Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Problem of reverting vaccine reformist statements without accurate cause

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Medical and scientific evidence surrounding vaccination demonstrates that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases outweigh adverse effects of certain immunization schedules. Despite this, vaccination controversies began almost 80 years before the terms vaccine and vaccination were introduced and continue to this day. Opponents have questioned the effectiveness, safety, and necessity of many recommended vaccines, especially in comparison to other first world nations. It is also argued that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights to medical decisions and religious principles. It is argued that improvements in hygiene and sanitation contribute to the containment and survivability of many diseases for which there are vaccines . Further, it is of concern that the United States has a very high infant mortality rate especially among full term babies in comparison to other first world nations . The mortality rates correlate with the number vaccinations in each countries' recommended immunization schedule. The more immunizations in a country's immunization schedule, the higher the infant mortality rate.These arguments have reduced vaccination rates in certain communities, resulting in outbreaks of preventable childhood illnesses."

References

Yobel removed parts of this as OR, there is no original research. There is only compilation of freely available data which is cited. Further MEDRS was cited as a reason for removal of information cited by peer reviewed, medical literature; yet Yobel leaves in reference to 'Wired' magazine supporting the opposite view. MEDRS does not apply here. NPOV is cited by yobel, yet yobel is taking out scientific evidence in order to skew the point of view on the page. It is not understood what FRINGE is meant to mean, aside from yelling in bold type. Vaccine Controversy has two sides and each side should be equally presented. Calling one side fringe is simply prejudicial name calling without citation. Wakefield comparisons to Galileo: Both with evidence against the mainstream; Both persecuted for discoveries and science attacked; Both men of high intellegence. Please state where the comparison is inaccurate to equal points in each person's career.Dcrsmama (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)dcrsmama 3/1/2015

Galileo was never proven wrong by science. Next stupid question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been the better part of four years since Miller and Goldman, and almost as long since the article's many flaws (and incompatibility with the strictures of WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS) were discussed on this talk page: Talk:Vaccine controversies/Archive 3#peer reviewed from HET: vaccination links to child mortality (!), Talk:Vaccine controversies/Archive 3#Can wikipedia editors reject the finding of a relevant peer reviewed paper and not include it in the article?).

In the last four years, has there been any reputable secondary source which has embraced and endorsed these findings? In other words, is there any reason to re-discuss or re-assess this apparently-not-very-good, not-very-important paper? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Galileo in his time had many scientists that contradicted his thought. In fact, it was popular opinion at the time. You lack politeness.

As to your link about talk about an article, it looks like nonsense. The fact remains this is a peer reviewed journal that exceeds requirements for references compared to other standards in this article. If you don't like the peer reviewed journal, take it up with the publisher. As for Wiki, it meets the standards.Dcrsmama (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dcrsmama, I hope you don't mind that I cleaned up your incorrectly formatted citations so that they would be readable and digestible on talk. Please review WP:MEDRS; Miller is a primary source. Is it discussed somewhere in a secondary review? Being a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean Wikipedia considers it adequate for sourcing. Further, with several of the other sources, the text appears to be synthesis (original research). Please locate better sources if you want to add text such as this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I don't know if you can see on my user page, but I just began editing a couple of weeks ago. I appreciate any cleaning up of citations.

Am I to understand that a primary source, published and peer reviewed, cited nine times in proquest alone, is less acceptable than 'wired' magazine?

For the other contribution, how would a person publish data from the census bureau and it not be considered OR? I'm assuming the census bureau is adequate for sourcing. The data was complied by healthsentinel.com Is there disagreement with the data itself? It is a compilation of numbers from one source that show death rates over time.

My sources are solid. If someone would like to assist with how they are formatted, help would be appreciated.

At what point do we just ask for a decision as to the validity of sources?Dcrsmama (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I realize you are a new editor: the reason I asked if you minded that I cleaned up your citation formatting is that, technically, another editor should not have edited your post on a talk page. I did it as a courtesy for readability, and so you can go back into edit mode and see how to correctly format citations, but if you objected to me editing your post, I would have to revert my changes.

Actually, none of your sources meet MEDRS (including Wired magazine); please have a careful read of WP:MEDRS and WP:OR and WP:PSTS.

If you doubt what multiple experienced editors here are telling you about sourcing, the place to query a broader audience about sourcing is WP:RSN. I can tell you, though, what answer you will get there ... and it will be no different than what you are getting here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the only citations I was interested in adding was census data which would mirror the graph already present and the journal article from Miller. Wired was not my doing...I keep reading the sites that you all keep listing. My questions are not meant as rhetorical. How is expanding on data already present in the article OR?Dcrsmama (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I responded to this on your Talk page. Flip your question -- everything in WP needs to have a reliable source. What is your source for that extension? (the answer is, you don't have one). When you ask why you don't have one, the answer is... you did the extension yourself. It is your original research. does that answer your question? Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"how would a person publish data from the census bureau and it not be considered OR?". They wouldn't. Because it is. The census data says nothing whatsoever about the effectiveness or otherwise of vaccines, and it is your conclusion that they are relevant. That is OR. You have been provided with links to the relevant guidelines. I suggest you read them, and stop wasting our time. And incidentally, the healthsentinel.com image you uploaded to Wikipedia commons is not only not WP:RS, but appears to have been uploaded in breach of copyright. I have accordingly tagged it for speedy deletion - though of course it couldn't be used in this article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

One additional point, census data speaks, at best, to a correlation but nothing of causation. Sources such as the ones you seem interested in citing are generally disregarded or discredited for that very reason. This talk page is intended merely to be used to improve the article. It's been explained why your edits aren't gaining consensus. Your comments regarding Galileo/Wakefield suggest that you may have difficulty maintaining a neutral point of view. Please take the time to consider that it may be best for you to move away from this subject. Zarcusian (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting a fellow editor not edit any further discourages discussion that can lead to discovery and seems in opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia. If the census data shows no causation, perhaps the rubella information from the CDC should be removed for the same reason? Of course not. The data simply expands the thought already present in the article. About Wakefield, there is a presentation of one side without representation from another. Many believe he is a scapegoat. He has other papers that are much better than the one for which he was crucified. For the purposes of this article, I will let go the comments about Wakefield.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm merely suggesting you focus on areas where you are capable of maintaining a neutral position. By no means am I suggesting you quit altogether. Zarcusian (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point. This article as is, is exceedingly biased. This topic ranges from people wanting to vaccinate children at school without permission from parents, to people thinking all vaccines are horrible baby killers. As it happens, I'm neutral, somewhere in the middle. I'm sorry you don't understand that Dr. Wakefield's paper in question was written in line with what many scientists do on a regular basis, not that it is wonderful. However, to vilify all of Wakefield's work on the basis of writing a paper based on recollection of parents and estimations from interviews is an over reaction clearly making him a scapegoat, but I've already dropped the request to present the other side in the article. Hence demonstrated ability to be neutral by acquiescing that what is written is in line with mainstream for now. After trials are finished and lawyers are done, I will likely post findings from the trial.Dcrsmama (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOAP Your previous comment pretty much sums it up. You clearly aren't interested in improving this article and I'm not interested in wasting anymore time with this. Best regards in your future editing endeavors. Zarcusian (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, if you read my intent. However, there is still the matter of the graph made from census bureau data sourced from healthsentinel with permission that expands the existing graph from the CDC. Also, there is the matter of the peer reviewed, academic journal article from Sage Publications by Dr. Miller showing the correlation of infant mortality rates and vaccination schedules. I would like to include this since this page is about the controversy and not the vaccines themselves. This article explains the want of people for further testing on the safety of so many vaccines in a short period of time.Dcrsmama (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"sourced from healthsentinel with permission"? Actually, no - uploaded to Wikipedia commons, together with a misleading description which stated that the image had been released into the public domain by its author. The image has since quite properly been removed from commons as a copyright violation. Not that it really matters, since we won't cite healthsentinel.com as a source on such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, is "vaccine reformist" the new re-branding of "vaccine safety activist" or "pro-safe vaccine", which in turn were the soft-sell replacements for "anti-vaccinationist"? I can't find it used anywhere but in the header of this section. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any of the terms you mentioned. I just know that people asking for reform of the vaccine schedule are being called anti-vaxxers, and that term not accurate. Vaccine reformist is a descriptive term, not a brand.Dcrsmama (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationists do like to hide behind seeking change to one element of something to do with vaccines. Antivaccinationist is a simple and usefully descriptive term. Midgley (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not helpful.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Midgley. Can you explain that a little bit more. I know that you work on the Coal -Face. (for non British readers it will make sense to him if doesn’t to you). Subject: Anti-vaccinationists'. Lots of vocal mums are those that had had their children vaccinated, which suffered temporal connected (?) complications. So to be correct, they should be not be referent to as 'Anti-vaccinationists as they had had their children vaccinated. Rather, why not look towards them as worried moms (with worried friends and grand-parents etc). Yet, what do they hear, … other than pharmaceutical platitudes. Nothing to do with our product – AND your government freed us from any comeback if out product damaged your child -you lot are just a load of bonkers – sod off! Our share-holder come first. Is that the sort of attitude the way to gain confidence? The proof of that has already been proven in the pudding. --Aspro (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

this is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Is not an aim of the talk page for 'improving' the article? How can this come about unless the subject is discussed? Do you expect blind-dogma to just spontaneously materialize out of the æther? That thinking went out during the 18th century and were are we now? I think its the 21st century! That is why we have a talk page – OK. If you don't agree, then feel free to spend your time on twitter or some such. --Aspro (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not a matter of what I think. The link in my post is to a guideline, which is also linked to in the big yellow box at the top of this, and every Talk page. Article Talk pages are for discussing article content and sources, not for general discussion of the topic. Your comments above were general and were not directed to any specific content or sources under discussion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sake Jytdog stop Wikilawyering. Some of us are trying to improve this article – Is that OK or is it not?--Aspro (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, everyone is free to discuss article content! Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Jytdog is correct. Article talk pages aren't for general chat about the topic (or for angry soapboxing); talk pages are for discussion about how to improve a Wikipedia article. Do you have a specific suggestion for a change to the Wikipedia article associated with this talk page? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the PO's question. Then explain why you think this was a general chat.--Aspro (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I was responding only to your post above, not to the thread overall, which except for your comment and this digression about your comment, is focused on article content. Hatting this. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Stop hating what you don't like Jytdog. Also, I did not read anything into Midgley's post that suggested he was saying anything that could be considered angry soapboxing . Think he was just giving his view – which now having read this mush he may wish he haven’t bothered. It he chooses not to reply, I do not blame him from not wanting to get involved in this maelstrom.--Aspro (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

last response. both TenOfAllTrades and I were responding to your post only. from your post down (inclusive) is all off topic. which is why i hatted it. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't want to 'Out' Midgley and his professional specialty but I think he knows a lot more about the realities of giving inoculations than you lot do. That is why I think he has something useful to contribute. Yet it may require finding sources, hence the need for a debate. Is that OK? Or should we just give up and allow some editors to have Wikipedia:Ownership of articles such as this? Your call.--Aspro (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what you want to debate, nor how it would improve our article here on Wikipedia to do so. Can you answer the following two questions?

1. Are there specific points which you believe should be added to, modified in, or removed from this Wikipedia article?
2. What robust, reliable, high-quality sources are you suggesting in support of the changes you are proposing in part 1? (Or, if you think material should be removed as unsupported, what portion(s) of the article do you believe are not properly supported by reliable sources?)

If you're not prepared to address both of those questions, then you're not prepared to 'debate' the contents a Wikipedia article—and Jytdog's hatting was entirely justified and will be restored. If you are able to clearly enunciate answers to those questions, then there are plenty of editors here who are willing to engage with you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• 1) Midgley stated :Anti-vaccinationists do like to hide behind seeking change to one element of something to do with vaccines. Antivaccinationist is a simple and usefully descriptive term.

2) The aim was, (as as I intimated above) was to debate and find those reliable, high-quality sources. Yet you seemed (evidently) to have jumped the gun on ( in order to appear all knowing perhaps) before Midgley and I got there. You have frighted off an editor (who I think knows a great more about inoculations than you ever will) before he could reply – how do you feel about that? DO your edits comform with the WP spirit? Does that make you feel good?

So Let me ask you a question now : What is your problem with this ? Am I in danger of undermining your Ownership of Vaccine controversies articles ? What do 'you' think know that Midgley doesn't? I have become accustomed to wikilawing from my grand children and some times I say to them: Grow Up... !.--Aspro (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Er...what? Midgley's comment (which you've quoted above as #1) isn't in the Wikipedia article now, and I don't believe anyone – Midgley included – has proposed adding it in the near future. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to start a 'debate' about it, since it isn't germane to the development of the Wikipedia article. And I doubt I've scared anyone off; first because Midgley is made of sterner stuff than that, and second because I suspect that he and I are in agreement. (As Jytdog correctly observed above, my comment about angry soapboxing was very much directed at you, not at Midgley. The problem has not improved, either.)

Now, do you have anything you want to say about the Wikipedia article vaccine controversies in response to my two questions, or can we hat this increasingly-disruptive and off-topic tangent? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "vaccine reform" is too ambiguous to be meaningful. For example anti-vaccination groups use it as a term for making exemptions easier to get[http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2014/NVIC-Calls-for-Vaccine-Policy---Law-Reform--To-Pro.aspx], while others use it for efforts to make exemptions harder to get[1]. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Vaccine reformist" the new re-branding of "vaccine safety activist" or "pro-safe vaccine", which in turn were the soft-sell replacements for "anti-vaccinationist", I think they all mean the same thing but I'm more concerned that Dcrsmama thinks "Mr. Miller" is actually "Dr. Miller".--Daffydavid (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is no content being discussed any longer. Dcrsmama do you have any further questions as to why your edit was reverted on the basis of WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR? All that matters are arguments based on policies and guidelines. Other arguments (e.g analogy with Galileo) have no traction here. And folks if Dcrsmama makes similar non-pAG arguments, please don't counter; its enough to say that "the argument is not based on PAG" and move on. Thanks all. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Miller's paper is a secondary source, peer-reviewed journal article from a reputable publisher. This article has been further cited by other peer reviewed papers. The primary source for this article are the mortality reports from each country's mortality reports. The correlation explains people's attitudes and concerns. This is not an article on vaccine safety, it is on the controversy. This article clearly gives a basis for the controversy.Dcrsmama (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope - a paper analysing census records, and reaching conclusions regarding the consequences of vaccination based on that analysis, is a primary source by any definition whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump either you are referring to the graph, or you are simply wrong about Mr. Miller's paper. Primary source-raw data; secondary source-Mr. Miller's paper; tertiary source-WP citing the paper.Dcrsmama (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Wrong. Clueless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Very descriptive, NOT. Not, helpful...Since the point is proven that the paper is a secondary source from a reputable publisher thus meets guidelines, are there any new objections?Dcrsmama (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that has been proven is that you don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. I suggest you stop wasting our time with this idiocy before you are obliged to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dcrsmama, "primary source" has a technical meaning in Wikipedia. Please actually read WP:MEDRS where that term is defined, and which is the guideline that all the experienced editors here are arguing from. You have been pointed to that guideline several times already. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how any 'technical meaning' differs from the common-sense one here. The census contains demographic data. It contains no information or commentary on the efficacy or otherwise of vaccination. It cannot therefore be a primary source on the efficacy of vaccination. The Miller paper is the primary source for its conclusions regarding the relevance of demographic data to questions regarding the efficacy of vaccination. It cannot be otherwise, since these conclusions didn't exist prior to Miller's study. Common sense says that you can't have secondary sources without prior primary ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read it, and I continue to see that Mr. Miller's is in compliance. Please stop placing the link and place the quote that states this peer reviewed, academic journal article from a reputable publishing house does not comply with standards. AndyTheGrump, you just made my point. Thank you. Miller used primary, Miller's work itself is secondary. There are other peer reviewed, academic journal articles that cite Miller's, would you prefer those also?Dcrsmama (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course there is no content being discussed here because you are throwing spanners in the works all the time to prevent it – Grow up. Why don't you move on and join twitter or something? What good are you doing here on WP ?--Aspro (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Aspro: Fringe psuedo science articles are under discretionary sanctions and making such blatant personal attacks is a quick way to become quickly acquainted with what a topic ban is. I suggest you strike your comment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Dispute resolution" section

... is grossly out of date and should be either updated, removed, or at minimum, contain "as of" dates. I'm out of time here ... there are tons of good sources listed in Further reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed, and replaced with "See also section" . - Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources of Anti-Vaxxer information

Is there another article on Wikipedia that would list any of the sources of information used by the "anti-vaxxers?" I was hoping to do some of my own research and also attempt to track funding for groups that are currently for reducing or reforming establishment vaccination recommendations in the U.S. What I found reading this article was that it reads more like an advertisement for vaccinations. Not only could I not find any current "anti-vax" groups listed, or any sources of their information, but I could not even find any claims, with or without citations, made by anti-vaxxers. I am specifically interested in what groups are currently fighting the established vaccination procedures in the U.S. and what are their actual arguments.

For an article entitled Vaccine Controversies, there is not much controversy specifically cited on this page.

For example, there is a section called Prenatal Infection. What does the information in this section even have to do with vaccine controversies. It reads like a lament that not enough pregnant women get vaccinations. Even worse than that, this section is in a super-category called safety. At the very least, that section is misplaced. There seems to be a lot of activity on this page but it's certainly not very encyclopedic, nor does it seem to be "about" vaccine controversies. Has anyone noticed that about half the article consists of statistics illustrating the effectiveness of vaccines when vaccines were stopped or restricted.

