Talk:Vaccination/Archive 1

Etymology
Not sure about the etymology of the word vaccination. Vaccinia is a term for cowpox so probably vaccination is derived from it. Kpjas


 * Indeed. And the phrase Vaccinia is derived from the word for Cow. Can't remember whether its latin or Greek though. - unsigned


 * Vacca is Latin for a cow. AFAIR - unsigned

Writeup
needs a writeup on how the bad press on vaccination got started and how it got debunked ... Alex.tan 18:24 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Myths and facts on vaccination
--Myth #1: Measles deaths had declined by 99.4% (from 1901/2, UK) before vaccination.

--Myth #2: There is no evidence vaccination eliminated smallpox, and vaccination increased the spread and incidence of the disease, as well as spreading leprosy, syphilis, TB and the like around the world. Huge epidemics were caused by compulsory vaccination which was why they repealed the compulsory vaccination act. Most cases of smallpox had been vaccination.

--Myth #3: The dangers and infectivity of smallpox have been hyped to sell vaccination. It was considered less dangerous than measles in the 18th century and 98% curable under homeopaths or naturopaths, while under allopaths it was 20-30% fatal, due mostly to their use of mercury and ignorance of diet and nutrition--the main protection against smallpox. was invented into vaccine

Comments
-- Fact #1: There are no long-term double-blind randomised controlled studies of any vaccine for any disease published in any journal in any country in any time period. (To perform a long-term controlled study of vaccination, one would take two large groups of people, and vaccinate one group and not vaccinate the other. Then one would wait and see how the individuals in each group fared over a period of years.)

-- Fact #2: Epidemiological evidence shows that vaccines are not 100% effective, that they do have undesirable side effects, and that they sometimes can cause the disease they seek to prevent.

-- Fact #3: Epidemiological evidence show that vaccine programs can decrease the incidence and prevalence of disease.

-- Fact #4: Post-exposure prophylaxis vaccination has been demonstarted to reduce the incidence and severity of such diseases as smallpox and rabies.

-- Fact #5: Some of the reduced incidence in given diseases for which vaccinations are given is due to improved nutrition and improved sanitation, and cannot be entirely attributed to the vaccination's effects.

We need a better write-up of this. It must include sources or at least areas where myth is prevalent and sources for so-called facts. Also it can't be a numbered list. Measles is not the number one myth subject in America for instance. I doubt these should be called myths and facts at all to keep in NPOV. Rmhermen 16:03, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

The article seems to perpetuate the myth that variolation was a valid precursor of vaccination. Variolation means injecting the patient with the live virus and seeing if they live or die. Not exactly a preventive measure and one that was avoided by families of the day who could avoid treatment (including apparently the British Royal Family). No, the true progenitor of vaccination was Edmund Jenner who actually prevented disease by using a milder or killed form of the virus. Vaccination was not invented in Turkey. That is a myth. (Romperlevis (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Merge
Should this be merged with vaccine? Rmhermen 17:09, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

please merge; vaccine and vaccination are basicely the same thing in 2 different gramatical forms. unknown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a POV until scientifically reviewed, and if the facts are right, scientists will never deem this true, because, according to Myth #3, vaccination is overhyped, and therefore, if that was true, the scientists would never deem this true, because then it would hurt their credability. KirbyMeister 11:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC) --- KirbyMeister, you are talking about myth #3 as though it were a fact; it is a myth. even though it is worded like a fact, the person is citing is as untrue. keep that in mind. --- I think the article is out-of-balance. The other side of the picture is completely absent. There are many published objections to vaccinations. A few could be mentioned here. Yes, I'm the culprit who added the NVIC link. Afterall, it is probably the best source of facts on the internet on this topic. Paul B Mann
 * There is far more published suport. The evindence does not support the antivac position. The most famos anti-vac paper has had it's credibitly destroyed. The national vacine information centre is a sick joke.Geni

