow doctors to educate and debunk the myths of vaccinations. Currently there is no system in place and typically the first point of contact with vaccinations is at the first pediatric visit where parents may or may not receive a pamphlet on vaccinations. This leaves parents to do their own research and can allow them to find misleading information. In recent studies, it was found that providing correct and positive information, their opinions on vaccinations changed. Of 15 studies evaluating the impact of educational information on parents’ attitudes toward vaccination, eight reported a statistically significant improvement says (Sadaf, Richards, Glanz, Salmon, & Omer, 2013)

By conducting education in early prenatal doctor visits, the negative view on vaccinations will decrease, which in turn, will increase the vaccination rate. Therfore, allowing the U.S. to reach the 95% herd immunity threshold that is needed to provide safety for the population that is unable to receive vaccinations and prevent future outbreaks.

References

• Meissner, C. (2015). Why is herd immunity so important? American Academy of Pediatrics.
• Sadaf, A., Richards, J. L., Glanz, J., Salmon, D. A., & Omer, S. B. (2013). A systematic review of interventions for reducing parental vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine, 4293-4304.

Wikipedia. (N.D.). Herd Immunity. Retrieved May 2019, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlson.eric38 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

The section on autism has a false statement. The claim that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism is incorrect.

Dr. William Thomson is a CDC whistle blower. He was part of a team who found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, for black American boys. He made a public statement on August 27th 2014.

' My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed'.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160220144837/http://www.morganverkamp.com:80/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/ 2A00:23C4:9E02:700:4813:47D0:DF1D:6473 (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been debunked so many times that it we could write an article just on this myth. The facts are these – vaccines are not linked to autism spectrum disorder. There are over 150 PUBLISHED and PEER-REVIEWED scientific articles that have dismissed that link. It's settled science. And Dr. Thompson continues to write outstanding articles of scientific research about vaccines done at the CDC. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

And a press release from a plaintiff law firm is the furthest thing from a reliable source that you could ever find. Nevermind being a medical reliable source. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

In the Anthrax vaccines section and in the sixth sentence, there needs to be a comma after 2002. 2001:1970:5A9F:C200:A1FE:DA8B:5EE6:8E99 (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — soupvector (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence tries to paint people who are critical of a single vaccine, as if they were critical of all vaccines.

Current: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases.

Proposal: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against one or more contagious diseases.

124.169.149.140 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The current text matches [5] which "Refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccine services". The third sentence (second sentence, after a recent edit) states "The term encompasses outright refusal to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others". So IMHO think it's fine as-is. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think extra clarification on numbers is unneccesary. It's good as is. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparticusmaximus (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC) I disagree. The source cited does not use the term "anti-vax". Vaccine hesitancy is best considered as a point on a spectrum of varying degrees of concern about the the effects of vaccinations . Associating the term with "anti-vax" is to overly simplify this spectrum, and associate anyone who has any concerns about any vaccination with what is in fact a small fringe group. "People who have ongoing reservations about vaccinating against COVID-19 are not “anti-vaxxers” and shouldn’t be branded as such." . Doing so is a mischaracterisation and it is thought that such crude categorisations are actually harmful to public health efforts obtain mass vaccination . I therefore offer the following proposal which more accurately quotes the actual WHO definition cited by Rolf H Nelson, and which offers a degree of nuance necessary to avoid inaccurate generalisations that potentially harm vaccination efforts.

Current: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases. People who subscribe to this view are commonly known as "anti-vaxxers". The term encompasses outright refusal to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.

Proposal: Vaccine hesitancy is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases. The term exists on a spectrum of perceptions of about vaccines ranging from outright refusal to vaccinate (commonly known as "anti-vax"), delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.

Sparticusmaximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I understand what you are saying but disagree that the only true "anti-vax" are those who refuse all vaccines. I have spent quite a bit of time in anti-vax spaces and the first thing almost every single one says is "I"m not anti-vax but..." followed by copious misinformation and disinformation. I think the general effects on general public health, of anyone who is public about their hesitation, are anti-vax, and advocate the movement and therefore the public health danger. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021

(UTC)

Disagree. Your anecdote is not an appropriate source. You are saying anoyone who questions any vaccine is a danger to the public. This is absolutist in approach and is unsubstantiated. If we were to follow this reason, then those opposed the past vaccines that ended up actually being harmful as referenced on this very page are "anti-vax" and somehow a danger. I argue that such a mischaracterisation drives people deeper towards actual anti-vax sentiment. I provide evidence from public health experts that specifically note that it is not appropriate to label vaccine hesitancy as "anti-vax". Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, any anti-science stance wrt vaccines indicates anti-vax. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not "anti-science" to question the potential impacts of a medication. This very article provides a list of past vaccinations that proved to be harmful. Would it have been anti-science to question those vaccines? Science IS questioning. I provide expert evidence that absolute mischaracterizations used in this article are in fact not helpful.