I know that I'm just whining and I apologize but I was really expecting something better than this. This is very much out of my area of expertise and I'm sure some of the contributors to this page actually do know enough to be able to fix it. WDRev (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE - Cwobeel (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If this article were entitled, "Effectiveness of Vaccines," then one could make the argument that WP:FRINGE applies to the article concerning current North American Anti-Vaxxers' claims, but this article is about controversies, including the current ones, which have garnered significant attention, not just in the U.S., including Celebrities and whatnot. Anti-vaxxers may be on the fringe but they do not comprise a fringe controversy. At the moment, anti-vaxxers are the primary controversy surrounding vaccines. Therefore in an article entitled, "Vaccine Controversies," it would be negligent to not include a lot more information about current anti-vax groups and ideas. That could certainly be done without lending official credence to their fringe theories. Just my POV. WDRev (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You may find some material at Category:Anti-vaccination_activists, and also Andrew Wakefield and MMR vaccine controversy - Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Source

Here is a source from the National Library of Medicine, that could be used to expand the article Anti-vaccinationists past and present - Cwobeel (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The article, particularly the Vaccine Overload section, can also be expanded/updated with the following IoM report:

Institute of Medicine (2013). The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Narcolepsy

Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere: The vaccine Pandemrix increases the risk of narcolepsy. (See article for more information.) 2001:16D8:DD00:8203:F8A7:32D1:DE5A:386D (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

How does this relate to the subject of this article? Has there been any specific controversy over this? If so, please cite a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fellowship of Divine Tenets & Congregation of Universal Wisdom edits

Wquestva and Lovpjoy22 have both added information regarding Fellowship of Divine Tenets and Congregation of Universal Wisdom and their stance on vaccines (e.g., see this edit). These edits have been reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom, AndyTheGrump and myself as WP:UNDUE coverage of a WP:FRINGE belief. Because there have been a handful of back-and-forth edits over the past few days, I am initiating discussion on these edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless and until a particular organisation is discussed by third-party reliable sources, they don't belong in the article, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia isn't here to promote obscure 'religions' set up for no purpose other than to secure exemptions to vaccination programs. The general topic is discussed in our vaccination and religion article, and any content on the subject of such 'religions' (sourced from third-party sources) belongs there, not here. And I would remind contributors that creating multiple accounts with the intent of giving a misleading impression of support for particular content is sockpuppetry, and not permitted. 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In the history of Vaccine controversies, these "new religions" are not even pebbles on the ocean. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

New section needed

The article needs a section for individual controversies such as this one David Bardens#The David Bardens vs. Stefan Lanka law suit. I was not too sure where to open such a section. --Olaf Simons (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased Article

This article is grossly biased in favor of vaccine advocates and leaves out the significant evidence, available in numerous books and documentaries, from the science and medical community who oppose vaccinations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.193.96 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Vaccines save lives. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.151.32 (talk • contribs) 03:40, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

News

The following might be useful for this article: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-confirm-theres-nothing-but-misinformation-on-anti-vax-sites_563a31c7e4b0411d306f0cee

HPV, promiscuity

Also recently, the HPV vaccine has become controversial due to concerns that it may encourage promiscuity when given to 11- and 12-year-old girls.

Two sources are given. One of them requires EUR 72,00 to purchase the article, the other doesn't mention promiscuity at all, but rather:

She points out that studies so far show the vaccines protect for four or five years. Scientists hope protection will last for 10 years or more, but it's possible young women may need a booster shot later.

As it stands now, Harper says, vaccinating an 11-year-old girl might not protect her when she needs it most — in her most sexually active years. Prevalence (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Prevalence, do you have a suggested improvement? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I leave that up to the regular editors of the article (was really looking for the CIA fake vaccination controversy: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-cia-fake-vaccination-campaign-endangers-us-all/ http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-05-21/the-cia-stops-fake-vaccinations-as-real-polio-rebounds). Remove or replace the source that doesn't contain the statement? The objection quoted above (wrong age group) seems like an argument that might be "popular", but I don't know if it's notable enough for inclusion (or whether it has any validity). Prevalence (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vaccine controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

CDC Page is gone

The page referenced in current footnote 47:

"A Centers for Disease Control website aimed at countering common misconceptions about vaccines argued, "Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused incidence of each disease to drop, just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced?"[47]"

is no longer there. It redirects to a different URL which doesn't seem to contain the same type of information, it's only an FAQ.

Wayback: http://web.archive.org/web/20150120055820/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.94.5 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I added the archive to the citation. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

1976 Swine Flu Vaccine

Has the 1976 swine flu outbreak ever been included in this article? It was a PR debacle for flu vaccination and management of public health, as I recall it. Tapered (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Vaccines and Autism

In regards to the factual information that I have posted (that has been removed more than once) regarding Congressman Bill Posey's request for an investigation into affidavits that were submitted to him by a senior CDC scientist about information that was not revealed to the public... how can editors say that it did not happen? Of course the fact that numerous websites reported that it happened seems to be not good enough... but when I cannot post a link to the video of the Congressman actually delivering the speech...(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxr-cv-JuI8) I have done what I can to provide proof and it is a key piece of information in the controversy. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnS-xJCG6i4) Interesting that some who insist that something is so, or not so, cannot deal with facts that show that they may be incorrect. BennyPSanders (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Menigococcal B in New Zealand

User:BennyPSanders is misrepresenting information from the NZ Ministry of Health. Charlotte Cleverly-Bisman was very much the face of the very successful 2004-2008 campaign to end the epidemic of meningococcal B in NZ through vaccination. The only reason that meningococcal B vaccine is no longer offered in NZ is that the 2004-2008 campaign was so successful that it was more-or-less vaccinated out of existence. It's so uncontroversial, I have no idea what the point of trying to include it in this article is. PepperBeast (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pepperbeast... there is no mention of the availability of a vaccine for strain B on the NZ health site. How is this a misrepresentation of the truth? You need to rethink your militaristic attitude. The page is about Controversy, so why do so many try to remove anything that disagrees with their point of view? Afraid that readers might be able to make up their own minds on the issue? As a teacher, I have been taught to provide unbiased information and to not indoctrinate those who seek information.BennyPSanders (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

We're reporting on controversies that exist, not making up controversies. That NZ ended a long-term epidemic of meningococcal B through vaccination is *not* controversial. It's perfectly straightforward. It's also perfectly straightforward that meningococcal B is no longer a serious threat in NZ. To state that no vaccine against Men. B is available without giving the details is to suggest that meningitis B is not vaccine -preventable, when, in fact, it is and NZ is an obvious success story.. PepperBeast (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

What aspects of the NZ anti-meningococcal B vaccine campaign do you think are controvesial, anyway? PepperBeast (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

How about this? "It is also of interest that the MeNZB™ researchers themselves now acknowledge that there is no body of evidence that MeNZB™-type vaccines confer herd immunity." Proceedings of the Meningococcal Vaccine Strategy World Health Organization Satellite Meeting, 10 March 2004, Auckland NZ; published in NZMJ, Aug 2004. or that the vaccine given in NZ was one that had been manufactured for a Norwegian epidemic that went away on its own without the use of the vaccine. The vaccine was 'dumped' on NZ with the knowledge that it would not have been effective if it was used anyhow at a time when the NZ epidemic was already on the wane. Lancet. 1991 Nov 2;338(8775):1093-6BennyPSanders (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is completely different information from what you've added to the article. How can a Lancet article from 1991 say anything about a vaccine campaign started in 2004? PepperBeast (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This is information I'm giving to you, to answer your question. The vaccine was not developed for the NZ epidemic... even though members of the government attempted to convince that it had... it was developed more than a decade before, by a Norwegian company... "The Lancet medical journal reported in 1991 that the Norwegian Institute of Public Health found that the large and robust clinical trials proved the vaccine to have insufficient efficacy to justify its use in a mass vaccination program. The Lancet paper also contained data showing that the epidemic was waning naturally by the completion of the trials. The incidence had declined from peak levels by about 50%, similar to the natural decline that had occurred in New Zealand when the vaccine was approved." The NZ government was conned out of a huge amount of money... and no longer offers the vaccine because the cost outweighs the benefit. Interesting point of view. They realize that the vaccine had little to do with protecting the people against the disease. BennyPSanders (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

So stop making vague assertions about Charlotte Cleverly-Bisman and add some factual information to that article. PepperBeast (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at a chart based on information from NZ Ministry of Health. When the MeNZB vaccine was introduced in 2004, the cases of Meningococcal Disease were at their lowest in a decade... and strain B was only half of the total cases. The disease had run its course, as do most diseases. The vaccine 'arrived' when it was already over. And evidently, the expiry date of the vaccines had been reached, so the company distributing it (Chiron) changed the dates to extend the usage by approximately 6 months. BennyPSanders (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pepper.. I know you want the same thing that I do, for people to gain valuable information about the subject. I was not trying to tear down the whole article, just give readers something to think about. Based on your suggestion, I will carefully add details.. that are controversial. I will work on this over the next day or so. I will remove the addition and repost it when completed. I have a university paper to finish tonight (Science of Conquest) so hopefully I will add this back tomorrow. Thank you for this discussion. It was helpful. BennyPSanders (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (S.I.R.V.A.)

Sometimes, shoulder pain and reduced range of motion can become chronic problems after a vaccination, usually because the shot is administered in the wrong area of the shoulder. There is even a name for the condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration, or SIRVA. It has resulted in a long list of lawsuits.

https://www.verywell.com/shoulder-pain-after-vaccine-injection-sirva-2549798

https://www.mctlawyers.com/vaccine-injury/sirva/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Vaccine's History Proves To Be Controversial Vaccines are controversial and have been for a long period of time. There are many times in history when history that have shown vaccines to be negative. In 1955, Cutter Laboratories, made the polio vaccine. Several batches were not made correctly, and the polio vaccine was given out to the public. It contained a live virus of polio, and ended up infecting over 250 different people. These people ended up with full blown polio and ended up having paralysis. Another time in 1998, the rotavirus vaccine was giving infants intussusception. Intussusception causes the bowels to fold in on themselves. After discovering this, the CDC pulled all rotavirus vaccines and discontinued the program for the rotavirus vaccine (CDC). While this was all negative, you have to also look at the positive outcome of the same vaccine. In 1952, 58000 people were infected with polio, 3,145 died, and another 21,268 were left with paralysis. If the vaccine was not made, instead of 250 people dying, many more people would have died due to the polio outbreak, and in our society today we would still have many people dying because of polio (Sokol). CDC. “Historical Vaccine Concerns” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html Sokol, B. “Fear of Polio in the 1950’s.” The Beat Begins, America in the 50’s. 1997, http://www.plosin.com/beatbegins/projects/sokol.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4300:1BD6:DC1A:7685:87E1:DBFE (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM PepperBeast (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we avoid focusing on controversies?

Doesn’t this article violate WP:CRITS? Can we address this? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of said essay states that "a section [or article] dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location". So there are definitely exceptions to that (and I believe that this article would qualify as an exception), not to mention that WP:CRITS is an essay and therefore can't really be enforced. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your last point: no, consensus can always be enforced. Please see WP:ONLYESSAY, and note that CRITS references WP:NPOV which is policy. If you disagree with the points made in the essay or believe there is no consensus for them, then we can discuss that, regardless of the page’s classification.

As to your main point, you’re probably right. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Reference problem

ref name "wolfesharp" appears not to be in the reflist, does anyone know what this source is so it can be added to the reflist? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Vaccine controversies#vaccine overload

"Of the 1,008 children in the study, one quarter of those diagnosed with autism were born between 1994 and 1999, when the routine vaccine schedule could contain more than 3,000 antigens (in a single shot of DTP vaccine)."

I read it as containing "3,000 different antigens". Wouldn't it be worth making this interpretation explicit? It would make more sense to me, but I'm not sure I know how to check for it to be supported by quotations. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I also read it this way, what other way are you afraid people will interpret it?. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

3000 molecules of antigen per dose. Which makes no sense. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that; I failed to notice the word "schedule". With it, things have fallen into place, and there is no need to modify the article. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Awkward wording

"An outbreak at a religious community and school"

Does anyone think it could be changed? Shouldn't it be "in a religious community" and "at school"? But is that school religious?--Adûnâi (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, both of those sentences need to be reworded. The way it reads now is not reflective of the contents of the ref. The school wasn't the only outbreak nor the start of the outbreak. Feel free to rewrite it, I don't have the time at the moment to do it myself.--Daffydavid (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Politifact

No, the flu shot was not designed to spread cancer. ""Doctor blows whistle on flu shot: ‘it’s designed to spread cancer,’" said a Feb. 28 headline on Meddaily, an alternative medicine website." Maybe useful for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The article would be stronger by specifically identifying the disease burden of each preventable disease (sick, doctor, hospital, death, long term) by percentage and severity

Vaccine's high degree of safety can never reach 100%. The compelling argument for vaccination is the relatively much greater percentage risk and disease burden costs of remaining without some immunity to the disease itself.

It's a lot of work to go through and bring out the risks and costs of catching each disease, disease by disease. Yet anti-vaxers get traction precisely because they direct their appeals to those who are unaware of disease risk incidence, disease impacts, and the possibility of protecting others (vaccinating first grader protects them, baby sibling, and grandma).

When, and only when, the risks and impacts of the disease itself are set forth plainly and credibly do the anti-vaxers' arguments fall apart.

E.g., influenza causes Guillain-Barré, which strikes the un-vaccinated far more often than the vaccinated.

Detailing the relative risk for each disease is a big job. It takes quite a bit more research, but it's worth it.

@Ocdcntx: I agree that a clear and accurate comparison of the benefits and risks of each vaccine would be good (for informational purposes, as a wikipedia article should never be written with the intent of making an argument), but I think this should go in the article on each vaccine, rather than this article, which is more of a general desicription of the controversies surrounding vaccination, not a detailed explanation of the benefits of every vaccine. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The risks of vaccines are extraordinarily small, otherwise (rather obviously) they don't get approved. Talking up the risks is a staple of the antivax movement. Pack inserts and VAERS are not proper sources for risks of vaccines. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, but in a usual case they vary between 98-99% safe - the greater case being the severity of what happens to the 1%. The VSV-EBOV vaccine against Ebola also has a lower rate than usual when it was introduced, given the circumstances (coupled with a far higher error margin regarding safety/efficacy) for example. I do believe adding the primary vaccines and their relevant stats on this would benefit the article, were someone(s) feeling energetic. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Is "no evidence" accurate?

(As requested, a new thread to clarify my editing intentions and concerns:)

The article states there is "no evidence" of a link between vaccines and autism. I'd like to correct this inaccurate statement. I know some papers proposing such a link have been retracted (and so no longer count as evidence). Others have been criticised on methodological and/or funding grounds; but poor evidence is not no evidence. It ceases to be evidence only when proven erroneous or inapplicable (or if retracted). This may seem like a minor point, but I believe it is not; it may sound like I have a preconceived agenda against vaccines; I do not. This article is the place to explain vaccine controversies, not brush them over. I came here to understand a particular controversy over aluminium adjuvants and their proposed link to autism, and the article told me nothing. I would like to remedy this, but I want to first understand the balance of evidence so I can strike the right balance in the article rather than add what looks like a one-sided anti-vaxxer screed (and avoid provoking an edit war).

My problem is, I haven't found any evidence on the other side to vindicate aluminium. User:MPants_at_work suggests that any research on the safety of aluminium adjuvants that does not mention autism is "inescapably if implicitly" evidence against an aluminium-autism link, and that two papers already cited in this article provide such evidence. I don't agree: such may be the case with certain cohort studies where there is some likelihood that abnormal incidence of autism would be detected. But there are no citations like that, and he hasn't specified what citations he's referring to.

What am I to do? On the one hand I have disputed evidence (that I too can see flaws in); on the other hand a yawning absence of any opposing evidence. The only balance I can yet give to any discussion of the Al/autism controversy seems to be in the methodological and funding disputes, and suspicion of fraud. If anyone can help me find some conclusive (or even suggestive) evidence to balance this up with, I'd be grateful (with citations, please!). I'm not planning a large addition, and some solid opposing research would help it stay short and sweet. Fuzzypeg★ 11:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

What you are doing is confirmation bias. In science, first you must establish if there is a question to answer. Wakefield's fraud led to decades of diligent research, the sum total of which robustly refutes the idea that vaccines cause autism. Japan withdrew MMR and replaced it with single jabs, it made no difference. Some parents stopped vaccinating, it made no difference. There is no association, causal or otherwise. Initially antivaxers fixated on mercury, in the form of thimerosal, because they don't understand chemistry any better than they understand logic. Thimerosal was removed, and it made no difference. Now they have fixated on aluminium and are paying people like Exley to write studies proposing a link there. It'as like homeopaths endlessly casting around for the explanation of how homeopathy works, because they refuse to accept the robustly established fact that it doesn't.