US information
If that is to be included you also have to allow the legal staus of vaccination with regard to civil law in every other country on the planet. I fell this could result in the article looking rather silly 

well more to the point... is it true?? Erich 12:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Pretty much all damages due to vaction in the US are payed by the US govenment.Geni 23:28, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

so, just to clarify, can you still sue and receive damages, but the government picks up the tab? Erich 11:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As far as I understand it pretty muchGeni 11:58, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Useless Article
So, this article is to contain no information on the vaccination needs of adults and children of various ages in the USA? Right? But isn't that what many people will come here for information on? Yet there is not even a link leading to anything like this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/health/25patient.html

Why would you want to make your article useless to most people who will see it? Regards, Rumjal rumjal 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

ratbags.com
two pages from the ratbags site

http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight/vaccines1.htm

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/

looks like a provacination site to me.Geni 23:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for listing the subdirectory links because there was nothing about vaccines on the home page. Wiki links should go directly to the page on topic. Readers may not want to continue if they do not find what they expect. The second link should be http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/vaxliars1.htm Petersam 16:02, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ideas about inoculation transmitted to the west from India?
I've just been reading the smallpox page which includes the following paragraph:


 * Smallpox is described in the Ayurveda books. Treatment included inoculation with year-old smallpox matter. The inoculators would travel all across India pricking the skin of the arm with a small metal instrument using "variolous matter" taken from pustules produced by the previous year's inoculations. The effectiveness of this system was confirmed by the British doctor J.Z. Holwell in an account to the College of Physicians in London in 1767.

As the date of this account of Indian practice to British physicians preceeded Edward Jenner's vaccine by nearly 30 years I am wondering if some cross-fertilisation of ideas occured. This is just speculation on my part. I have no expertise in this area. Just wanted to mention it here. Oska 08:51, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * There was alos some knowlage of this practice from turkey. I belive there was some use of live smallpox as a vaccine however it wasn't until Edward Jenner made his observations that cowpox was used. Geni 11:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly, not least in that Jenner was variolated as a child, and as an adult doctor (Physician if you like) he variolated the local population as part of normal business. It is asserted somewhere and seems entirely obvious that he would have liked an improved procedure.  To what extendt he was actually seeking one, and how much it was just careful observation and curiosity, as with the Cuckoo, isn't clear to me.  In any event, the test of whether the first vaccination Jenner performed was whether it blocked variolation when that followed, as a routine (I imagine, reasonably).  It did, and that, when repeated, indicated that the effect of Cowpox could be produced artificially.  That page on variolation is a stub but includes a link to the lady who brought the technique back to England, and was enthusiastic about it (ambassadors' wives often are enthusiaastic in the public good.).  I suggest that that page would do better as a sub-page of this one.  Midgley 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

whale.to link
There have been a few additions/deletions of the whale.to link. Maybe this is a good place to discuss what is the reasoning behind the removal of the link and are there valid reasons to omit a link with such extensive information on the topic? Jkpjkp 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's been some low-grade edit warring. An RFC on exactly this topic is taking place at Talk:MMR vaccine. I think it is unwise to reinsert the link until that RFC has come to a hard conclusion. JFW | T@lk  01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Adjuvants
A tag has been added requesting expansion of the new adjuvant section. Ombudsman 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The adjuvant section has been expanded, and the tag removed. Midgley 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Vaccine / vaccination

 * This has been crossposted to the talk pages of both articles. Please respond here.

The content of these two article crosses over a great deal. Perhaps we should consider either merging them completely, or seperating them into independent articles (as much as is reasonable). I, personally, am in favor of the former, but am not wholly opposed to the alternative given an adequate rationale for that course of action. If there's no response, I'll likely just be bold in the next few days and merge them myself. – ClockworkSoul 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "vaccination" is outdated, and government health authorities make a point of using the less charged term "immunisation". Vaccine (from vacca, cow, and vaccina, cowpox) refers specifically to smallpox vaccination. Immunisation is factually more correct. Further, after the eradication of smallpox in 1977, routine smallpox vaccination was eliminated. David F 05:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are reasons not to merge the articles. The article on vaccine deals with the substance used, which is POV-free (although the thiomersal debate may flow into this). The article on vaccination, deals with the clinical, political and sociological aspects of compulsory vaccination as a container term. JFW | T@lk  20:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be best, then, for us to appropriately prune as much redundant information as is reasonable? – ClockworkSoul 05:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as the pruning keeps the balance intact this is fine. JFW | T@lk  21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Source material - UK government documents of about 1800 onward
http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/swish-cgi.pl?query=vaccination&field=all (Not serving the JPEGs just now, but I think it usually will work. There are various assertions about what happened flaoting around, these are the pukka article.  Midgley 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Works now. The Royal Commission report on Leicester is useful, since the most widely copied material about it is a book by one of the interested pribncipals defending his views. Midgley 18:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Autism
Last I heard, there may indeed be links between vaccination and autism... Someone check that there has been no strong connection before we say so! --AlanH 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been claimed. There is rather a lot of deabte on this point.Geni 02:05, 16 April 2006