The WHO source I cited is indeed for vaccine hesitancy, not for anti-vax; I was addressing a definition of vaccine hesitancy. Sparticusmaximus The source you provided doesn't use the word anti-vax except to say "Today in many countries the public conversation about vaccination has become mired in an aggressive argument, which characterises parents as either “pro-vax” (responsible) or “anti-vax” (irresponsible)." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. And the definition of vaccine hesitancy, the title of this page, does not directly equate with common understandings of "anti-vax". This is why I think the page should be changed to more accurately reflect actual definitions. The article I cites provide a reasonable spectrum of the range of vaccine hesitant positions. The section that you quote in this reply is the binary position that the cited article goes on to refute, arguing for greater nuance in the use of these terms. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitions of anti-vax/anti-vaccination/anti-vaxxer

Definitions

• "anti-vaccination", "opposed to vaccination", "a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination" (Webster[6][7]
• "The anti-vaccination movement is when people don't believe that some or all vaccines are a good thing, and do not want themselves, family members or other people to be vaccinated." (BBC)[8]
• "public health commentators refer to the activities of an anti-vaccination 'movement'... How much theoretical sense it makes to view anti-vaccination groups as (new) social movement organizations (as distinct from pressure groups or self-help organizations) is as yet unclear." (2006) (Blume, Stuart. "Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations." Social science & medicine 62.3 (2006): 628-642.)
• "The media plays a large role in disseminating and sensationalizing vaccine objections. Such objections are part of what has been called the “anti-vaccination movement”" (2010) (Kata, Anna. "A postmodern Pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet." Vaccine 28.7 (2010): 1709-1716.)
• (Added) "Today in many countries the public conversation about vaccination has become mired in an aggressive argument, which characterises parents as either “pro-vax” (responsible) or “anti-vax” (irresponsible)... (but our research instead suggests) within (people who decline all vaccines), only a handful are the noisy "anti-vaccination" activists" (The Conversation)[9]

Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

While IMHO "vaccine hesitancy" has a different connotation from "anti-vax", the definition appears to usually be the same. It's also independently possible that this groups clusters into two subgroups, a "reluctant" and an "absolutely against" group, but I can't find strong support for demarcating one specific group onto "vaccine hesitant" and one other specific group onto "anti-vax" terminology-wise. Nor does there appear to be a large "vaccine hesitancy" movement distinct from the "anti-vax movement". The current article [10] should probably directly source a definition for anti-vax if it doesn't already. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

-- The following article provides evidence in the form of peer reviewed research (see the links within the article) for the demarcation of anti-vax from vaccine hesitancy. [11] As I argue in the previous section, I believe it is harmful to public health to mischaracterise anyone who has a concern about a vaccines as being "anti-vax" and this article should avoid doing so. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sparticusmaximus: OK, it does say "Within (people who decline all vaccines), only a handful are the noisy "anti-vaccination" activists." Do you have other independent sources with the same (extremely strict) demarcation? If it's just the one source, IMHO it can be listed in a section if desired alongside other definitions, either here or (if the article is over length) in another page, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and there is certainly enough literature to support (for example) a "vaccine outreach" article if there isn't already one. However, we would need more sources to put it in the lead, and we would have to weigh the sources against sources that say differently. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the spectrum shown in that article refers to other sources which they used to establish the spectrum. The sources I cite in the previous section on this talk page reflect this view point and specifically note the dangers of mischaracterising those who simply have concern or reluctance about vaccinations as "anti-vax". The misrepesentation of vaccine hesitancy as "anti-vax" in the lead of the article at present is currently poorly cited and should be updated to provide a more nuanced definition that does not unfairly associate people who have genuine concerns about vaccination with fringe, borderline conspiracy theorist antivaxers. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)