There are meta analyses that consider the totality of evidence. Remember, papers proposing vaccines as a cause of autism are always based on statistics, the combination of a frequent event (vaccination) and an infrequent event (ASD diagnosis) is an absolute recipe for false positives, and many of these papers compound that by blatant P-hacking. So when you take all the evidence and combine it, so that individual outliers are properly factored in, you get... no link. And now it's a case of True Believers arguing exactly how the lizard people walk among us without detection. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Trying to explain a vaccine controversy in an article about vaccine controversies is not "doing confirmation bias" (WP:UNDUE). I have no preconceived opinion to confirm. I haven't seen a meta-analysis that considers the totality of the evidence (certainly the paper you link is not one, as I have explained above), but any paper that addresses aluminium/autism in any part would be a help, not just in achieving WP:BALASP but in keeping it concise. I'm not convinced by your generalization that autism-linking studies "always" combine a frequent and an infrequent event, "an absolute recipe for false positives": for instance Exley's mechanistic studies, though dubious for various reasons, don't match that description. But I'm not sure what your intended point is here. I wonder if it's time to write something up and add it to the article so we can discuss specifics, rather than going round in circles, as it seems neither of us understands what the other intends. Fuzzypeg★ 22:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It is when your "explanation" relies on accepting a conspiracy theory that has been extensively analysed and debunked. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't intend to write anything that "accepts" that point of view. Fuzzypeg★ 02:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The "totality"? An unattainable requirement. Moving goalposts. Jim1138 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not shifting goalposts, just responding to Guy's assertion that "There are meta analyses that consider the totality of evidence". I'm not asking for that and I doubt it exists (though great if it did!). I'm simply asking for help to find any paper that provides any kind of evidence (conclusive or not) that aluminium adjuvants are not associated with increased risk of autism. So I can give WP:BALASP. If none is forthcoming I'll proceed without and do the best I can. Fuzzypeg★ 02:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Whether you, personally, are moving any goalposts is rather irrelevant. It is the anti-vaccine activists and their leaders who are doing it. They are ignoring the apparent fact that there is no difference (as explained above). It's an easily falsifiable statement which they refuse to deal with. All they'd have to do is show studies which do show a difference, but no quality study shows such a difference. In your case, you want us to prove a negative by finding "a paper that provides...." Sorry, we can't help you by proving a negative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

When research shows a difference between the rates of autism for people who are vaccinated and those who are not, then we'll have something, but, so far, no one has been able to prove a difference. The incidence of autism is the same for those vaccinated and those who are not. It's pretty hard to make a case for blaming vaccines without such a difference, so those who are dead set against vaccines start to cast about for anything else. They just keep moving the goalposts in a pseudo-scientific game of hide-and-seek. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"The incidence of autism is the same for those vaccinated and those who are not": citation please and we can discuss this? Such a statement is supported for MMR and thimerosal, but I'm not aware of any research comparing other vaccinations (or vaccinations in general) against incidence of autism. Specifically, there is (apparently) an absence of such research involving any vaccine containing aluminium adjuvants. If you know of some, then please help me out. Also, I'm not trying to make a case for blaming a vaccine for anything. Please read the prior discussion so we don't go round in circles. Fuzzypeg★ 02:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that any credible study stating that "vaccines are unlikely to cause autism" would not include a non-vaccinated group. That is how such studies and good science is done. Have you read any papers with such concussions? Are you saying they don't have a non-vaccinated group included? Jim1138 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We can't prove a negative. Instead, find good research which shows a difference in the rates of autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated, and you'll have proved they are at fault. Go for it. Until you've found it, please stop attacking vaccines or spreading any suspicion about them, because that kind of thing costs lives, quite literally, and most often the lives of children. Anti-vaxers are literally baby killers. Strong words? Yes, but very true. Bill Gates makes that point quite plainly: Bill Gates: "Vaccine-autism link 'an absolute lie'". Seriously, just stop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

On the assumption that you are remotely sincere, a quick google found this brief list of studies showing no link between ASD and vaccination status or otherwise investigating the autism claims of antivaxers.

• Abu Kuwaik G, Roberts W, Zwaigenbaum L, Bryson S, Smith IM, Szatmari P, Modi BM, Tanel N, Brian J. Immunization uptake in younger siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism. 2014 Feb;18(2):148-55. doi: 10.1177/1362361312459111. Epub 2012 Oct 8. PMID 23045216.
• Albizzati A, Morè L, Di Candia D, Saccani M, Lenti C. Normal concentrations of heavy metals in autistic spectrum disorders. Minerva Pediatr. 2012 Feb;64(1):27-31. PMID 22350041.
• Afzal MA, Ozoemena LC, O’Hare A, Kidger KA, Bentley ML, Minor PD. Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK. J Med Virol. 2006 May;78(5):623-30. PMID 16555271.
• Ahearn WH. What Every Behavior Analyst Should Know About the “MMR Causes Autism” Hypothesis. Behav Anal Pract. 2010 Spring;3(1):46-50. PMID 22479671; PMC 3004684.
• Allan GM, Ivers N. The autism-vaccine story: fiction and deception? Can Fam Physician. 2010 Oct;56(10):1013. PMID 20944043; PMC 2954080.
• Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics. 2004 Sep;114(3):584-91. PMID 15342825.
• Andrews N, Miller E, Taylor B, Lingam R, Simmons A, Stowe J, Waight P. Recall bias, MMR, and autism. Arch Dis Child. 2002 Dec;87(6):493-4. PMID 12456546; PMC 1755823.
• Aps LRMM, Piantola MAF, Pereira SA, Castro JT, Santos FAO, Ferreira LCS. Adverse events of vaccines and the consequences of non-vaccination: a critical review. Rev Saude Publica. 2018;52:40. doi: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2018052000384. Epub 2018 Apr 12. Review. Portuguese, English. PMID 29668817; PMC 5933943.
• Baio J, Wiggins L, Christensen DL, Maenner MJ, Daniels J, Warren Z, Kurzius-Spencer M, Zahorodny W, Robinson Rosenberg C, White T, Durkin MS, Imm P, Nikolaou L, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Lee LC, Harrington R, Lopez M, Fitzgerald RT, Hewitt A, Pettygrove S, Constantino JN, Vehorn A, Shenouda J, Hall-Lande J, Van Naarden Braun K, Dowling NF. Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018 Apr 27;67(6):1-23. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6706a1. PMID 29701730.
• Baird G, Pickles A, Simonoff E, Charman T, Sullivan P, Chandler S, Loucas T, Meldrum D, Afzal M, Thomas B, Jin L, Brown D. Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders. Arch Dis Child. 2008 Oct;93(10):832-7. doi: 10.1136/adc.2007.122937. Epub 2008 Feb 5. Erratum in: Arch Dis Child. 2008 Dec;93(12):1079. PMID 18252754.
• Berger BE, Navar-Boggan AM, Omer SB. Congenital rubella syndrome and autism spectrum disorder prevented by rubella vaccination–United States, 2001-2010. BMC Public Health. 2011 May 19;11:340. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-340. PMID 21592401; PMC 3123590.
• Black C, Kaye JA, Jick H. Relation of childhood gastrointestinal disorders to autism: nested case-control study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database. BMJ. 2002 Aug 24;325(7361):419-21. PMID 12193358; PMC 119436.
• Black SB, Cimino CO, Hansen J, Lewis E, Ray P, Corsaro B, Graepel J, Laufer D. Immunogenicity and safety of measles-mumps-rubella, varicella and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines administered concurrently with a fourth dose of heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine compared with the vaccines administered without heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Apr;25(4):306-11. PMID 16567981.
• Bower H. New research demolishes link between MMR vaccine and autism. BMJ. 1999 Jun 19;318(7199):1643. PMID 10373156; PMC 1116011.
• Chang LV. Information, education, and health behaviors: Evidence from the MMR vaccine autism controversy. Health Econ. 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1002/hec.3645. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 29717799.
• Chen W, Landau S, Sham P, Fombonne E. No evidence for links between autism, MMR and measles virus. Psychol Med. 2004 Apr;34(3):543-53. PMID 15259839.
• Christie B. Scottish expert group finds no link between MMR and autism. BMJ. 2002 May 11;324(7346):1118. PMID 12008724; PMC 1172158.
• Clements CJ, McIntyre PB. When science is not enough – a risk/benefit profile of thiomersal-containing vaccines. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2006 Jan;5(1):17-29. Review. PMID 16370953.
• Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines, Institute of Medicine; Stratton K, Ford A, Rusch E, Clayton EW, editors. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011 Aug 25. PMID 24624471.
• Dales L, Hammer SJ, Smith NJ. Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. JAMA. 2001 Mar 7;285(9):1183-5. PMID 11231748.
• Davidson M. Vaccination as a cause of autism-myths and controversies. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2017 Dec;19(4):403-407. PMID 29398935; PMC 5789217.
• de Los Reyes EC. Autism and immunizations: separating fact from fiction. Arch Neurol. 2010 Apr;67(4):490-2. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.57. PMID 20385917.
• DeWilde S, Carey IM, Richards N, Hilton SR, Cook DG. Do children who become autistic consult more often after MMR vaccination? Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Mar;51(464):226-7. PMID 11255906; PMC 1313956.
• Demicheli V, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;2:CD004407. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3. Review. PMID 22336803.
• DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan atlanta. Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):259-66. PMID 14754936.
• DeStefano F. Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Dec;82(6):756-9. Epub 2007 Oct 10. Review. PMID 17928818.
• DeStefano F. MMR vaccine and autism: a review of the evidence for a causal association. Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7 Suppl 2:S51-2. Review. PMID 12142951.
• DeStefano F, Chen RT. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal association. J Pediatr. 2000 Jan;136(1):125-6. PMID 10681219.
• DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. J Pediatr. 2013 Aug;163(2):561-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.02.001. Epub 2013 Mar 30. PMID 23545349.
• DeStefano F, Thompson WW. MMR vaccine and autism: an update of the scientific evidence. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2004 Feb;3(1):19-22. Review. PMID 14761240.
• DeStefano F, Thompson WW. MMR vaccination and autism: is there a link? Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2002 Jul;1(2):115-20. Review. PMID 12904145.
• DeStefano F, Chen RT. Negative association between MMR and autism. Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):1987-8. PMID 10376608.
• DeStefano F, Chen RT. Autism and measles-mumps-rubella vaccination: controversy laid to rest? CNS Drugs. 2001;15(11):831-7. Review. PMID 11700148.
• Di Pasquale A, Bonanni P, Garçon N, Stanberry LR, El-Hodhod M, Tavares Da Silva F. Vaccine safety evaluation: Practical aspects in assessing benefits and risks. Vaccine. 2016 Nov 8. pii: S0264-410X(16)30974-4. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.039. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 27836435.
• D’Souza J, Todd T. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the development of autism or inflammatory bowel disease: the controversy should end. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2003 Jul;8(3):187-99. doi: 10.5863/1551-6776-8.3.187. PMID 23118678; PMC 3469143.
• D’Souza Y, Fombonne E, Ward BJ. No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics. 2006 Oct;118(4):1664-75. Erratum in: Pediatrics. 2006 Dec;118(6):2608. PMID 17015560.
• Doja A, Roberts W. Immunizations and autism: a review of the literature. Can J Neurol Sci. 2006 Nov;33(4):341-6. Review. PMID 17168158.
• Elliman D, Bedford H. MMR: where are we now? Arch Dis Child. 2007 Dec;92(12):1055-7. Epub 2007 Jul 11. Review. PMID 17626143; PMC 2066086.
• Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine. 2001 Jun 14;19(27):3632-5. PMID 11395196.
• Fitzpatrick M. The end of the road for the campaign against MMR. Br J Gen Pract. 2007 Aug;57(541):679. PMID 17688775; PMC 2099687.
• Fombonne E, Chakrabarti S. No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism. Pediatrics. 2001 Oct;108(4):E58. PMID 11581466.
• Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D. Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence and links with immunizations. Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):e139-50. PMID 16818529.
• Gadad BS, Lia W, Yazdani U, Grady S, Johnson T, Hammond J, Gunn G, Curtis B, English C, Yutuc V, Ferrier C, Sackett GP, Marti N, Young K, Lewiston L, German DC. Administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines to infant rhesus macaques does not result in autism-like behavior or neuropathology. PNAS; Sept 2015. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500968112.
• García-Fernández L, Hernández AV, Suárez Moreno V, Fiestas F. [Addressing the controversy regarding the association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism]. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2013 Apr;30(2):268-74. Spanish. PMID 23949514.
• Gentile I, Bravaccio C, Bonavolta R, Zappulo E, Scarica S, Riccio MP, Settimi A, Portella G, Pascotto A, Borgia G. Response to measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in children with autism spectrum disorders. In Vivo. 2013 May-Jun;27(3):377-82. PMID 23606694.
• Gerber JS, Offit PA. Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses. Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Feb 15;48(4):456-61. doi: 10.1086/596476. Review. PMID 19128068; PMC 2908388.
• Glasper EA. New evidence reaffirms the safety of the MMR vaccine. Br J Nurs. 2002 Jun 27-Jul 10;11(12):794. PMID 12131827.
• Glickman G, Harrison E, Dobkins K. Vaccination Rates among Younger Siblings of Children with Autism. N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 14;377(11):1099-1101. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1708223. PMID 28902586.
• Goin-Kochel RP, Mire SS, Dempsey AG, Fein RH, Guffey D, Minard CG, Cunningham RM, Sahni LC, Boom JA. Parental report of vaccine receipt in children with autism spectrum disorder: Do rates differ by pattern of ASD onset? Vaccine. 2016 Mar 8;34(11):1335-42. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.02.008. Epub 2016 Feb 8. PMID 26868082.
• Halsey NA, Hyman SL; Conference Writing Panel. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autistic spectrum disorder: report from the New Challenges in Childhood Immunizations Conference convened in Oak Brook, Illinois, June 12-13, 2000. Pediatrics. 2001 May;107(5):E84. Review. PMID 11331734.
• Hayney MS. Vaccine safety: no link between thimerosal and autism. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2004 Nov-Dec;44(6):725-6. PMID 15637857.
• Hertz-Picciotto I, Green PG, Delwiche L, Hansen R, Walker C, Pessah IN. Blood mercury concentrations in CHARGE Study children with and without autism. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Jan;118(1):161-6. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900736. PMID 20056569; PMC 2831962.
• Hensley E, Briars L. Closer look at autism and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2010 Nov-Dec;50(6):736-41. doi: 10.1331/JAPhA.2010.10004. Review. PMID 21071320.
• Heron J, Golding J; ALSPAC Study Team. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the United kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics. 2004 Sep;114(3):577-83. PMID 15342824.
• Hessel L. [Mercury in vaccines]. Bull Acad Natl Med. 2003;187(8):1501-10. Review. French. PMID 15146581.
• Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9. PMID 15877763.
• Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, Siemetzki U, Hummel K, Rota PA, Bellini WJ, O’Leary JJ, Sheils O, Alden E, Pickering L, Lipkin WI. Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study. PLoS One. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003140. PMID 18769550; PMC 2526159.
• Hotez PJ. Texas and Its Measles Epidemics. PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 25;13(10):e1002153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002153. PMID 27780206; PMC 5079653.
• Hurley AM, Tadrous M, Miller ES. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism: a review of recent epidemiologic studies. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Jul;15(3):173-81. PMID 22477809; PMC 3018252.
• Hutton J. Does Rubella Cause Autism: A 2015 Reappraisal? Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Feb 1;10:25. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00025. Review. PMID 26869906; PMC 4734211.
• Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA. 2003 Oct 1;290(13):1763-6. PMID 14519711.
• Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. PMID 20669467.
• Iqbal S, Barile JP, Thompson WW, DeStefano F. Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7-10 years. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013 Dec;22(12):1263-70. doi: 10.1002/pds.3482. Epub 2013 Jul 12. PMID 23847024.
• Jain A, Marshall J, Buikema A, Bancroft T, Kelly JP, Newschaffer CJ. Autism Occurrence by MMR Vaccine Status Among US Children With Older Siblings With and Without Autism. JAMA. 2015 Apr 21;313(15):1534-1540. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.3077. PMID 25898051.
• Jefferson T, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C. Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Feb;4(2):84-90. Review. PMID 14871632.
• Jefferson T, Price D, Demicheli V, Bianco E; European Research Program for Improved Vaccine Safety Surveillance (EUSAFEVAC) Project. Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2003 Sep 8;21(25-26):3954-60. Review. PMID 12922131.
• Jick H, Kaye JA. Epidemiology and possible causes of autism. Pharmacotherapy. 2003 Dec;23(12):1524-30. Erratum in: Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24(4):following table of contents. PMID 14695031.
• Kaye JA, del Mar Melero-Montes M, Jick H. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis. BMJ. 2001 Feb 24;322(7284):460-3. PMID 11222420; PMC 26561.
• King BH. Promising Forecast for Autism Spectrum Disorders. JAMA. 2015 Apr 21;313(15):1518-1519. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.2628. PMID 25898047.
• Klein KC, Diehl EB. Relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. Ann Pharmacother. 2004 Jul-Aug;38(7-8):1297-300. Epub 2004 Jun 1. Review. PMID 15173555.
• Kuppili PP, Manohar H, Menon V. Current status of vaccines in psychiatry-A narrative review. Asian J Psychiatr. 2018 Jan;31:112-120. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2018.02.004. Epub 2018 Feb 15. Review. PMID 29476951.
• Lazoff T, Zhong L, Piperni T, Fombonne E. Prevalence of pervasive developmental disorders among children at the English Montreal School Board. Can J Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;55(11):715-20. PMID 21070699.
• Lingam R, Simmons A, Andrews N, Miller E, Stowe J, Taylor B. Prevalence of autism and parentally reported triggers in a north east London population. Arch Dis Child. 2003 Aug;88(8):666-70. PMID 12876158; PMC 1719604.
• Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477-82. PMID 12421889.
• Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. [MMR vaccination and autism–a population-based follow-up study]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2002 Dec 2;164(49):5741-4. Danish. PMID 12523209.
• Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, Thorsen P, Plesner AM, Andersen PH, Mortensen PB. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics. 2003 Sep;112(3 Pt 1):604-6. PMID 12949291.
• Madsen KM, Vestergaard M. MMR vaccination and autism : what is the evidence for a causal association? Drug Saf. 2004;27(12):831-40. Review. PMID 15366972.
• Mäkelä A, Nuorti JP, Peltola H. Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Pediatrics. 2002 Nov;110(5):957-63. PMID 12415036.
• Maglione MA, Das L, Raaen L, Smith A, Chari R, Newberry S, Shanman R, Perry T, Goetz MB, Gidengil C. Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics; 2014 July 1 (published online). doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1079
• Marin M, Broder KR, Temte JL, Snider DE, Seward JF; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Use of combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010 May 7;59(RR-3):1-12. PMID 20448530.
• Marwick C. US report finds no link between MMR and autism. BMJ. 2001 May 5;322(7294):1083. PMID 11337432; PMC 1120232.
• Meadows M. IOM report: no link between vaccines and autism. FDA Consum. 2004 Sep-Oct;38(5):18-9. PMID 15595144.
• Meilleur AA, Fombonne E. Regression of language and non-language skills in pervasive developmental disorders. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2009 Feb;53(2):115-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01134.x. Epub 2008 Nov 27. PMID 19054269.
• Miller E. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the development of autism. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis. 2003 Jul;14(3):199-206. Review. PMID 12913832.
• Miller E, Andrews N, Grant A, Stowe J, Taylor B. No evidence of an association between MMR vaccine and gait disturbance. Arch Dis Child. 2005 Mar;90(3):292-6. PMID 15723921; PMC 1720314.
• Miller L, Reynolds J. Autism and vaccination-the current evidence. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2009 Jul;14(3):166-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6155.2009.00194.x. Review. PMID 19614825.
• Morris G, Puri BK, Frye RE, Maes M. The Putative Role of Environmental Mercury in the Pathogenesis and Pathophysiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders and Subtypes. Mol Neurobiol. 2017 Jul 22. doi: 10.1007/s12035-017-0692-2. [Epub ahead of print] Review. PMID 28733900.
• Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kiełtyka A, Majewska R. Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181c40a8a. PMID 19952979.
• Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kiełtyka A. [The relationship between MMR vaccination level and the number of new cases of autism in children].Przegl Epidemiol. 2008;62(3):597-604. Polish. PMID 19108524.
• Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kiełtyka A, Majewska R. [Lack of association between MMR vaccination and the incidence of autism in children: a case-control study]. Przegl Epidemiol. 2009;63(1):107-12. Polish. PMID 19522237.
• Mrozek-Budzyn D, Majewska R, Kiełtyka A, Augustyniak M. [Lack of association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism].Przegl Epidemiol. 2011;65(3):491-5. Polish. PMID 22184954.
• Mrozek-Budzyn D, Majewska R, Kiełtyka A. Early exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and children’s cognitive development. A 9-year prospective birth cohort study in Poland. Eur J Pediatr. 2015 Mar;174(3):383-91. doi: 10.1007/s00431-014-2412-5. Epub 2014 Sep 5. PMID 25185528; PMC 4334107.
• Muhle R, Trentacoste SV, Rapin I. The genetics of autism. Pediatrics. 2004 May;113(5):e472-86. Review. PMID 15121991.
• Nelson KB, Bauman ML. Thimerosal and autism? Pediatrics. 2003 Mar;111(3):674-9. Review. PMID 12612255.
• Ng M, de Montigny JG, Ofner M, Do MT. Environmental factors associated with autism spectrum disorder: a scoping review for the years 2003-2013. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017 Jan;37(1):1-23. English, French. PMID 28102992.
• Offit PA. Vaccines and autism in primate model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Oct 6;112(40):12236-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1516574112. Epub 2015 Sep 28. PMID 26417097; PMC 4603512.
• Offit PA. Thimerosal and vaccines–a cautionary tale. N Engl J Med. 2007 Sep 27;357(13):1278-9. PMID 17898096.
• Offit PA, Coffin SE. Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine. 2003 Dec 8;22(1):1-6. Review. PMID 14604564.
• Patja A, Davidkin I, Kurki T, Kallio MJ, Valle M, Peltola H. Serious adverse events after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow-up. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2000 Dec;19(12):1127-34. PMID 11144371.
• Parker SK, Schwartz B, Todd J, Pickering LK. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: a critical review of published original data. Pediatrics. 2004 Sep;114(3):793-804. Review. Erratum in: Pediatrics. 2005 Jan;115(1):200. PMID 15342856.
• Parker SK, Schwartz B, Todd J, Pickering LK. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: a critical review of published original data. Pediatrics. 2004 Sep;114(3):793-804. Review. Erratum in: Pediatrics. 2005 Jan;115(1):200. PMID 15342856.
• Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, Treanor J. Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1737-41. PMID 12480426.
• Peltola H, Patja A, Leinikki P, Valle M, Davidkin I, Paunio M. No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study. Lancet. 1998 May 2;351(9112):1327-8. PMID 9643797.
• Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Croen LA, Hinrichsen VL, Marcy M, Robertson A, Eriksen E, Lewis E, Bernal P, Shay D, Davis RL, DeStefano F. Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism. Pediatrics. 2010 Oct;126(4):656-64. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0309. Epub 2010 Sep 13. PMID 20837594.
• Roehr B. Study finds no association between autism and vaccination. BMJ. 2013 Apr 3;346:f2095. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2095. PMID 23554072.
• Richler J, Luyster R, Risi S, Hsu WL, Dawson G, Bernier R, Dunn M, Hepburn S, Hyman SL, McMahon WM, Goudie-Nice J, Minshew N, Rogers S, Sigman M, Spence MA, Goldberg WA, Tager-Flusberg H, Volkmar FR, Lord C. Is there a ‘regressive phenotype’ of Autism Spectrum Disorder associated with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine? A CPEA Study. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Apr;36(3):299-316. PMID 16729252.
• Rümke HC, Visser HK. [Childhood vaccinations anno 2004. II. The real and presumed side effects of vaccination]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004 Feb 21;148(8):364-71. Review. Dutch. PMID 15032089.
• Saemundsen E, Magnússon P, Georgsdóttir I, Egilsson E, Rafnsson V. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in an Icelandic birth cohort. BMJ Open. 2013 Jun 20;3(6). pii: e002748. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002748. PMID 23788511; PMC 3693420.
• Schechter R, Grether JK. Continuing increases in autism reported to California’s developmental services system: mercury in retrograde.Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;65(1):19-24. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2007.1. PMID 18180424.
• Schultz ST. Does thimerosal or other mercury exposure increase the risk for autism? A review of current literature. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2010;70(2):187-95. Review. PMID 20628442.
• Sealey LA, Hughes BW, Sriskanda AN, Guest JR, Gibson AD, Johnson-Williams L, Pace DG, Bagasra O. Environmental factors in the development of autism spectrum disorders. Environ Int. 2016 Mar;88:288-98. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.021. Epub 2016 Jan 28. Review. PMID 26826339.
• Shevell M, Fombonne E. Autism and MMR vaccination or thimerosal exposure: an urban legend? Can J Neurol Sci. 2006 Nov;33(4):339-40. PMID 17168157.
• Singh VK, Rivas WH. Detection of antinuclear and antilaminin antibodies in autistic children who received thimerosal-containing vaccines. J Biomed Sci. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):607-10. PMID 15316135.
• Smeeth L, Cook C, Fombonne E, Heavey L, Rodrigues LC, Smith PG, Hall AJ. MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study. Lancet. 2004 Sep 11-17;364(9438):963-9. PMID 15364187.
• Smith MJ, Woods CR. On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes. Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2489. Epub 2010 May 24. PMID 20498176.
• Solt I, Bornstein J. [Childhood vaccines and autism–much ado about nothing?]. Harefuah. 2010 Apr;149(4):251-5, 260. Review. Hebrew. PMID 20812501.
• Spencer JP, Trondsen Pawlowski RH, Thomas S. Vaccine Adverse Events: Separating Myth from Reality. Am Fam Physician. 2017 Jun 15;95(12):786-794. Review. PMID 28671426.
• Steffenburg S, Steffenburg U, Gillberg C. Autism spectrum disorders in children with active epilepsy and learning disability: comorbidity, pre- and perinatal background, and seizure characteristics. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2003 Nov;45(11):724-30. PMID 14580127.
• Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, Simpson D. Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: lack of consistent evidence for an association. Am J Prev Med. 2003 Aug;25(2):101-6. PMID 12880876.
• Stoner R, Chow ML, Boyle MP, Sunkin SM, Mouton PR, Roy S, Wynshaw-Boris A, Colamarino SA, Lein ES, Courchesne E. Patches of disorganization in the neocortex of children with autism. N Engl J Med. 2014 Mar 27;370(13):1209-19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1307491. PMID 24670167; PMC 4499461.
• Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Vaccines to Children: Protective Effect and Adverse Events: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 2009 Feb. Available From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447995/ PMID 28876765.
• Takahashi H, Suzumura S, Shirakizawa F, Wada N, Tanaka-Taya K, Arai S, Okabe N, Ichikawa H, Sato T. An epidemiological study on Japanese autism concerning routine childhood immunization history. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2003 Jun;56(3):114-7. PMID 12944678.
• Taylor B, Lingam R, Simmons A, Stowe J, Miller E, Andrews N. Autism and MMR vaccination in North London; no causal relationship.Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7 Suppl 2:S7-8. PMID 12142932.
• Taylor B. Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism. Child Care Health Dev. 2006 Sep;32(5):511-9. Review. PMID 16919130.
• Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I, Li J, Waight PA. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9. PMID 10376617.
• Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6. PMID 11850369; PMC 65532.
• Taylor LE, Swerdfeger AL, Eslick GD. Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine. 2014 Jun 17;32(29):3623-9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085. Epub 2014 May 9. PMID 24814559.
• Thjodleifsson B, Davídsdóttir K, Agnarsson U, Sigthórsson G, Kjeld M, Bjarnason I. Effect of Pentavac and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination on the intestine. Gut. 2002 Dec;51(6):816-7. PMID 12427783; PMC 1773472.
• Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, Shay DK, Benson P, Hinrichsen VL, Lewis E, Eriksen E, Ray P, Marcy SM, Dunn J, Jackson LA, Lieu TA, Black S, Stewart G, Weintraub ES, Davis RL, DeStefano F; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team. Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years. N Engl J Med. 2007 Sep 27;357(13):1281-92. PMID 17898097.
• Tomeny TS, Vargo CJ, El-Toukhy S. Geographic and demographic correlates of autism-related anti-vaccine beliefs on Twitter, 2009-15. Soc Sci Med. 2017 Oct;191:168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.041. Epub 2017 Sep 4. PMID 28926775; PMC 5623105.
• Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Inaba Y. MMR-vaccine and regression in autism spectrum disorders: negative results presented from Japan. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Feb;37(2):210-7. PMID 16865547.
• Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N. The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia. Vaccine. 2012 Jun 13;30(28):4292-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.01.093. Epub 2012 Apr 20. PMID 22521285.
• Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N. Early exposure to the combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines and risk of autism spectrum disorder. Vaccine. 2015 May 15;33(21):2511-6. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.036. PMID 25562790.
• Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, Lieu TA, Rhodes PH, Black SB, Shinefield H, Chen RT; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics. 2003 Nov;112(5):1039-48. Erratum in: Pediatrics. 2004 Jan;113(1):184. PMID 14595043.
• Whitehouse AJ, Maybery M, Wray JA, Hickey M. No association between early gastrointestinal problems and autistic-like traits in the general population. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011 May;53(5):457-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2011.03915.x. Epub 2011 Mar 21. PMID 21418197.
• Weisser K, Bauer K, Volkers P, Keller-Stanislawski B. [Thiomersal and immunisations]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2004 Dec;47(12):1165-74. Review. German. PMID 15583887.
• Zerbo O, Qian Y, Yoshida C, Fireman BH, Klein NP, Croen LA. Association Between Influenza Infection and Vaccination During Pregnancy and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder. JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Jan 2;171(1):e163609. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3609. PMID 27893896.