This page is cool and interesting.


 * There have been no (credible) studies showing a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism. There is a lot of hype and conjecture, but no scientific evidence that a link exists. It's pretty much that simple. Until a peer-reviewed journal publishes a study (that it doesn't retract in disgrace), it's just so much hand-wringing. Here is a link to the "killer blow" delivered to the study that started all the controversy:


 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article420491.ece


 * Scientists at *two* government centres were unable to duplicate the findings linking autism in children to measles vaccine in blood and gut samples. Bottom line, there is no link. The research that originally showed a link has since been discredited and is the subject of a litany of lawsuits. The researcher who led the study is now publicly disgraced and since has been shown to have been receiving money from a group that was suing the drug companies. In other words, he was taking money from a group that needed research showing a link between the measles vaccination and autism. His work has since been shown to be false, and as I said, two different government centres have disproved his findings. The controversy is over... there is no link between autism and vaccinations. The end. Supertheman  ( talk  ) 14:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vaccination vs. Immunization
I can see that other people have mentioned this before, but I will start a section, since it is important to this article.

Calling the information presented in this article "Vaccination" is incorrect. Vaccination refers only to the induction of immune responses against smallpox using the vaccinia vaccine. The term Immunization covers all of the other topics on this page (i.e., every other "vaccine" mentioned besides the one for smallpox). Yes, colloquially the terms are used interchangeably, but Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and thus should be as technically correct as possible.

Even more worrisome is that this article then goes on to imply that there is some inherent difference in the mechanism by which immunization and vaccination occur. There is NO difference in the mechanism, as vaccination is a TYPE of immunization. Most of the information (except for the information specifically about vaccination via vaccinia) needs to be moved to the Immunization page.


 * There is however a difference between vaccination and inoculation methods. "Vaccination" is a term of art for a specific medical procedure. In vaccination, the vaccine must incubate in the skin, and therefore vaccination is done by pricking the skin with a looped needle, the vaccine being held in the loop. Inoculation involves loading a hypodermic with a vaccine and injecting the vaccine intramuscularly through a hypodermic needle. David F 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome any thoughts on this matter.--DO11.10 22:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pasteur had a thought about it, some time ago, when he developed an immunisation against rabies and chose to follow Edward Jenner's coining of the word, which does indeed derive from cow. Vaccination and the induction of active immunity by stimulating the immune system with a live or dead denatured pathogen or fraction of it have been used interchangeably since then.  Inducing immunity by infusing immunoglobulins on the other hand has not so far as I know ever been described as vaccination, but is certainly a part of immunisation.  There are plenty of ways of slicing the information up, several of them are probably good.  Midgley 17:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?
The article has lot's of information about possible risks of vaccination and the controversy surrounding it, but does not e.g. mention the estimated number of lives saved every year because of the ongoing vaccination programs. I consider this somewhat onesided and POV. --Joonasl 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. But only if you could prove credible sources.-Shark Fin May 23, 2007

