Talk:MenAfriVac

Expansion on history
The following reference could be used to expand this article regarding historical development: Gabbe (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Disreputable source used
In regards to the following statement on the MenAfriVac page: Minimum of 40 Children were Paralyzed After the new Meningitis Vaccine MenAfriVac® was administered in the small village of Gouro, in northern Chad http://vactruth.com/2013/01/06/paralyzed-after-meningitis-vaccine/

As this topic is in the Medicine portal, it should be based on science, not unsupported stories. Not only have I not been able to find any proof that children were paralyzed as a direct result of the MenAfriVac vaccine, but the website that is used as a source for this Wikipedia statement is a unscientific and, obviously, biased. There are so many incorrect statements that to choose just one is to do a disservice to the absurdity of their claims. The woman who wrote this article, Christina England is not a scientist, nor an expert in vaccines, in fact she has a degree in English Literature. This is not an Ad hominem attack, but rather showing that she has no background in science, medicine or vaccine...except, that is, for her conspiracy theory driven books.

There are occasions in which deaths, and other problems have occurred as a result of getting a vaccine. However, these are due to an allergic reaction. Just as most of us can eat peanuts, some can die from eating a peanut. Unless, that is, one takes an adrenaline shot, which is exactly what the manufacturer of this vaccine recommends.

This vaccine will save many lives, especially in a country, Chad, that has seen several meningitis outbreaks recently. Beyond that, however, a statement should be properly cited by a reputable source, especially on a page in the medicine portal.

Justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaporiL (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not based on "science" but on reliable sources. If the source of a story is deemed reliable (i.e., conforms with WP:MEDRS), then the story does have a place on Wikipedia. To me, Vactruth is not a reliable source - also because the "revelation" was not reported by a single independent source (humanitarian organisation, local media, etc.).
 * On the other hand, you cannot claim that this vaccine "will save many lives". This is a guess that has nothing to do with science - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There have been plenty of situations when a drug was withdrawn within a few months or years after introduction. We are neither "for" or "against" this particular vaccine - we only report facts as mentioned in reliable sources.  kashmiri  18:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)