Are we done here now? Guy (Help!) 08:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• My problem is, I haven't found any evidence on the other side to vindicate aluminium. User:MPants_at_work suggests that any research on the safety of aluminium adjuvants that does not mention autism is "inescapably if implicitly" evidence against an aluminium-autism link, and that two papers already cited in this article provide such evidence. I don't agree: such may be the case with certain cohort studies where there is some likelihood that abnormal incidence of autism would be detected. But there are no citations like that, and he hasn't specified what citations he's referring to. (emphasis added) This right here is the problem: It doesn't matter whether or not you agree. If the work has been done (and it has) and the results show no link, then the overwhelming likelihood is that there is no link, and the burden of proof is upon those who posit a link. It doesn't matter whether it was enough work to satisfy you personally: It was quite obviously enough to satisfy the experts, who continue to state that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

This is the sort of logic that explicitly applies to our content guidelines:

• If no reliable sources state it, we don't, either.
• If the vast preponderance of reliable sources say "No" and a tiny minority say "well, maybe..." then we say "No" and, depending on the actual size of that minority, we might add "but one or two say maybe".
• But, as is the case here, when the vast preponderance of reliable sources say "HELL NO, STOP ASKING!!!" and a tiny minority say "Maybe," to a slightly different question but "No comment," to the original question and a bunch of entirely unreliable sources say "Yes", then we say "No," full stop. We might also want to quote a few "HELL NO, STOP ASKING!!!" statements, just to make sure we're as open and clear as we can be.

Of course: none of this even begins to address the other problem which has been repeatedly pointed out to you: We can't exactly explain an entirely fictional (not just fictional, but full-on bullshit) mechanism by which aluminum causes autism. This is an encyclopedia, not a science-fiction novel. We only explain that which we know to be true. And of course, there's the other issue: You're still pushing a fringe POV despite unanimous pushback, causing editors to waste time refuting you instead of working on other pages. That's called disruptive editing and it needs to stop before the patience of those pushing back runs out. If you can't stop it on your own, rest assured that an admin will be perfectly willing to stop it for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have access to this study, but the abstract specifically mentions aluminum in vaccines and says it is safe [2]. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL

@JzG: Could you clarify what this revert[3] has to do with WP weasel? [4]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can't see that "rarely cause serious adverse effects" is weasel talk you should not be editing this article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. At summary level, for the lede, "safe and effective" is the correct form. Later we can discuss exactly how safe. Demands for he mythical perfectly safe, perfectly effective vaccine are a core part of the smokescreen used by antivaxers - "we're not anti-vaccine, we're pro safe vaccines", then applying a standard that can't be met, such as (unethical) randomised double blinded trials. Guy (Help!) 06:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"See Also" link under homeopathy

Ok, so I changed the "See also" link under the homeopathy section from Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network to Homeopathy Plus!, as I felt that he latter was more useful, but that was reverted. Thus, let's discuss. :) The problem is that a "see also:" link should take the reader to an article that provides additional relevant information on the topic. The Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network makes only a single mention of homeopathy, when it says "... and promoted the use of ineffective alternatives such as homeopathy and chiropractic". There's no other mention of it on the page, nor any further discussion about its relationship to vaccination. Any reader following that link would learn a lot about the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, but nothing at all about homeopathy and vaccination. The obvious more useful "see also" link would, of course, be Homeopathy, but that is already included in the body. Personally, I don't think a "see also" is needed unless we have an extended section somewhere on homeopathy and vaccinations, (there's a brief discussion at homeopathy, but it is spread over several sections with no obvious link target), but if we do want to link elsewhere, my thought was that Homeopathy Plus!, which was a company that was heavily fined for falsely claiming that homeopathy could be an alternative to vaccination, would be a better place to direct readers. - Bilby (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I have this page on my watchlist and was wondering why you got reverted, I don't see the need for a see also there, and Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network dosen't have that much to do with homeopathy. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• AVN is certainly an important link in this article as a leading promoter of preventable disease, but actually I think both belong: Fran in this section and AVN somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Image

I have some concerns about the image of Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman and caption.

• 1. The wording of the caption seems like WP:ADVOCACY

• 2. The statement that heard immunity could have protected her seems odd, is it normal to speculate in wiki's voice about what could have gone differently in a specific case? At very least this needs to be sourced to a WP:MEDRS

• 3. Including this image at all seems a bit like appeal to emotion, to encourage vaccination without adding any information about the subject of the article.

Back in January I moved the image (without explanation) to meningococcal disease, where the image effectively illustrates the effect of the disease, but it was restored[5] to this article, where I can't see how images of a specific disease help readers better understand the controversies around vaccines, in addition to the concerns I have described above, so I would like to see what other editors ideas are now that I am explaining my concerns with the image. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Images are to enhance an article and provide background. Many images are not directly of the subject. Indeed it would be pretty well impossible to find an image showing what vaccine controversies look like. There is no problem with the image mentioned above and attempts to remove it seem like WP:ADVOCACY. It would be better to deal with the medically acknowledged facts about vaccines. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a graveyard near the Followers of Christ with many tombstones marking dead children, that might do. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's look as the facts:

1. This is one of those cases where, in a controversy, there is a clear right and wrong side. The question of which is which is a matter of verifiable fact, and not in any way subject to opinion.
2. The reliable sources are in lockstep agreement that vaccines are not dangerous in the way that anti-vaccine activists claim. There is little dissent, and what little there is is entirely about the most minor quibbles, such as whether any medical treatment can be truly considered to be "safe".
3. This project is an encyclopedia; an attempt to document the world as it is, not as it should be. To that end, we rely entirely upon reliable sources for making our claims.