Jenner
The article talks as if Jenner was the first to use cowpox as a vaccine for smallpox in 1796. Although this is widly believed to be true, the first documented use was by Benjamin Jesty who innoculated his family during the 1774 smallpox epidemic. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) A recently published article by Peter Plett (Sudhoffs Archiv, Vol.90-2, p. 219-232, 2006, Stuttgart, Germany) states: Before Edward Jenner tested the possibility of using the cowpox vaccine as an immunisation for smallpox in himans for the first time in 1796, at least six people had done the same several years earlier: An English person whose identity is unknown, Mrs. Sevel (Germany), Mr. Jensen (Germany), the English farmer Benjamin Jesty in 1774, Mrs. Rendall (England)and the German teacher Peter Plett in 1791. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.238.83 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why undid
I undid a link to vaccine controversy on top of the article. I agree that vaccine controversy is important, but the readers typing in "vaccination" wants to know about vaccination, and not primarily its controversy. That, they might want to know more about when reading the basics. Therefore, the link belongs rather to the bottom of the article. In fact, it is already found there. Mikael Häggström 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

plus most of it is false information as not vaccinating is dangerous, and has been proven in many non-vaccinated children around the world already. Markthemac (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What many people don't understand is, non-vaccinated children are made safe because of the "herd" phenomenon. When 90% of the children are vaccinated then the 10% that aren't are made safe because of the overwhelming number that are. So it is irresponsible and wrong to use a small number from that "herd" who remain healthy and claim that not being vaccinated is the right thing to do. What has been proven is, vaccination does lead to the eradication of certain diseases. What has been proven is the overwhelming number of perfectly healthy people who grew up vaccinated. What has also been proven is an entire society that has not been vaccinated is susceptible to contracting certain diseases that vaccinated societies are not. What has *not* been proven are the many different (pseudo-science) claims of the imminent dangers of vaccination.


 * Most of the anti-vaccination sites out there are also collections of erroneous information. One example is the preservative thiomersal, which is now almost universally not used (expect in some flu vacs). However, reading many of the wackadoo anti-vac sites you'd be misinformed that thiomersal is present in every current vaccination. Wikipedia is about verifiable scientific fact, not alarmist pseudo-science nut proclamations. Supertheman  ( talk  ) 13:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass vaccination
Why is mass vaccination only mentioned once, in passing, in this article? Surely this is a notable topic in itself, perhaps even deserving its own Wikipedia article, yet it is barely even mentioned at present. -Mais oui! (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaccination vs Inoculation
It seems to me that the latter article is cautious not to intrude upon this one, whereas the vaccination article does not even link to inoculation, let alone make the distinction between the two procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.128.23 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the vaccination article is repetitive. Inoculation is dealt with in the 4th paragraph (at the same time as explaining use of words vaccination and immunisation). Inoculation comes up again in the ===Vaccination versus inoculation=== versus inoculation section without any new detail. I think the references in this section should be moved up to paragraph 4 and the section and its heading deleted. What do other people think? Emble64 (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Vaccination for Babies
Do babies get all vaccination including rabies shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master King (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the country, really. In the US, the CDC has some recommendations.  Rabies is not one of them, it's usually only given after an animal bite.  SDY (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And some countries there is no rabies at present, eg Australia and the British Isles, hence there is a differnet protocol for rabies vaccine after an animal bite. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * David F (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC) In Canada, infants routinely receive a number of innoculations, including DPTIAP (diptheria, pertussus [whoping cough], tetanus, and polio). See http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/is-cv/index-eng.php#a.

Vaccination being used prior to vaccinia
The Turkish work was variolation, something actually distinct from vaccination. 77.100.103.108 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Vaccination Against Bacteria -- not explained?
Guys, the article mentions in passing in the beginning that vaccination is against viruses or bacteria; but then in the body, and especially in the types of vaccination, only viruses are mentioned.

As a kid, I was taught that vaccinations only work against viruses: I just realized that's an oversimplification, because I've just gotten vaccinated against Typhoid, caused by a bacteria.

Can someone who understand these things include a bit of information about vaccination against bacteria? Particularly, why can some bacteria be vaccinated against, and others (like the one that causes Malaria) not be?

Conversely, why can't we come up with a vaccination against certain viruses (like HIV)? A paragraph or two on these topics would be greatly illuminating.71.101.164.169 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

--- Re: comment above (and below) --- Malaria is not bacterial, it's caused by a protozoan. Vaccines are being developed for macroparasites like malaria (malaria vaccine) and filarial worms, i.e. not just bacteria and viruses. I'm therefore going to remove the bacteria and viruses bracket in the first paragraph. I will leave the word pathogens, which is more accurate and already includes viruses and bacteria. Emble64 (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Chiropractic view of vaccination
I have heard about chiropractic philosophy opposing vaccination, but haven't heard the reason why. If someone could figure it out, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.63.235 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You may wish to read these sources:


 * Chiropractic


 * Vaccine controversy


 * Chiropractic controversy and criticism


 * Daniel David Palmer, the founder of chiropractic and the cause of their opposition to vaccination.