With those three points in mind, I think the following two statements are equally valid:

• • It's not "advocacy" to present arguments in favor of a factual conclusion, even if done so in a persuasive and rhetorical manner, but rather "explanation".
  • Even if we ignore the previous point, advocacy for verifiable truth and demonstrable facts is within the purview of this project as it is an encyclopedic endeavor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with keeping the image, I get Johnuniq's point about illustrating the article, and I'm not questioning the safety of any vaccine(s). That said, according to WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.", aren't "persuasive and rhetorical" attempts to convince people to get vaccinated scientific advocacy? Finnally the source used in the caption does not say herd immunity could have protected her, and it is unclear from the source if she was too young to get vaccinated, or got sick right before the vaccine program started. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I don't think it's advocacy to simply present explanations, regardless of whether those explanations would make compelling arguments. Were the conclusion not an established fact, that would be different, but there's just no disputing the facts in this case.

As for my second statement, I think advocating for verifiable facts is exactly what an encyclopedia does. Per our WP:NPOV policy, we don't present false or un-evinced beliefs alongside true or evinced facts and imply any equivalence. We're not in the business of simply presenting all possible claims and letting the reader decide which they like, but of presenting verifiably true claims and then detailing the why's and how's of those. That's advocacy for truth, depending on how you look at it.

Regardless, my second point was more of an interesting (to me) aside than anything else. In this case, showing the damage caused by a refusal to vaccinate isn't adcovacy per se, it's the mere presentation of pertinent and accurate information to the reader. That is not what we say can happen if you don't vaccinate your kids; it is what can happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that your explaining why you think the pic should stay, I think it makes a lot of sense, after all, it would be (very)silly to remove factual info just because it made a good argument. The one issue I still see is the lack of a source for the fact that herd immunity could have protected her. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that claim falls squarely within the very definition of herd immunity so any of the first couple of sources used in that article would almost certainly support it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

We should look for a source that specifically says meningococcal vaccine can create heard immunity, as herd immunity only applies to some diseases (although I would assume it would apply to meningococcal, since it is contagious) and wether a vaccine can create herd immunity depends on the effectiveness of the vaccine. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's more specific. I see where you're coming from. Yeah, I would have no objections to adding a source to that. I'll see what I can find tomorrow (I'm leaving work soon and I probably won't be editing tonight). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that we are specifically looking for a source to say whether serogroup B meningococcal vaccine can produce herd immunity, because meningococcal B is what Charlotte got. So far I have found a source that says it is unclear if serogroup B vaccine can create herd immunity [6]. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems the University of Adelaide is trying to study the issue,[7] but I have not found anything that says meningococcal b vaccine can produce herd immunity. I will remove the picture, but if anyone finds MEDRS for meningococcal b herd immunity, feel free to restore it. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

All vaccines against communicable diseases can produce herd immunity. It's a meta-effect of immunity in a population, not an effect of the specific method by which the individuals within that population develop the immunity. Finding a source that says that a specific vaccine can produce herd immunity will be as difficult as finding a source saying that jumping in water will get you wet; nobody says it because we all already know it.

Regarding this part: So far I have found a source that says it is unclear if serogroup B vaccine can create herd immunity That is not what the source says. It says, rather, that an off label use of the serogroup B vaccine in teens and adolescents produces immunity at a low enough rate that it is unclear whether that particular strategy would produce herd immunity. For the claim in the caption box -that herd immunity could have protected her- the first citation from herd immunity supports it: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/7/911/299077. I will move the current citation up and add that one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, looks like I misread the source. However, there are 2 ways that a vaccine may not produce herd immunity

• 1.If the vaccine prevents disease but not asymptomatic carriage and transmission
• 2 If the vaccine's effectiveness is too low relative to the R0 of the disease, for example, if someone made a measles vaccine that was only 80% effective, it would not result in herd immunity even if 100% of the population was vaccinated (although I don't think R0 for meningococcal is high enough for this to be an issue)

So we need a source that says meningococcal B vaccines are sufficiently effective at preventing transmission to produce herd immunity. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

1. The source you provided states that the serogroup B vaccine prevents asymptomatic carriage, but yes, as a rule this is true.

2. Yes, that is true, but I don't see where the effectiveness of meningococcal vaccines is ever stated to be too low for that, or where it is questioned outside of the specific treatment method mentioned.

If the caption text mentioned a specific vaccine, I would agree, but it doesn't. Since there are different vaccines which are effective to different strains, it is distinctly possible that the proper combination of vaccines would produce herd immunity. Since the text is presented as a hypothetical anyways ("More complete vaccination could have protected her...") I think it's well enough supported by a source stating that herd immunity protects individuals without an immunity.

Remember: at the end of the day, WP:V is in service of us presenting factual information (because that is the purpose of an encyclopedia, after all). I seriously doubt you could find an RS stating that the caption is factually inaccurate (and I would eat my own shoe if you found a WP:MEDRS source that did so), so absent any contention from outside the ranks of antivaccination activists (many of whom would still agree with the statement that herd immunity could have protected her), I think WP:IAR is the best policy to look to with regards to any difficulties finding perfect sourcing for the caption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

" More complete vaccination could have protected her through herd immunity, " this sentence basically means that there are vaccines available that can create herd immunity to the disease she got, and that if only more people were vaccinated she wouldn't have got sick. I agree that WP:V is the ultimate goal, but without a source that there are vaccines that can produce herd immunity to meningococcal B, how is this verifiable?(I assume you are not trying to use IAR to make an exception to verifiability) The fact that you can't find proof that something is false is not an argument for including it, you need a source that says it is true, (I can't write on wikipedia that an EF-5 tornado hit Kansas in 5,000 BC, just because there are no records from back then to say it didn't happen) Tornado chaser (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a pointless argument as MPants has explained the situation clearly. The false analogy with a tornado 7,000 years ago is just as bad as misreading the source above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the analogy wasn't the best, but my point is we should not be stating things without RS to back them up, per WP:V, we either look for(and eventually add) an RS, or, if we cannot find an RS, we remove the unsourced statement, we never allow a statement of fact just because some editors say its true, or because it might be true but no RS say so. I am fine with leaving the image and caption while looking for a source, and if we find a source for it we can add the source without changing the caption or image, I am fine with leaving the image and altering the text per source, but deliberately leaving something in wikipedia knowing we can't find any RS for it is counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia and directly against wikipedia policy (WP:V). Tornado chaser (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion change the current sentence More complete vaccination could have protected her through herd immunity, preventing children too young to vaccinate from catching the disease. to More widespread vaccination can protect children like Cleverley-Bisman, who are too young to vaccinate, from catching the disease through development of herd immunity. The current version is problematic since it is a statement about a particular medical patient that does not cite a reference that talks about that patient (also the particular case is complicated due to the B-strain that was prevalent in NZ during that outbreak, and the available vaccines at that time). The newer version is easily supported by, say, [8], or [9] and I don't think it weakens or shifts the POV of the caption or article. Abecedare (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This may not be perfect, but I have added it for now, as it is a definite improvement. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with the changes just made. For the record: my point was not that we don't need a source to make claims of fact, my point was that the claim of fact being made was a hypothetical cause-and-effect scenario, the logic behind which is explicitly supported by any source describing herd immunity. In effect, we were making claims only about a particular chain of cause and effect with no regard for real-world considerations that could upset that. The claim was (and remains, which is why I'm fine with it) that a hypothetically vaccine of unstated-but-implied-to-be-100% effectiveness, given to the community surrounding that child would have protected that child. That particular claim is both a hypothetical one (we are not considering whether such a vaccine actually exists, but presuming that it does already), and one which is explicitly verified by the source I added. This is why I said I understood your comments about advocacy earlier: using a hypothetical scenario is a hallmark of rhetorical discourse, even though it's not necessarily so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

@Natureium: I didn't understand the purpose of this edit[10] so I reverted it, but i'm giving you an opportunity to justify your edit here. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly obvious, and I tried to explain what I was doing in my edit summaries. That section is focused on a particular incident, and the placement of those sentences suggest WP:SYNTH. Natureium (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: The source cited says that Wakefield visited around the same time that people were becoming concerned about autism anyway, implying that he exacerbated the fear of autism, I thought the article as it was accurately reflected the source. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

#ICanHazPdf

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/902956 - may be relevant but paywalled. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I can't see it. :/ TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Medscape has "free" registration. Just fork over some info: name, country, work-zip, email, and profession - I selected non-professional. Jim1138 talk 07:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about that! I confused it with another site that requires proof of professional registration. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Doctors dismissing patients, ethical issues

@JzG: Regarding this revert[11] I have a few questions, first which of the authors were anti-vax? (I have never heard of any of them). Second, would you still object to saying that there may be ethical issues with doctors dismissing unvaccinated patients if a better source was used? Third, why is MEDRS the sourcing standard you are applying to this? I thought regular RS would work because this is describing an ethical controversy rather than making statements of fact regarding the effectiveness of any medical intervention. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC) @Bilby: pinging to inform of this talk page section, given related edit. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is published in the peer-reviewed Paediatrics & Child Health, which is in turn published by the Canadian Paediatric Society - it is a decent journal and a peer reviewed paper rather than an op-ed. While I don't know all of the authors, one of them is Noni MacDonald, who is highly regarded for her research into vaccine acceptance [12]. The other three co-authors are all from the Canadian Center for Vaccinology, Health Policy and Translation Group based at Dalhousie University. I can't see an issue with the reference, and the point being referenced is largely self-evident and well covered in multiple sources [13], [14], [15]. - Bilby (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an old article and states opinion. The real problem is that this was presented as a view without the balancing view that it's actually the parents who are the problem. I have added more sources and content to make that point. It's a difficult question, framed by antivaxers as a simple case of "my choice is my right", but in fact their choice is an objectively bad one made on behalf of others to whom they bear a legal duty of care and imposes a non-zero risk on others who have no choice (e.g. the immunocompromised). It's a bit like stating that refusing to allow someone to drive because they routinely drive while drunk might endanger their children because they won't be able to get to school or a doctor's appointment. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had explained that rather than using a false edit summary. I'll dig around and see what we can do to further develop the section. - Bilby (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't a "false edit summary". It was, however, a case of mistaken identity: there is an antivax nurse with a similar surname. And yes, it is op-ed.

I still have a problem with the way this is all framed, as it succumbs to the classic antivax trope of ignoring all externalities. By begging the question of whether parents' choice to fail to protect their children from infectious disease is legitimate, and ignoring the risk they pose to others, thus they argue narrowly that the medical establishment is acting unethically, when the correct response to a doctor's refusal to accept an unvaccinated child is actually to vaccinate the child. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the risk posed to others addressed under "Individual liberty"? Also, while the correct response to a doctor's refusal to see an unvaccinated child certainly is to vaccinate the child, this is not necessarily what the parents will do (if they were rational they wouldn't be refusing vaccines in the first place) and the idea that it could be unethical to dismiss the child is a legitimate point of view that belongs in the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is not whether any specific response to an unethical action is itself ethical, but what is the most ethical response to the unethical action. In this case, it's to stop the unethical action and vaccinate your goddamn kids. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's great and all, but not what is being discussed. In situations where vaccination is not mandatory, the medical profession needs to determine to what extent they can refuse to treat a voluntarily unvaccinated child, given the risk a child carries to those who are medically unable to be vaccinated, and the alternative risk of refusing to treat an unvaccinated child who is suffering from a medical issue in regions where other doctors may not be available. There's a fair bit of recent discussion of this issue in the literature. - Bilby (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Which American cities have only one paediatrician? Regardless, the ER will always treat any medical emergency. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

First off the source was talking about Canada, and it did say there was a doctor shortage, also, what if there are 2 or 3 pediatricians in town and they all won't see an unvaccinated child? The ER is not a substitute for the pediatrician's office, and is not well suited to managing chronic issues. Anyway, our personal opinions on this don't matter, what matters is that RS describe this as a legitimate controversy, so both sides deserve mention in the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The child has a right to be protected from preventable disease. The parents have the right to wrong their hands about it and give them homeopathic cures for mercury poisoning if they like. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

AMA Ethics paper

This paper [16] is very interesting.

At present the lede says "Vaccine controversies are controversies around the medical, ethical and legal aspects of the use of vaccines and vaccinations. These controversies have occurred since almost 80 years before the terms vaccine and vaccination were introduced." I think we should qualify this and say that the controversies are primarily not medical or scientific, and that they are maintained by a well-connected international network of people and groups who are fundamentally opposed to vaccines and do not accept the science ont he subject. The AMA article would support this, I will look for others that support or refute it. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and despite the fact those are my words in the lede they're not quite right. The article title is the root problem I think. There are not really any medical "controversies" but mainly wing-nuttery vs reality. Having this article is kind of a POV-fork. Alexbrn (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, so what would be a better title? I think Anti-vaccination is simplest and least ambiguous. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like the lead as it currently is, although I do think the rest of the article is poorly structured. It also seems a bit odd to have an umbrella article for all controversies in any way related to vaccines, how about splitting this into an article on the anti-vax movement to cover the anti-science stuff and moving the legal/ethical/political issues into vaccine policy? "Vaccine controversies" might be better as a category than an article. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the overarching article that describes the centuries-old anti-vaccine movement. Anti-vaccine redirects here, and that is its principal use. Scientifically, there are no controversies about vaccines as a class of treatment, which is what this article is about, and unfortunately the current tile leads some people to include things that are nothing to do with "controversies" about vaccines, but instead are examples of manufacturing defects and other issues that are rapidly identified and tackled by the medical profession. So it makes sense to move it. That will indeed lead to some of the content being moved elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I like Anti-vaccination or Opposition to vaccination (both already redirects here) as an article title - though maybe it would be better to consider a map of this whole topic space first (including articles like Thiomersal controversy and MMR vaccine controversy). I'm convinced many editors simply don't grok what the what word "controversy" means. In all, our articles around anti-vax are a bit shit. Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Renaming this to Anti-vaccination or Opposition to vaccination sounds good to me. "Controversy" is a hard word to work around so I'd avoid it if at all possible. Merlin^sorca 14:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the other "controversy" articles should also be moved. We are at a point by now that the MMR-autism one could be moved to MMR autism hoax or MMR autism fraud. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I like MMR autism hoax, it is clear that it is talking about a specific hoax rather than a general type of fraud (eg Tax fraud). Tornado chaser (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

ANY debates?

"Vaccine controversies are any debates or ......(etc)"

They are the first six words of the lede, and they bug me.

Why is any debate about vaccines a controversy? Heve there never ever been uncontroversial debates? Doubt it. Moriori (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Debate says "In a debate, opposing arguments are put forward to argue for opposing viewpoints." Controversy says "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view."

The main difference seems to be that a controversy is "prolonged". So, are you saying that there could be short debates which ended in consensus? Would it satisfy your concerns to change it to "any prolonged debates"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No absolutely not. You and I are actually debating right here. Nothing formal. No adjudicators. Nothing controversial. Not prolonged . A reasoned debate -- which can come under any debate mentioned in the lede -- is not a controversy. The subject of the debate might be controversial, but two people discussing opposimg opinions about something is not controversial.I am saying that opinions re vaccine can be controversial, but any debate about them is not automatically controversial. There are some reasonable people in this world. Moriori (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

All definitions I've found of "controversy" state that it's usually a "debate" that involves "conflicting opinions": [17] [18] [19]. Which definition would you have us use instead? Merlin^sorca 14:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

From the OED, a controversy is

An argument or dispute on a matter of opinion; a (typically heated) discussion involving contrary opinions; esp. one conducted publicly (as in the press) and at length.

It is not relly a debate which suggests formal discussion of some question of public interest in a legislative or other assembly. The word "controversy" is not a very good one to apply to what's gone on with vaccine opposition, and will be addressed by the move proposed below. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Category

Three vaccine"controversy" articles have now been renamed to remove the word "controversy", which gave undue weight to fringe ideas.