 * Chiropractors and Vaccination: A Historical Perspective


 * Attitudes towards vaccination among chiropractic and naturopathic students.


 * Chiropractic students' attitudes about vaccination: A cause for concern?


 * How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry


 * Early Chiropractic Opposition to Vaccination


 * Chiropractors and Immunization


 * I hope that helps. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Combined Vaccines" section
For now, I have removed this section. It contained only a single, unsourced, and dubious statement: "Combined vaccinations are now widely used around the world, a result of the rapid increase in the number of shots recommended in current vaccination schedules." Two aspects of this are highly questionable. First, I am highly skeptical that the sum of reliable sources support the claim of a "... rapid increase in the number of shots recommended...". This is a contentious statement that requires strong sourcing. Second, even if such a statement were sourced, I am also skeptical that this is necessarily the reason why combined vaccines are widely used. Separate sourcing from reliable sources would be necessary for this claim. In the absence of such sourcing, it seems likely that this claim constitutes original research. Locke9k (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific proof that vaccines work
I'd like to see some citations of researches that used scientific method to the statement that vaccines can prevent or ameliorate the effects of infection by a pathogen, please. 2 april boy talk 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are literally thousands of studies that support that premise, and the effectiveness of vaccines has been unquestionably shown through efforts to outright eradicate disease (for example, Basic timeline of polio). This is like asking to show that water contains hydrogen and oxygen: it is not likely to be challenged.  SDY (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to confess that I requested that User:2aprilboy discuss here rather than edit war over this matter. It is better to discuss than to just place tags in articles. While I fully agree that this is (among the better educated populace) about as fundamental a piece of common knowledge as the fact that the Earth is round, it also happens to be a very unfortunate fact that the original anti-vaccination ideas, helped along by the chiropractic profession's historical (and still among many members) opposition, are very much alive in alternative medicine circles. Many people are thus deceived by their anti-medical propaganda, and therefore some of the best research should be included here. It's a legitimate and very fundamental fact that should be documented here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's very difficult to cite things that are considered basic and common knowledge. Including a line or two in objections about objections regarding efficacy is certainly not a bad idea.  For example, there was a rather in/famous researcher whose name escapes me that suggested that improvements in hygiene were the cause for lower disease risk and that vaccines were irrelevant.  Almost all of the objections to vaccination have been made on the grounds of safety (i.e. they work, but aren't worth the risk) or freedom (i.e. you can't force me to undergo medical procedures).  If we really want to include references on efficacy, though, using the Salk vaccine and the Francis Field Trial as a case study is a great example that should be fairly easy to reference.


 * The flu vaccine has its own controversies in effectiveness since it's used mostly to protect individuals and not populations. A controversial editorial in BMJ picks up this topic: available here.  Even, there, though, there is plenty of reliable evidence.


 * There are real debates about the relative safety, efficacy, ethics, and utility of vaccines. Requiring a citation that they "can" do something gives a voice to a WP:FRINGE that is about as credible as the folks denying the roundness.  SDY (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It takes 20 second to pull up a high quality review of RCTs that show effectiveness. Here is one for the influenza vaccine   HPV  and chicken pox   So yes there is lots of high quality evidence for vaccination. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

use of cowpox
In the history section,this article said that turks used cowpox to inoculate thwmselves,which is false.They used smallpox as the indians and chinese did.The first ones to use cowpox,and therefore the inventors of vaccination,were the english like Jenner.The rest is inoculation.--Knight1993 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence: "Strong" or Convincing?
''Vaccination is the administration of antigenic material (a vaccine) to produce immunity to a disease. Vaccines can prevent or ameliorate the effects of infection by many pathogens. There is strong evidence for the efficacy of the influenza vaccine[1], the HPV vaccine[2] and the chicken pox vaccine[3] among others.''