• In line with the renaming of MMR vaccine controversy to MMR vaccine and autism, I have proposed renaming category:MMR vaccine controversy to category:MMR vaccine and autism to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 § Category:MMR vaccine controversy.
• In line with the renaming of vaccine controversies to vaccine hesitancy, I have proposed renaming category:Vaccine controversies to Category:Vaccine hesitancy, to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4 § Category:Vaccine controversies.
• In line with the renaming of Thiomersal controversy to Thiomersal and vaccines, I have proposed renaming category:Thiomersal controversy to category:Thiomersal and vaccines , to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 § Category:Thiomersal controversy,

I put this through CFD rather than simply move them so that the bot will do the spadework. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

I would like to aim for a navbox primarily for anti-vaccination, as at right. However, a general vaccination navbox might be preferable, with links to article son people like Paul Offitt, Dorit Reiss and Peter Hotez. I think there is definite scope to cover specifics like Chiropractic and anti-vaccination, which is definitely a thing. I don't know if anyone else thinks this is worth doing? Guy (Help!) 21:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I like it but would it be in addition to or replace the pseudoscience infobox? Could it go where we now put Further Reading?--Akrasia25 (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I would put it in place of {{infobox pseudoscience}}, because pro-disease bullshit is not just pseudoscience, there's also politics and propaganda in there, and a small amount of gross distortion of legitimate fact. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure makes sense. How does it work with three redlinks, and no category made yet? Are these the right articles to put in the box? BTW, there is also a Category:Thiomersal and vaccines that should be looked and maybe the category name changed as well. --Akrasia25 (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"Eventually" is how. There's work to do. See Draft:Chiropractic and anti-vaccination for a starting point. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Created Vaccine contamination with SV40. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Common themes

I think I can spin out Common themes into a separate article, as these are not about hesitancy but more about blatant antivax propaganda. Any suggestions for a title? I am thinking maybe List of anti-vaccination tropes or some such. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

These are common reasons used by people to justify their decisions not to vaccinate themselves or the children, thus they seem relevant to this article. - Bilby (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

List of anti-vaccination tropes sounds like a reasonable title to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bilby: Obviously, but the level of detail is bloating this article out, hence the thought of spinning it out into a separate article, as we usually do when a subsidiary topic starts to overwhelm the primary topic. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I support creating this article, List of vaccine myths would be a good, neutral title, similar to less contentious articles like Tornado myths. "List of anti-vaccination tropes" has a bit of a "we're out to bash the antivaxers" feel, while List of vaccine myths has a better "here are the facts" neutral tone. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Policy

@JzG: Now that this article is "vaccine hesitancy" not "vaccine controversies", why did you restore the stuff about policy controversies? I would have thought that belongs in vaccine policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the policy is driven by antivaxers. You have edited the articles that describe this. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: On second thought I would support leaving the section on compulsory vaccination in as these policies are made in response to vaccine hesitancy, but the "War" section really seems off topic, and the part that says Hesitancy results from public debates around the medical, ethical and legal issues related to vaccines. Hesitancy and debates have occurred since the invention of vaccination, and indeed pre-date the coining of the terms vaccine and vaccination by nearly 80 years. doesn't make much sense as written. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Now that the policy issues are discussed in a coherent way in the lead, I see even less need for Hesitancy results from public debates around the medical, ethical and legal issues related to vaccines. Hesitancy and debates have occurred since the invention of vaccination, and indeed pre-date the coining of the terms vaccine and vaccination by nearly 80 years. I also want to know if you would be ok with me removing the "war" section. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No. I strongly suggest you stop trying to edit article in this area, as you admit you know nothing about the history or politics of it. Guy (Help!) 01:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Where do I "admit" that? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Whenever you are trying to excuse your naive edits. Guy (Help!) 02:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: If my arguments are so bad that they constitute an admission that I "know nothing about the history or politics of it" why don't you just point out the obvious flaw in the edits I've proposed, rather than act like all my edits to vaccine articles can be reverted just because I'm the one who made them. If you explain why you want to keep material that I want to remove, maybe we could agree on wording that satisfies both of our concerns rather than spending our time having arguments that aren't even about the article content. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

War

@JzG: Why do you believe the "war" section should stay? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

CNN

Parents were protesting compulsory vaccinations 150 years ago. Some are still angry Might have something useful for non-MEDRS stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a remarkable fact that the anti-vaccination movement is actually older than vaccination. What's even more remarkable is how little the rhetoric has changed over time. The same basic arguments, with elements switched out as they are recognised as bogus (e.g. the switch from mercury to aluminium as the ingredient that "causes" autism). The base claims - Vaccines Are Not Natural and therefore squicky, and You can't Make Me Do That, have been stable for nearly two centuries. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

More CNN: MMR vaccine does not cause autism, another study confirms. Well, that's good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Effectiveness

The article claims under this heading that "Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of large-scale vaccination campaigns is well established. The reference in support of this is the paper "Effects of a large-scale intervention with influenza and 23-valent pneumococcal vaccines in adults aged 65 years or older: a prospective study". First, older people do not represent the target population of mass vaccination campaigns, which are younger children. Second, the flu vaccine is not representative of childhood vaccines. To make matters worse, the flu vaccine for adults has been proven apallingly ineffective by Cochrane Research, see "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults." which also found "widespread manipulation of conclusions" (sic) in the studies funded by industry. So the "effectiveness" statement is unsupported and largely contradicted by the reference given in this heading. 145.64.134.242 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Autism and aluminium adjuvants

The article incorrectly states that there is "no evidence" of vaccinations being linked to autism. This wording is inaccurate, as there is evidence, even if it has been deemed inconclusive, or outweighed by other evidence. See these studies, for instance. I haven't evaluated them all, but I find it hard to believe that every single one of these so flawed as to invalidate all results. It would thus be more correct to say, "the bulk of evidence strongly suggests no relationship between vaccines and autism."

Except that may no longer be true. In the last two years important evidence has emerged to link aluminium adjuvants to autism. Brain tissues of teenagers with autism were found to contain extremely high quantities of aluminium in microglia and astrocytes, and it appeared to have been carried into the brain by inflammatory cells. The strong suggestion is that these inflammatory cells had become heavily laden with aluminium in the blood and/or lymph, as has been observed for monocytes at injection sites for vaccines containing aluminium adjuvants.

See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763 and https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31578, as well as this blog post from one of the authors, explaining concisely and simply what the research indicates.

This is not conclusive yet, but it strongly suggests a relationship between aluminium adjuvants and autism. From what I can make out, the authors are reputable and the journals they have published in are prestigious. I have searched for articles or letters disputing their findings, and have not found any. Fuzzypeg★ 00:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It should say "no credible evidence, and abundant evidence to the contrary". No, the evidence is not "important". It is anti-vax bingo. The claims about thimerosal were shown to be utterly bogus, so they paid Exley nd others (see the funding sources and follow he money) to publish a new "hypothesis" about aluminium. Some of those papers are already retracted. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that every one of the articles I've linked to has been demonstrated to not be credible: either fatally flawed in its methods or an outright hoax. I'm particularly interested in the last two articles I cite, from the Keele University researchers, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763 and https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31578 : can you point me to the rebuttals?

I know a lot of papers have refuted links between autism and MMR vaccines, or themirosal. I don't see such refutations regarding aluminium adjuvants, though. On the contrary, the picture I see emerging from the literature is: Autism incidence has increased rapidly over the last 30 years and only 20-25% of that increase can be attributed to reporting practices (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-73); this rise has correlated with a rise in use of Al adjuvants (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-73); adverse affects to Al adjuvants have been observed in humans (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2014.934439); Al administered to mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long-term neurological outcomes (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013413001773); aluminium contaminants fed intravenously to prem babies are correlated with adverse neurological outcome (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203). Mechanisms have been proposed for Al's enhanced toxicity in the brain (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cic/2012/00000002/00000001/art00006). The 'Trojan horse mechanism' proposed by Shaw and Tomljenovic now seems to be corroborated in the last couple of years by the Keele University researchers, who have directly observed extremely high levels of aluminium in autistic teenagers' brain tissue, and found evidence of it having been transported into the brain by heavily laden monocytes.

I see a few naive dismissals of aluminium as a potential toxin on the basis that oral exposure to aluminium exceeds that of intravenous exposure, but there are many reasons to believe that the physiological response is very different in these two cases: not least the fact that concentrations of monocytes heavily laden with aluminium have been observed around injection sites, as the Keele researchers note.

I've spent a little time browsing the subject using google scholar. I see a large body of evidence consistently pointing to a likely link between aluminium adjuvants and autism. I don't see any strong evidence contradicting that picture. I think this article should reflect the science. Fuzzypeg★ 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please list a few articles which 1) demonstrate a clear link between aluminium and autism. 2) Are in a respected journal. 3) Have not been retracted. 4) Don't have a number of others pointing out the flaws in their papers. 5) Are not by an author who seems bent on proving such link. Unfortunately, there seem to be many papers published with poor experimental design. As well as authors who are doing experiments who are convinced of the link before they do the study - which is really a bad way to do science.

I and other would prefer not to vet articles for you. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

First and foremost, hundreds of studies from dozens of countries encompassing tens of millions of children over several decades have consistently failed to support any link, causal or otherwise, between vaccines and autism. Speculation on how vaccines cause autism may be a favourite activity among antivaxers, but the fact is that they don't.

doi:10.1016/j.jtemb.2017.11.012 is by Christopher Exley, and was paid for by Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, funded by the Dwoskin Foundation. Claire Dwoskin was a board member of the National Vaccine Information Center, the Orwellian-titled antivax group (https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/02/06/cnn-the-money-behind-the-vaccine-skeptics/). It covers 10 samples and is methodologically terrible.

doi:10.1038/srep31578 is also Exley, also funded by Dwoskin, and is unbelievably speculative.

doi:10.1186/1476-069X-13-73 is a single-author paper, is contradicted by much larger and more robust studies, and acknowledges Mark Blaxill, a well-known antivaxer and conspiracy theorist.

doi:10.3109/10408444.2014.934439 says nothing about autism and its comments about vaccines appear wholly speculative, it also suggests a link between aluminium and Alzheimer's, whihc has been comprehensively studied and found not to be true.

10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2013.07.022 is by the much-retracted duo Shaw and Tomljenovic, and involves mice - is this the one where they also gave them a neurotoxin? Or was that another of their crappy papers?

doi:10.1056/NEJM199705293362203 is about intravenous feeding, so not relevant.

The one in Current Inorganic Chemistry is in a non-medical journal and is by Russell Blaylock, who seems to support a grab bag of debunked conspiracy theories.

So, a lot of motivated reasoning, some conflicts of interest, and a total of pretty much zero actual in-vivo work on humans, amounting to a pile of tooth-fairy science. And again, there is a mountain of research showing there is no link. As Harriet Hall reminds us, before we try to explain something, we should be sure it actually happened.

Also: Déjà-moo - the uncanny feeling you've heard this bull before. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful. I've found a couple of critiques of Exley's work as well, which make sense: no control, and lots of uncertainty around what substance actually got dyed, what reference levels should be, and what cells those substances were found in. I'm surprised that these critiques appear in the blogosphere and not in journals. I didn't find them using scholar.google.com, and I would have thought that back-and forth debate would be much messier in the blogosphere and more likely to devolve into bunfighting. According to WP's reliability standards, are the peer-reviewed articles under critique considered more reliable than the blogged critiques? Seems odd and not entirely satisfactory.

I am coming at this as an amateur with some scientific and research experience. I could see immediately that this article contains false hyperbole ("no evidence"). That false claim encouraged me to seek what evidence there actually was, and then seek opposing views (which I didn't initially find).

While there may be a desire to not encourage anti-vaxers by conceding anything, the statement about "no evidence" is (a) not quite true, (b) uninformative and patronising, (c) a red rag to any amateur researcher. I would encourage saying "no credible evidence" rather than "no evidence". I also recommend explaining the aluminium claims and their counter-evidence as you have done for thimerosal and MMR. Especially, it would be useful to cite some research that addresses vaccines containing aluminium adjuvants (e.g. DTP vaccine): you say there is a mountain of such research, but what I've found so far focuses on MMR vaccines, thimerosal and mercury. It would be very helpful to fill that gap. The article should ideally lead me to everything I need to read to understand the current state of play.

If I can find time I could try to make a start, but as I say, I don't have all the research at hand. Even one large-scale study covering aluminium-containing vaccines such as DTP would be a great help. Thanks again. Fuzzypeg★ 00:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

In matters of anti-vaccine activism, "amateur researcher" is unfortunately synonymous with Google-driven confirmation bias (nothing about you here, that's my observation form the outside world). Bear in mind that a couple of years ago near-identical claims were made about mercury (the preservative thimerosal is a mercury salt). Despite the absence of any credible evidence of risk, thimerosal was removed from virtually all childhood vaccines, with exactly zero effect on autism rates. It has finally become impossible to ignore this, so they have switched to aluminimum, and that is exactly how it always goes. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. I remind you: before investigating how something happens, it's wise to first establish whether it does. Vaccines do not cause autism. There is no link between vaccines and autism. Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism. And the cottage industry of anti-vaccine autism quackery will do anything in its power to try to make that not true, because it is not actually about autism, it is, always has been, and always will be, about vaccines. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I've looked through the report you linked from the CDC, and the research they cite (1,2,3). Buried in all that (in the IOM report) is mention of only one study examining risk of autism after an Al-containing vaccine (which in fact claimed there was such a risk), which was dismissed for methodological reasons. The authors of the IOM report therefore could not conclude anything for or against a link between that vaccine (DTP) and autism.

The Taylor, Swerdfeger & Eslick meta-analysis is behind a paywall, but examining their references they appear to only cite studies on non-Al-containing vaccines, with a focus on MMR and thimerosal.

So there is a substantial body of distrusted evidence positing a link between Aluminium adjuvants and autism, but as yet no research that you or I have unearthed to vindicate aluminium adjuvants. Please, no more vague statements about a "mountain of research". If you know of even one paper, please cite it. Fuzzypeg★ 09:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You can complain about the nature and amount of sources all you like; unless and until you show an equal or greater weight of contradicting sources, there is nothing to be done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not following. I've seen there is a body of disputed research suggesting a link between aluminium adjuvants and autism. Now I'm trying to find any contradicting research that addresses aluminium adjuvants and autism, or any aluminium-containing vaccine such as DTP and autism. Or any research on autism and vaccines generically, as long as Al-containing vaccines are included in the study. Neither Guy nor I have turned up anything yet, and I'm asking for help. My only complaint about the nature and amount of sources is that I haven't seen a single one yet. Any help would be appreciated. Fuzzypeg★ 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that vaccines have no demonstrated link to autism would indicate that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines don't have a link to autism. One would only start looking for the vaccine-component causing autism if the vaccine was demonstrated to be a cause of autism. It would seem to be a waste of time and money to do so. Jim1138 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are disputed demonstrations of a link between vaccines containing aluminium adjuvants and autism going back several years, and autism/vaccines is an area of intense public interest. Given that, I can scarce believe that there has been no counter-research. Such counter research need not even mention aluminium as long as it addresses a vaccine that contains aluminium; so an epidemiological study of autism and DTP, for instance, would be a great find. But I can't find even that. Fuzzypeg★ 00:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that WP:NOTFORUM applies? If there is a proposal to improve the article, please make it. Otherwise, please find another website to seek evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Furthermore, this is a non-starter for the talk page to begin with. Either you're not proposing a change of content, in which case we have a bit of a problem here, or you're proposing that we add to the article a meta-analysis we performed ourselves on the available literature, for the purpose of intentionally softening our tone regarding the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism, in which case we have an entirely different problem.

The good news is that either problem is easy to fix. In the first case, we simply end this discussion. In the second case we simply start an entirely new thread.

As a final, general note, I would like to add that there are plenty of sources disputing any link between aluminum and autism: Every reliable source that lists adverse effects of aluminum exposure and does not include "autism" on that list is -inescapably if implicitly- disclaiming any such link. There are at least two used in the article already, one of which focuses on the aluminum content of vaccines.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows no link between vaccines and autism. You don't balance that by citing a few crappy studies that are "disputed" because they are worthless, and you certainly don't fix it by proposing conflicted junk science (which, incidentally, keeps getting retracted, another four pulled in recent weeks) attempting to show the mechanism for a thing that doesn't happen. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

On the whole no link to Autism conclusion which I do agree with I feel like it is a little short. Seeing as this seems to be one of the main reasons why parents are not vaccinating their kids I think more of can be said on it. later I'll probably add some more if that's ok? KodyForinger (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I refer you to the replies above and below. You need reliable independent secondary sources meeting WP:MEDRS. The autism thing was ginned up by antivaxers, thimerosal is pretty comprehensively disproven so they have plucked another supposed rationale out of their arses. We're not going to give it the time of day until there is some decent science. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The controversy about "autism" is a red herring that derives in pointless discussions about its inconclusive causes. The definition of the term has been expanding to encompass an ever broader range od cognitive impairments. By labeling all of them as "autism" and forcing a "genetic cause" into the definition, vaccine-ibnduced brain injury can be plausibly denied. Long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide is associated with chronic cognitive dysfunction, see "Biopersistence and Brain Translocation of Aluminum Adjuvants of Vaccines". However, vaccine-caused brain damage clearly exists, whether it's "autism" (by the shifting definition) or not is pointless, still those affected experience a permanent, life-changing cognitive regression that they don't deserve. 145.64.134.242 (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Chemophobia

I think this article could use a bit more discussion about the role of chemophobia in vaccine hesitancy. I do see that we have a decent amount of content on the anti-vaccine groups' concerns about aluminum, but I frequently see various other chemicals thrown about as concerns. I think that deserves mention (and then should be thoroughly debunked). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's chemophobia as such (that does play a role, just a different one). The ever-shifting "which chemical is it that causes this Vaccine Injury™" is motivated primarily by the need to compete with science they don't like. Homeopaths do the same, e.g. Dana Ullman's "nanomolecules", aiming to fill the yawning chasm where plausible mechanism should lie. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I've read a lot of comments from anti-vaccine folks who specifically try to invoke the dreaded "ingredient list" and point to specific chemicals/ingredients as "bad", "dangerous", "toxic", "poisonous", etc. It seems to be a major driver for many of their nonsensical arguments. I think that definitely contributes to vaccine hesitancy when parents and other people who are confused on the issue of vaccine safety read that nonsense online and are influenced by it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That's just good old fashioned motivated reasoning. They will point to anything that supports their delusions. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you that anti-vaxxers point to a variety of things to support their misconceptions. All I'm saying is that they frequently invoke chemophobic arguments (chemicals are bad ahhhh!) to support their point of view. It's a common trope used in those circles (at least from what I have observed). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A product to be injected is assumed non-toxic until proven toxic. It has to be tested on the population at large, preferably as a mandate by law. Is that the philosophy of the pro-vaccine crowd? Sorry, but I stick to the precautionary principle, maybe I'm old fashioned.145.64.134.242 (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow! That's not true. The precautionary principle isn't ignored, but an extreme reliance on it isn't applied either. If it were, there would never be any progress. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Remember wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead

@Alexbrn: The lead as currently written implies that every vaccine safety scare is unsubstantiated, in light of the recent issues in China and the Philippines, this should be adjusted, I don't know exactly what the best wording would be, but as currently written this seems to be too US-centric. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't know about the US, but inserting original ideas not supported by the sources cited is certainly not the way to go. Alexbrn (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not true. You've naively fallen for the antivax bullshit again. The lede says that unsubstantiated scares still occur, and this is precisely correct. The existence of problems in specific places where the regulatory regime is profoundly different from the West is not in any way relevant to the Western phenomenon of fake vaccine injuries. Even the Cutter incident isn't relevant, because it's not a controversy, it's an error and a tragedy and science did its best to fix the problem as soon as it was identified. Vaccine controversies are basically a collection of zombie memes, where the specifics are switched around (mercury becomes aluminium, Eurasia was always at war with Eastasia) but the bogeyman always remains. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Your comment seems to imply that this article should be only about western issues, despite the fact that wikipedia should not have geographical bias. User:Alexbrn is right that my first edit was unsourced OR, looking back at the diff I feel a bit stupid for not including sources. I read the current lead as inaccurately saying that no scare over vaccine safety anywhere in the world is ever valid. I will look for sources before I change anything though. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Vaccine controversies - or rather "controversies" - are an artifact of the privileged Western community. The Cutter incident is the best example of the difference between vaccine controversies and problems with vaccines. That was the worst outbreak of iatrogenic disease ever, I think, and it was treated incredibly seriously by the medical profession, and the public remained supportive of polio immunisation. Compare and contrast vaccine-autism bullshit, "religious" exemptions (no major religion has any issue with vaccination), "liberty" isolated from responsibility to the child, and so on. In order for vaccines to be controversial, pretty much by definition, you have to be in a situation where preventable disease is not hat big a concern. In Africa, vaccines are not controversial. Even if there are problems. Actually also in China: there may be outrage about an incident, but vaccination as a principle is substantially uncontroversial despite that. Antivaxers want to pretend that their "concerns" are valid based on things that happen in far-away countries with very much less robust regulatory regimes. This is just part of their decades-long battle to pretend that irrational fears are actually rational scientific objections. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording to clarify that the CDC's vaccine schedule is safe, without implying anything about other countries, as the source used for this is a US government website. I still think that controversies regarding a specific vaccine (eg the Dengvaxia controversy) or a large number of vaccines made by a specific manufacturers[20] fall under the umbrella term "vaccine controversies", the term "vaccine controversies" means controversies related to vaccines, not just controversies over the concept of vaccination itself. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

In general, vaccines are safe and effective. More to the point, that is exactly what the source says. So we follow it. We don't open up a chink of doubt as that is to over-egg the risk in a POV way (ant-vax stylee). Pretty much everything is unsafe in some context - even drinking clean water. We must stick to sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you complained about the thing being US-centric then added a reference to CDC, when in fact the consensus supports the safety of the vaccine schedules of every single developed country. And in fact also China, notwithstanding issues with specific vaccine batches. That's the point the antivaxers are keen to obscure: vaccines are safe and effective, but, like any other manufactured product, errors are possible. The regulatory regime in the developed world is generally very robust, most issues are either in countries with a history of poor manufacturing practice, or in areas where correct storage and handling can be a challenge. And these faulty vaccines still don't cause autism or infertility or any of the other bullshit "vaccine injuries" that antivaxers push. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Milk does not say that US milk is safe but other milk might kill you. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This line Despite overwhelming scientific consensus[1][2][3] that vaccines are safe and effective,[4] unsubstantiated scares regarding their safety still occur appears to be saying that all modern vaccine safety concerns worldwide are bogus. Now I am perfectly well aware of the bogus claims about autism, infertility and all that nonsense about allergies, asthma, and any other possibly immune related disease, and absolutely do not want to lend credibility to those claims, I want to come up with wording that does not imply these concerns have any validity, but without implying that no modern vaccine safety concerns are real. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say that at all. It says that there is scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and effective, not that all vaccines, administered by everyone, everywhere, in any circumstances, are safe and effective. Bradv 16:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What concerns me is that by saying despite the fact that vaccines are safe and effective, unsubstantiated scares still occur, this implies that all scares are unsubstantiated, which is not true. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You're letting your faulty logic lead you into strange imaginings. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: saying "your logic is faulty" tells me nothing about what you think is wrong with my argument. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It does: it is not logical. But since you're essentially writing about your feelings (essentially, what mood music you hear in the words you read, their weird "implication" to you) it cannot be "disproved". What is suggests is you simply don't like reading that vaccines ar safe and/or that (despite this) there are loads of scare stories about them. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, it doesn't say that. "Unsubstantiated scares regarding their safety still occur" is not the same thing as "all scares are unsubstantiated". This is classic conspiracy thinking that you've fallen victim to — pick statements apart to introduce doubt, then use those doubts and fears to further a contrary agenda. Bradv 17:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: Thanks for your response, I still think that "Despite ... that vaccines are safe and effective, unsubstantiated scares regarding their safety still occur" is basically the same as "all scares are unsubstantiated", but thanks for stating why you disagree. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I wrote my comment before you added that nonsense assuming I must be believing in conspiracies and trying to further an agenda, making accusations like this based on ridiculous assumptions in unacceptable. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know you nor your motivation for editing this article. I'm just pointing out that this style of logic follows a classic pattern. It's up to you how you want to take that. Bradv 17:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. What it says is that vaccine "controversies" are related to unsubstantiated scares. That fact that conspiracy theories are bullshit doesn't mean there aren't conspiracies. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If no one else interprets the wording the way I do, I guess there is no issue, but I am not sure what the second part of your comment is about, nobody ever said that something being bullshit makes it not a conspiracy theory. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Passionate provaxxer here. I agree the wording of that is a bit controversial and perhaps too broad. While I certainly agree that the overwhelming vast majority of current scares (aluminum, thimerosal, aborted babes) are manufactured, there have been plenty of "substantiated scares" over the years such as the Cutter Incident. Jimexcelcs (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I observe a severe deterioration in the tenor of discourse right here between an unabashedly 100% pro-vaccination knot of people and a spread of people who hold various doubts about vaccines, some completely disliking certain vaccines, others only wanting to assert more political control over the strengths of vaccine adjuvants, vaccination times for young children and other parameters. I'll start with a quote, from above in this one section: "You've naively fallen for the antivax bullshit again." I sense that two sides are proclaiming that they have science behind them, and in the above quote one knot of advocates is labeling the opposing spectrum of opinion "naive". If you ask me, poisoning the well is no way to run a scientific discourse with the goal of seeking some scientific consensus.

It would be good to hunt down the etymology of the above term, "antivax". Did an ad agency recently coin this term? It's proper to call all people what they want to be called, not what an advocacy group wants to label others.

I observe the claim in the lede, "it contradicts overwhelming scientific consensus[3][4][5] about the safety and efficacy of vaccines." I sense at least two vociferous, competing sides to a scientific debate, which immediately throws "overwhelming scientific consensus" out the window. I've seen some of the other side's scientific articles. It could be that our rather firm knot of advocates is disingenuously setting up the Wikipedia article as an authoritative reference article for its own partisan advocacy. I followed one of those referencing articles, I think it was posted at alternet.org, to your Wikipedia entry. Otherwise I wouldn't have looked here.

In sum, I appeal to Wikipedia's managers to declare this article to be irrevocably in dispute and in need of full adjudication.

Paul Klinkman (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Measles Scare in California

https://fox40.com/2019/04/04/200-people-notified-of-possible-exposure-to-measles-at-uc-davis-medical-center-er/

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article228809879.html

UC Davis Medical Center is reporting that 200 people may have been exposed to Measles in 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:7DA2:4F51:B569:814 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and you suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Politifact: No, the measles vaccine didn’t kill hundreds of infants last year

Maybe useful for something, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2019

grammar and fact check. thank you. Maverick2019 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Stopping the Spread of Misinformation on Vaccines

Due to the recent trend of “anti-vaxxers” becoming rampant especially in the United States and Europe, an outbreak of measles has begun full force. According to The New York Times, places like Brooklyn are declaring health emergencies, requiring families to vaccinate for measles or face up to a $1,000 fine, as well as be banned from schools (Pager, 2019). Places like California have been facing vaccination rates lower than those in South Sudan (Kayyem, 2019). Although there has been virtually no evidence of any negative cognitive or physical long-term deficits as a result of vaccines, and their efficacy and has been proven by the Center for Disease Control and scientists on a global level, fewer parents are choosing to vaccinate each year. This is leading to higher rates of deadly diseases once nearly eradicated which could be detrimental to the lives of millions, and the misinformation needs to stop.

There are many factors contributing to the major decline of vaccine rates globally, however. Due to notorious false studies like those of Andrew Wakefield’s 1997 “The Lancet” being published claiming that the MMR (mumps, Measles and Rubella) vaccine was linked to causing autism, and other conspiracies like those claiming pharmaceutical companies are falsifying efficacy and safety studies many parents are wary of vaccines. They also believe that They are more harmful than helpful, while only trace levels of said “toxins” such as formaldehyde are contained in vaccines, and they have lower than a one to two in a million chance at causing a severe allergic reaction (Public Health, 2018). Harmful content is spreading against the use of vaccines all over the internet and it is filled with false claims, and false science. People still distrust these vaccines, even with all the facts readily available.

According to Public Health (2018), “The CDC vaccination schedule calls for children to receive up to 14 inoculations by the age of six – many of the vaccines developed within the last twenty years. Many parents distrust these vaccines; worried about the potential for risks and long-term side effects. Research, however, shows that most of our biggest fears about vaccinations are unfounded.” It is increasingly difficult to change another’s point of view on something someone deems as so important especially when it comes to something regarding the safety of their children. However, it is increasingly significant for the exact same reason. If the spread of misinformation is going to stop, people need to keep educating themselves on proper science and separate fact from fallacy. Concerns are understandable but the only responsible thing to do as a parent is research vaccines and the science behind them in order to best protect your children and the people around them. Although there have been disputes as to vaccines efficacy in the past, their safety and overall usefulness can no longer be categorized as uncertain. The facts are all there. Science truly has their backs and statistics show that when they are used properly, deadly diseases can almost be eradicated, and thousands, maybe millions of lives can be saved.Sbouzis (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Works Cited

Kayyem, J. (2019, April 30). Anti-vaxxers are dangerous. Make them face isolation, fines, arrests. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/30/time-get-much-tougher-anti-vaccine-crowd/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f34ffd6dcdab

Pager, T., & Mays, J. C. (2019, April 09). New York Declares Measles Emergency, Requiring Vaccinations in Parts of Brooklyn. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/nyregion/measles-vaccination-williamsburg.html

Public Health. (2018). Vaccine Myths Debunked. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/

Public Health. (2019). What Goes into a Vaccine? Retrieved May 24, 2019, from https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/goes-vaccine/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbouzis (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum or web hosting service.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Sbouzis what is your proposal? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like there is one. Just someone trying to combat the misinformation out there about vaccines. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sbouzis, welcome to Wikipedia! You have a much better grasp of sourcing than most new editors. You've put a lot of work into this, but as you can see, we're not sure how you want to incorporate it into Wikipedia. This is a page for discussing improvements to the article. It's not a problem that you posted this here, as you are obviously doing work relevant to improvements to the article, but we are confused about whaty you want to do next. Could you add something like "I proposed adding this content to the end of this section" or "I propose changing this section to this text"? How do you see incorporating this content into a Wikipedia article? HLHJ (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Move from Vaccine controversies to Vaccine hesitancy

I'm confused about how Vaccine controversies got moved to Vaccine hesitancy. Guy's edit summary refers to a consensus, but I couldn't find anything on the talk page. Guy's on an extended wikibreak, so I can't ask him directly what he was referring to. I'm not necessarily against the move, I'm just trying to understand it. R2 (bleep) 20:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism#Time_to_move may be it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like that's indeed the discussion Guy was referring to. R2 (bleep) 23:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Cause(s) Missing

Sources and causes

• Public science literacy low (example about basic facts about Earth); Sticking to ideological values versus accepting facts that may question them.
• A description of denialism (including a mention of autism)
• Genocide conspiracy theories
• Politics of denialism - Questions of scientific misconduct, etc
• Efforts to discredit on accusations of corporate imperialism
• List below:
  • "Interference with God's will" or with natural selection
  • Reduced confidence in state or medical system increases mass resistance to vaccination
  • Adverse effects and events sensationalized in media
  • Argument that child's natural immunity's development may be affected, the hygiene hypothesis
  • Diseases for which vaccination is widely used not always seen as deadly
  • People search and read on the web, finding quotes affirming their fears
  • Mislead rumors spread fast
  • Medical staff failures commonly confused with vaccine efficacy while technically irrelevant
  • New vaccines viewed with more suspicion
• Short general summary about the difficulty of instructing denialists to think critically the scientific way
• Vaccines and autism fears
• "messy world of nature" with doubters and imperfect science
• difference between neutrally paid and conflict of interest results
• importance of source "who has actual expertise" for the best information
• believers/denialists unconvinced by rational arguments, driven by conspiracy theories
• Fear of modernism, attacks on science
• Anti-science tradition
• Relation to animal rights movement (anti-animal-testing)
• Hostility to vaccination because it "preserved thousands" who would die due to poor constitution and improve the race (natural selection)
• Evolution of patternicity, "nerdy brainiacs with expertise" vs "glamorous maniacs with celebrity"
• Brain evolved with magical beliefs, thinking critically requires effort, demonstrated in animals too (direct experience derived learning and behavior reinforcement), very basic first-level thinking skills useful for survival, vs complex learned rational critical thinking
• Other "wired" perception like face recognition
• People have rational beliefs about a topic and completely be erroneous on another
• More regret in people who vaccinate when illness occurs than without, since an action was taken, that may afterwards be erroneously believed to have played a role; Semifactual reasoning
• The real calculated risk involved in vaccination, with regret anticipation; if disease doesn't strike, better without; yet risks so little that statistics show an actual advantage of vaccination in a population

References

---

• Loxton, Daniel; Prothero, Donald R. (2013). Abominable Science!: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231526814. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kalichman, Seth C. (2009). Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9780387794761. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin, eds. (2003). Encyclopedia of Medical Anthropology: Health and Illness in the World's Cultures Topics. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9780306477546.
• Popper, Karl Raimund (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780415285940. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226051826. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Regal, Brian (2009). Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia: A Critical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313355080. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Shermer, Shermer; Linse, Pat, eds. (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781576076538. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Shermer, Michael (2011). The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies-How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. Macmillan. ISBN 9781429972611. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Manktelow, K. I. (2012). Thinking and Reasoning: An Introduction to the Psychology of Reason, Judgment and Decision Making. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781841697413. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Discussion

As I continue to read through this article, I have noticed that I don't really see any coverage (unless I'm missing it) of the underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy (e.g., what are the thought processes, biases, etc that people who are vaccine hesitant have?). I'm sure there's literature on this and it would be a welcomed addition to this article and would help readers better understand the true nature of this issue (and help healthcare providers understand what's happening in the minds of vaccine hesitant people). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The common themes section seems to cover this fairly well.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the common themes section examines many of the common tropes these people bring up, but that's different than discussing the types of cognitive biases involved. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not seeing the difference between why people believe this and what they say makes them believe this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, for example, why do some people insist that vaccines cause autism even when there's very clear evidence that they don't. Sure, some people just don't understand the immune system and believe some of these misconceptions about "toxins" or thinking the immune system is going to be "overloaded" by vaccines. But others think doctors are "shills" for big pharma. Where does this mistrust come from? Why are some people so willing to believe in such paranoid conspiracy theories and risk jeopardizing the health of their children, other people's health, and their own? That's the question and I don't think the article currently addresses this (at least not fully). The question is what are the mechanistic underpinnings (e.g., what are the thought processes) underlying these misconceptions that people who are vaccine hesitant have? Why do they believe what they do when it's clearly nonsense? The article explores many arguments vaccine hesitant people raise and dismantles each of them. That's great and very educational for readers, but it doesn't delve into why they vaccine hesitant people use these arguments or believe in them. Interestingly, highly educated people are frequently amongst the parents who refuse vaccines for their children. I'm sure some cases of vaccine hesitancy are due to ignorance but in other cases it's likely due to complex cognitive biases. That should be discussed in the article and right now it isn't. I'm looking for good review articles that go over this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

We link to the article about that, we do not need to go into the reasons why they think this here. It would over burden the article. As you point out, there are many reason why people believe vaccines cause autism, and we cannot go into details here. Moreover I am not sure there is any study of the the thought processes underlying these misconceptions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There are various works about denialism and pseudoscience, some cover vaccination. They enumerate some of the motivations (often unrecognized as such by proponents), fear mongering emotional campaigns they may be exposed to, depending on the media they consume (this may answer to your Why are some people so willing to believe in such paranoid conspiracy theories and risk jeopardizing the health of their children? question; they may firmly believe that it could actually harm them instead and have the natural urge to protect them), etc... On the other hand that would probably be better for the denialism article, except perhaps short summaries where/if relevant. I could list some sources and quotes in the next few days if it's still considered important. —PaleoNeonate – 11:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Paleo. I understand many of the vaccine hesitant people (probably most or all of them) think they're doing the right thing and protecting themselves and their children even though their actions are misguided. Where exactly in the article do we link to a discussion of these thought processes? It's possible I'm not seeing the wikilnk or section where this occurs. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

My impression was that Slatersteven was referring to germ theory denialism. It's possible that some of the most important points are WP:DUE in this very article too, of course... The reason I decided to list so much below is only so that we can collect and pick the best parts if necessary. I just noticed that I signed it but will remove the signature, since it's also for others to edit. —PaleoNeonate – 09:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think this is going to either overburden the article or not address the issue by being an over simplification.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If so, germ theory denialism is not an adequate discussion of these cognitive biases that vaccine hesitant people have. That's only one piece of it and I don't know how common that is in the modern-day vaccine hesitant demographic these days. I still think a summary of the other cognitive biases would be a valuable addition. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

You are invited to participate in a discussion at WP:BLPN#Sharyl Attkisson related to the theory that vaccines can cause autism. R2 (bleep) 05:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

"Tuna fish" sounds informal. Could you replace "can of tuna fish" with "can of tuna" please? Thank you. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, ElHef, could you make another change? At first I didn't notice that it says "three ounce can." This should be "three-ounce can."