Is there some issue being introduced that the reader must elsewhere deduce from the article? Is it strong evidence for the three diseases referenced but overwhelmingly convincing for other vaccines? In the third sentence of the article, "strong evidence" sounds a little strange, almost as if it's a compromise stance. Primarily, why single out three diseases in the first paragraph when it's a general discussion of vaccines?

Is the evidence of the efficacy of vaccines in general "strong" or convincing? It would seem to be the latter, unless there is still room left for doubt and debate.Dynasteria (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Strong" and "convincing" are more or less synonyms in this context, so I'm not sure what the objection is. The sentence giving examples could be better worded so that it cannot be misunderstood and that they are examples and not exceptions.  SDY (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll go along with "strong" and "convincing" being more or less synonymous. My secondary question refers to the purpose of the statement at all and what it's doing in the opening paragraph. Consider: "There is strong (or convincing) evidence that changing a flat tire improves the drivability of a car." That is factually true, but it also allows for a level of doubt that is unwarranted. Everyone knows you should change your tire when you get a flat. It's a small point. It just struck me as odd. Dynasteria (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There was requests a while back that we state and provide evidence for what most of us take for a given. Some where claiming that there was not evidence for vaccine effectiveness. Feel free to expand and improve the wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. However, I'm a language guy, not a medical guy. I think it should be factual, like, "Approximately x number of vaccines have been developed and are currently in use. World wide, the most prevalent vaccinations are against a ... b... c... diseases. The efficacy of vaccines is supported by evidence from decades of research and field experience. However, controversy still exists concerning safety, public policy, and overall effectiveness."

There probably are a lot of arguments against vaccination. Some of them may be weak, like saying that you shouldn't change your tire in the middle of a busy freeway, therefore changing a flat tire is dangerous and unadvisable. Those issues would be addressed later in the article. Dynasteria (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Journal: Study linking vaccine to autism was fraud
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5W87jAs9mPrcilNDPYP7vxBjqdw?docId=e361bf7682cc43ce998219c5eb2d151e • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  07:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph
Hi, I was wondering, how can you be creating a vacine for malaria - I believe it is caused by a protist, not a virus, and vaccination solely works against viruses... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.48.161 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

--- Please see my response to similar question at the top of the page under the heading "Vaccination Against Bacteria -- not explained?" Emble64 (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image purporting to be from 1943??


I looked at the info with the image file, and some of the translations for the caption in different languages date the photo at 1944, while some date it at 1943. I am wondering if either of those dates are even correct, considering that colour photography was very rare in the 1940's, and the photo does not look like the type of colour film that did exist at the time. Thoughts? Anyone certain about this date? Thanks. MsBatfish (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Since no one answered my question, I did some more research and found out that the date in the caption is in fact correct. It was reportedly taken in 1943 (not 1944 as the image file suggests) and was restored, digitized and colourized more recently (which explains why it looks nothing like the average photo from that time period). More info can be found at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/fsa1992001492/PP/

MsBatfish (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Compliment from Nobel Prize-winning immunologist
Peter Doherty, Nobel laureate and Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Melbourne University today on Australia's Radio National (listen 12 minutes in): "Generally if you go to Wikipedia, you'll get a pretty good description. When I've looked at Wikipedia, in the areas I know about, it's generally been very good."Though he is critical of online content in general. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Common Chemicals May Weaken Vaccine Response
Common Chemicals May Weaken Vaccine Response - A study finds disturbing evidence that chemicals found in furniture, fast-food packaging and microwave popcorn bags may compromise children's immune systems. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/exposure-to-common-chemicals-may-weaken-vaccine-response/ •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"vaccination only works if you do it to everybody"
I keep seeing the same thing: "vaccination only works if you do it to everybody." Is this discussed in this article in detail somewhere? It is kind of confusing to me: it implies that vaccination will not work if the vaccinated person is exposed to what they are vaccinated against... I mean, to me it implies that if everyone does not get vaccinated, there is no point to get vaccinated because it is useless. (And one can be fairly sure not everyone gets vaccinated.) Is the BBC misguided? Am I missing something? Int21h (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have copied your query to the reference desk. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What they presumably mean is that for a society to have herd immunity to a disease (whereby a sufficient number of members of a group are immune to a disease that individuals within it who are not immune are in vastly reduced danger of contracting it) an overwhelming majority of the population must be innoculated. Vaccinations will "work" for the individual who is vaccinated regardless of who else is vaccinated. This distinction is relevant for two reasons. (1) There are people in society who through no fault of their own are unable to be vaccinated, and would therefore be at risk unless they are living in a society with herd immunity (2) the claim that vaccination is a purely personal choice is demonstrably false, as herd immunity requires all (or at least most) people to be vaccinated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.35 (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A new paper