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Individual liberty

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: I didn't think I was removing material, I was removing the specifically US part because I didn't see a need to single out the US controversy when the source describes similar controversies and arguments in various times and places, and I didn't see anything in the source that talks about a public-private merger. Did I miss something?. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting one because while antivaxers always spin this as individual liberty, there is an equal case for presenting it as child endangerment, as with the wilful withholding of any other potentially lifesaving medical treatment. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: An interesting what? It is not clear if you are proposing any change to the article or just commenting on the general issue, if you think the article needs to be changed in any way, please be more clear. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tornado, stop the edit warring. This is a sensitive topic with real life deadly consequences. Anti-vaxxers are child abusers. "They kill children." Bill Gates. There's a special corner of hell reserved for them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring? Part of my edit was reverted for reasons I did not understand, so I left a message on the talk page pinging the user who reverted me, I know my ping went through, so I waited for a response, after 2 weeks I restored my edit, with an edit summery that said it was OK to revert as long as you were willing to discuss your objections to my edit, that is not edit warring. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Do you object to my edit itself or just because you considered it edit warring? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Both. It's generally wrong to remove properly sourced content. See WP:PRESERVE. If you think there is some sort of lack of balance, then fix the problem by adding, not removing.

Otherwise, get consensus for making such a change, especially since your deletion was challenged. See WP:BRD.

I didn't notice the 8 days (not two weeks), so edit warring might have been a bit strong, but seeing whose content you deleted, I would have been very cautious. @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: is a very experienced and respected editor who knows what he's doing.

You wrote: "I didn't think I was removing material, I was removing the...." So you were removing material. Period. Don't try to use that admission as a defense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words although I don't deserve any consideration beyond other editors. User:Tornado chaser reverted my change and attempted to open discussion but I didn't have a block of time available to make a detailed reply and eventually forgot about it -- my editing is mostly in brief moments when I need a break from what I'm supposed to be working on. So that was my fault. While I of course think my revert was justified better sourcing is always a good thing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser's edit was weaselly junk, the revert was good. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I am open to constructive criticism and alternate suggestions for wording, but calling my edit "weaselly junk" is not helpful. I want to fix some issues with the current wording, so please tell me what was wrong with my edit. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should discuss (not edit) the issues you'd like to fix. Let's work on it. Maybe a consensus can form around your proposed improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I see how my original post here was confusing, what I am trying to say is that the content I want to remove is not well supported by the source. The source cited does not talk about a public-private merger at all, and it dosen't say that in the US opposition is specifically from anti-govt or libertarian groups or that anything about the US controversy is significantly different from the european controversies, in fact the source says that the controversies are very similar in different times and places. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "In the United States, mandatory vaccination laws sometimes provoke opposition from members of anti-government or libertarian factions, who express concern for what they view as the intrusion of the government into their private lives." is not supported by the source cited, if you don't want me to remove this, please explain why. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-vaxxers are child abusers." Wow, BullRangifer, your bias is clearly present here. Accusing millions of people of child abuse simply because they lack confidence in the safety of vaccines or have friends who were vaccine-injured is quite ridiculous. Such bias impairs editors' judgment for proper encyclopaedic content. This is a major reason I don't participate in editing controversial content on Wikipedia; the majority-view generally suppresses and attacks minority viewpoints, and fails to allow them fair encyclopaedic contributions. 104.186.109.95 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Can users please read wp:npa and WP:TALK, we do not comment on users, or dismiss their views due to bias.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Map of vaccination laws

Vaccination policy by country:

  Mandatory vaccination

  Voluntary vaccination

  Vaccination not mandatory, but proof of vaccination needed to enroll in public schools

Pinging User:Avatar317

I added the vaccination map, but I didn't realize it wasn't sourced. This seems like a really useful map, so I'd be happy to help add sources. Would you know of a good place to start?

And User:Borysk5, do you remember where you found the info for this map? RockingGeo (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just found the Vaccination policy article, which is excellently sourced and seems to be what the map is based on. As this map now appears to have sources, the issue seems solved. I'll add it back posthaste. RockingGeo (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@RockingGeo: and again pinging User:Borysk5

1) Where to find sources: I don't have much familiarity with this area, but I would suggest something similar to the Guttmacher Institute, but for vaccinations...Union of Concerned Scientists maybe?

2) A map, graph, or statement cannot use another wikipedia article as a reference. We could simply add the references from the table in the Vaccination_policy article for the EU countries and some others to the caption for the map, but for now we are missing the sources for some important countries which make up significant portions of the map: Canada, Russia, Japan, & South Africa. If the map was fixed to remove those unsourced countries, it would be ok.

3) We don't add things because they "appear" to have sources, Wikipedia is all about verification. WP:V ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Respectfully, you're misunderstanding how law-related maps are cited in the wikipedia community. To put a table of countries and sources in the tiny file description would be way too cumbersome. Such tables are so cumbersome that they require their own articles. Because of this, the community has decided that it's fine for maps to reference wikipedia articles as long as the respective articles are appropriately sourced and the map accurately depicts the article.

For examples, see these maps on LGBT rights, home-schooling, euthanasia, and age of consent. They are all the same as this map; none of them cite any source for any specific country/territory (except when there may have been a recent / controversial change to the map). They're all based on their respective appropriately-sourced article.

Now, the article is definitely missing some citations for some countries, and I haven't checked all of the citations for accuracy, so if you see an issue there, please feel free to change both the article and the map. Until these problems are fixed I agree that the map shouldn't be used. RockingGeo (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please point me to a Wikipedia POLICY stating your claim that the community has decided that it's fine for maps to reference wikipedia articles as long as the respective articles are appropriately sourced and the map accurately depicts the article.. Examples of other articles is not a good way to show what Wikipedia policy is, simply because there are a lot of bad articles out there.

If you can't find such a policy, than my opinion is that I'm ok with a map summarizing a section/table in an article with the map displayed in that article, (provided the section/table is properly sourced); but if that map is used in another article, the source article table should be added into the "Source" section of the mapfile, otherwise it is impossible when viewing the map from another article to tell whether the map is appropriately sourced. For example, in your first example of the file:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression, there doesn't exist an article by that name, so I wouldn't know where to look for its sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There's not really any MOS about this stating one way or the other. It's just something I've learned over the years. An article should probably be written though. Here's a link to a few maps on featured articles that do the same thing: [File:European Union member states by form of government.svg European Union member states by form of government], Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and Map of countries without armed forces.

Generally if one can't find the source in the file description, they just need to look at the pages where the map is located. That's how I found this map's sources. But I agree that they should include a link to the list/article in the file description. The LGBT rights map wasn't the best example. RockingGeo (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! If we do make a policy, I think it should require a link in the source section to the article which sources it. Some of the most recent example files you provided (as well as the LBGT one) are used in so many articles that tracking down the sources would be a PITA for an editor, and essentially hidden from readers of the encyclopedia. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Have added links to the maps mentioned. RockingGeo (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Source for EU is listed. Also this document (https://www.sabin.org/sites/sabin.org/files/legislative_approaches_to_immunization_europe_sabin_0.pdf) have info about Eastern European countries. For South Africa i used this (https://mg.co.za/article/2005-05-13-the-great-vaccination-debate). Japan abolished mandatory vaccibation in 1994: source (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103223441204). Borysk5 (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Have added references. Let me know if I missed any. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up question

Vaccination policy by country

Mandatory      Required for schooling or welfare      Recommended

See or edit source data.

Percentage of males either overweight or obese by year.

@RockingGeo: @Borysk5: @Doc James: @Guarapiranga:

Thank you all for adding sources and improving this map!!

Sorry I'm a bit daft here, but I don't know how to edit and re-create the map myself. Rather than needing to complain that the map is unsourced and clamor for others to fix it, knowledge would empower me to fix it myself next time.

When I look at the file, it was uploaded...is there an easy Wikipedia interface which is standardly used to generate maps like this from a list of countries, so that that country info can be stored "behind" the map (table format maybe?) and then editors like myself can change that to improve and regenerate the map, (I see how to do this in-article, as user:Guarapiranga has now done in the Vaccination policy article replacing this map) (is there any function which will auto-generate a map from a table automatically on update of the table?) Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Avatar317, I've been on this quest for months, as it would benefit not only this article but aaaaall the articles with tables and maps. My best guess, after much wikisearching, is labelling the data on the table with <section …> tags, and {{lst}} that on the {{Graph:Map}}, but I haven't been able to make it work yet (nor have I seen it implemented anywhere on WP). Guarapiranga (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga This map is super cool :-) We also have this one that uses "image frame". It is based on a table of data that lives on Commons. Improvements to this mapping tool however would be excellent as still some problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

British Columbia (Canada) is now demanding vaccination for schoolchildren, they just started. So it could be green on the map. Robincantin (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

"Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Aspenkiddo (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sociology of the anti-vaccine movement

An overview of the social status, demographics and sociopolitical views is sorely missing in the article. The anti-vaccine movement is composed mainly of self-identified "progressives"; belief in the anti-vaccine movements is strongly correlated with New Age pseudo-spirituality, antirationalism and utter ignorance of science, immature magical thinking typical of the infantilized Left voter, and there is even similarity in the proclivity to conspirative paranoid thinking which manifests itself both in the vaccination issue and the current political situation (for plentiful examples of this, which is also an example of groupthink, go to the NY Times). Finally, the anti-vax movement also makes a persistent use of the appeal to Nature fallacy (if it's natural it is good, if it is man-made or sounds science-y it's evil) so prevalent in the progressive elites of Hollywood and Silicon Valley (the most notorius example is Steve Jobs' belief in the curation of cancer by drinking juice (the psychopathic megalomania of the character, however, has no relation with the issue being discussed here). To sum up, the article can not be informative without an in-depth analysis of who is the anti-vax movement, their motivations and failings; the guidelines which shall be followed in doing so, have been presented in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.161.126 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

NOt sure any of that is born about by any study, care to provide some sources?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence and support an effort to include such material. Some of the specific suggestions are total bollux, and some seem obvious or highly probable. Whether they are drivers, consequences, or merely associated phenomena is unclear. Midgley (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Vaxxed II

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/16/vaccines-measles-mumps-polio-hepatitis-b

Another reason for controversy are the Andrew Wakefield movies Vaxxed I and Vaxxed II about the movement that has been labeled as misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:7048:73A3:1E:8344 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

They're not mislabeled. They are replete with misinformation and falsehoods. That is factual. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no controversy there. He is entirely discredited. Midgley (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Temporal/Causal sequence

It is currently suggested that opposition to HPV immunisation _followed_ concerns that it might lead to promiscuity. I submit that the sequence is actually opposite to that. Opposition to HPV immunisation is of a piece with the strange thinking and opposition to inoculation for Smallpox; Vaccination against Smallpox, and immunisation against each successive other disease through its history. The suggestion that something vaguely connected and undesirable in the eyes of the protestors and their targets then follows (and is repeated regardless of evidence of untruth) Midgley (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Midgley, I suspect there's a bit of both, but also a deliberate attempt to exploit any argument hat's likely to find favour. In Texas, for example, antivaxers can talk up the nonexistent "risk" of encouraging promiscuity secure in the knowledge that socially conservative parents who think that abstinence-only sex ed works, will fall for it hook line and sinker. Guy (help!) 00:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Potentially harmful medical advice

The article suggests breastfeeding to reduce vaccine discomfort. However, a recommendation for breastfeeding during/near the time of vaccination may be inappropriate for certain types of vaccines. However, this is still controversial and under study. There have been studies where they make the infant temporarily wean prior to vaccination in an attempt to keep the maternal antibodies from reducing the effectiveness of the vaccine. This is covered in a section in this review. For an opposing view, with respect to maternal induction, see "Maternal immunisation 1, Maternal immunisation: collaborating with mother nature" by Arnaud Marchant et al., 2017, particularly the paragraph on page seven beginning with "Experiments in mice suggest that breastmilk IgG..."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The Future Medicine journal article you link to in your response is an unreliable source. Future Medicine is owned by the OMICS group, which is known to have predatory/unreliable journals. A mother breastfeeding her infant is very safe. In contrast, the information you're referring to in the vaccine hesitancy article comes from trusted, well-established sources and is appropriately supported by references. Additionally, it is only one of many suggested techniques for reducing discomfort for vaccines. Obviously, you tailor the technique(s) selected to the situation. What is potentially harmful is what you said above, which is highly misleading and incorrect. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone who desires nuance is an activist. Here is a similar study in a better journal that I assume is not predatory. On the other hand this article suggests that breastfeeding can help the infant cope with the ethylmercury in some vaccines. Some various findings in both directions are presented in this review, page 204.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning ethylmercury is a giant red flag, since most vaccines don't have this any more. That article fails WP:MEDRS as ten-year-old single author primary research which discusses factors outside the author's area of expertise. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

And that is the article that supports this article's current position.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Vaccine is not a predatory journal. The article you link to from Vaccine says: "In this population, the immune response to Rotarix® was not enhanced by withholding breastfeeding around the time of vaccination. Maternal anti-rotavirus antibodies explained little of the variability in the immune response to the vaccine". This is in agreement with the idea that breastfeeding during/around the time of vaccination is just fine (and refutes any concerns raised on the theoretical negative side in the JAOA article, which otherwise supports the practice of breastfeeding with vaccination). I agree with Guy that using an article from Dorea is unreliable. If you search them in PubMed, they publish almost exclusively about ethylmercury and talk about all of its supposed toxicities and harms (far fewer than methylmercury, the real type of mercury that should concern people) and as Guy said, it's moot since it was removed from vaccines long ago (and with no difference in health consequences I might add). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Now I see why they did that study--this earlier one from 2010 had the opposite effect described. Note the sample size being smaller. Besides delaying breastfeeding, the other strategy is to make the dose more potent/concentrated. I'm not sure if the dose used in Vaccine was more potent than the one in this study.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Mentioning ethylmercury is a giant red flag, since most vaccines don't have this any more.

This not true for most of the world, where single-dose vials are economically infeasible. Even in the US, ethylmercury is still used in Influenza, Japanese Encephalitis and Meningococcal vaccines. Guarapiranga (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga, the fact that thimerosal was removed from virtually all childhood vaccines with zero effect on autism diagnosis rates means that mentioning ethylmercury is a red flag for disinformation. The science is clear: thimerosal is safe. Guy (help!) 10:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I solely referred to the conditional there, JzG: since most vaccines don't have this any more. That is the part that is not true (for most of the world).

That aside, whether thimerosal is or isn't safe has no place in this WP:forum:

bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article

Guarapiranga (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"They"? The article linked is about oral vaccines - which don't hurt. It is irrelevant to the suggestion of b=reat-feeding as a comfort during injections. You should really understand the mechanism, which is that breast milk contains antibodies, so dropping a vaccine into a pool of antibodies is not obviously sensible, before making such comments. Midgley (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Samoan anti vaxx activist detained by Law Enforcement

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785487606/samoa-arrests-anti-vaccination-activist-as-measles-death-toll-rises

As of December 2019 these allegations are under investigation by Samoan authorities.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/07/samoa-measles-crisis-100-new-cases-as-anti-vaccination-activist-charged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:7131:A6DC:46B3:D5DE (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/News/samoa-arrests-anti-vaccine-activist-combats-deadly-measles/story?id=67539326

The Activist named in the Samoan Allegation has been identified as Edwin Tamasese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:9CD8:7E64:F03B:2B4A (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50682881

Now an activist from Samoa has been detained as of December 2019 during the Samoan Measles outbreaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:A4ED:947D:D5A7:3809 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/118030891/samoa-measles-outbreak-five-deaths-over-the-weekend-brings-death-toll-to-68

68 people reported dead in the Samoan Measles Outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:9CD8:7E64:F03B:2B4A (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/12/11/cdc-sends-experts-fight-measles-outbreaks-pacific-islands-neighboring-samoa/

Now 71 people are reported dead in the Samoan measles outbreak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:29C5:A3C2:F3C0:854C (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fiji Measles Outbreak 2019

https://www.khon2.com/news/international/19-confirmed-cases-of-measles-in-fiji/

As of December 2019 there are 19 people reported to have the measles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:BDB9:AFFB:2CE7:2CA0 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/12/04/sports/04reuters-health-measles-fiji.html

https://fijisun.com.fj/2019/12/11/measles-outbreak-19-confirmed-cases-in-fiji/

As of this posting there is also a measles scare in Fiji and thats getting concurrent attention along with the Measles scares in Samoa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:41AC:A114:1245:B6D4 (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

https://fijisun.com.fj/2019/12/14/measles-outbreak-21-confirmed-cases-in-fiji/

Now thats been changed to 21 people getting hit by the measles outbreak in Fiji as of December 14th, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:BD82:B078:CB27:54EB (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)