 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why has this not been included?
Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html #ixzz1vRz4IFom

and Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html #ixzz1vS0NxMmf

AND Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal - next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html #ixzz1vS0f2loG 91.88.8.179 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)MMRAutism


 * It's already been mentioned in articles here (and we've seen these links before), but this source isn't considered a reliable source. You need to get your "news" from better sources than Mike Adams and Natural News. They are very partisan sources, and aren't known for accuracy, only for pushing a fringe agenda against all evidence to the contrary. Don't worry. This will be covered more fully as RS cover it. If it ends up meaning that much of the article gets revised, that will happen, regardless of the outcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

YouTube rebuttal
I reverted this because the source didn't support the claim of "rebuttal" attributed to it in the article; in fact it seems to be an effective demolition of Wakefield's position. The link's still available through the page history, of course, if anybody wants to see for themselves, but WP:YT suggests that it could be a contributory copyright violation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have protected this page for a bit to prevent further issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Vaccination-autism controversy (III)
As this section has its own subsidiary article, dealing with the topic in detail, is there scope for trimming it back a bit? There seems to be a risk of giving it undue prominence here; this article is supposed to be dealing with the whole topic of vaccination, in broad terms. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, as well. I should note that there is also undue weight given to only one of the three major autism-vaccine controversies as well. Yobol (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the responses. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mithridatism
I feel like the history of vaccination should begin with mithridatism, i.e. long before the 16th century, since that practice included exposure to venoms that presumably elicited an antigen response. Admittedly, finding references for this is difficult: some sources say that vaccination was akin to mithridatism ( and page 11) but it is harder to find a source that says that mithridatism ever truly was a form of vaccination, or more correctly of inoculation as the article presents. Wnt (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Vaccine Contamination
Since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer removed my previous entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccination&curid=32473&diff=570499061&oldid=570497322 and noted "NVIC is not a RS here (or anywhere, for that matter). This type of event isn't worthy of inclusion. ". I ask now for other opinions - why this section shouldn't be worthy to be included: On March 22, 2010, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials adhering to the precautionary principle advised American doctors to suspend use of Rotarix vaccine until the agency finds out why DNA from a swine virus (porcine circovirus 1 or PCV1) was found in the live rotavirus vaccine. Direct link to FDA announcement http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm205625.htm Although this is not an isolated incident, contamination and following affected people is a rather broad circumstance, see Polio Vaccination and Simian virus 40 in humans http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1941725/ Prokaryotes (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The source was my first objection, and that still stands. Otherwise we don't usually list news items for this type of subject. If the subject is broad enough and of an enduring nature, then maybe.... It will to some degree depend on the sources and wording. I'll let others weigh in on the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Adverse effects associated with vaccination
Over 300 peer reviewed studies are associated with adverse effects of vaccination, they are listed and sourced here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-vaccine-research# Because of the amount of data there should be a section on adverse effects which vary depending on the specific vaccination Prokaryotes (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would have thought we already did mention that. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Where? Prokaryotes (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned very briefly in the lead and body, but not enough. There is a link to another article which deals with the subject, but there should be more mention here. Let me see what I can do. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now given it its own section, with a link to two other articles. My edit summary notes that the section needs further development. No one has ever denied that vaccines, just like all other medicines which have any real effects, can have side effects. Therefore the subject needs mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You cite an article on autism for general injuries and adverse effects, that should be replaced with proven side affects. There are common adverse reaction ion 10-20% of people vaccinated, 1-2% can have serious developments, therefore it makes sense to differ between mild and serious effects and short vs long term. CDC side effects overview www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm Also related a journal "Citing Side Effects, Japan Pulls Recommendations For HPV Vaccines" http://www.pharmalive.com/citing-side-effects-japan-pulls-recommendations-for-hpv-vaccines or Polish Study Confirms Vaccines Can Cause Large Number of Adverse Effects http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/02/polish-medical-school-study-determines-vaccines-can-cause-irreparable-harm/#_ Vaccine Adverse Events Reported during the First Ten Years (1998–2008) after Introduction in the State of Rondonia, Brazil http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2013/853083/ Prokaryotes (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we add this study "Swine study suggests flu vaccination may sometimes backfire" http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/08/swine-study-suggests-flu-vaccination-may-sometimes-backfire or Study raises red flag for universal flu vaccine; may explain 2009 'Canadian problem' http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/study-raises-red-flag-for-universal-flu-vaccine-may-explain-2009-canadian-problem-1.604465 http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/study-raises-red-flag-for-universal-flu-vaccine-may-explain-2009-canadian-problem-1.604465 Prokaryotes (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Autism Epidemic Linked to Epidemic of Vaccine Induced Diabetes
July 12, 2013, The new data shows autism is strongly linked to type 1 diabetes another epidemic inflammatory disease where the epidemic has been proven to be caused by vaccines. The new paper is authored by immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD."We have been publishing for many years that vaccine induced inflammation is causing an epidemic of type 1 diabetes and other diseases. Our new data, as well as the extensive data from others regarding the role of inflammation in the development autism, leaves little doubt vaccines play a significant role in the autism epidemic," says Dr. J. Bart Classen, MD. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130712-904463.html Prokaryotes (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * PRNewswire is not a RS. Classen, a known vaccination skeptic, is also not a RS. We need to stick to MEDRS compliant sources, not pr releases by just anyone. PRNewswire can be used by literally anyone to put out literally any kind of idea they wish. It sounds official, but it's not. Seriously, one should never read that source. It's like watching Fox News: "Is that true, or did you hear it on Fox News?"


 * Another thing about the subject of vaccine side effects and injuries, this is a new section here, which refers to existing articles on the subject. At Wikipedia we base this content on the existing articles, so develop the content in those articles first. We can then use the edit summaries of those articles here, together with the "main" links to them. If we develop independent and new content here, we create a problem. So stop development of the section here, or only use existing content from the other articles. Ideally use just the lead section from them, so this short section gives a complete summary of the subject, which is developed more fully in those articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that is a bad source but not sure i understand what you mean with the second paragraph. Do you mean i should post things for adverse effects first "here" on the talk page or on correspondign wikipedia pages related to the vaccine in question (and then possibly only in the leading part?)? Prokaryotes (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This happens to be the main meta article on the entire subject, and we need to keep each section here brief, yet comprehensive. Using leads from existing subarticles is the best way to do this. That's why it's best to go to the specific subarticle and develop that content using any new sources you find. If it is accepted there, you're on much more solid ground. Then use the leads from those subarticles, which briefly sum up the entire subarticle, as the only content of the section here.


 * So go to the specific subarticle that best applies and edit there. Don't edit the lead unless new content in the body demands it. If consensus is reached for new content, you're on solid footing for more editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, notice i added Vaccine contamination here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine#Vaccine_Contamination Prokaryotes (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate content related to adverse effects of vaccination
The user KillerChihuahua recently reverted a legitimate addition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccination&curid=32473&diff=570971095&oldid=570969095 As pointed out is there a citation missing about the claim that several vaccine makers stopped production. And he removed the addition of the study on "vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease". The full section on adverse effects as of August 31, 2013.
 * The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has compiled a list of vaccines and their possible side effects. Allegations of vaccine injuries in recent decades have appeared in litigation in the U.S. Some families have won substantial awards from sympathetic juries, even though most public health officials have said that the claims of injuries were unfounded. In response, several vaccine makers stopped production, which the US government believed could be a threat to public health, so laws were passed to shield makers from liabilities stemming from vaccine injury claims. A phenomenon called vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease was first observed in 2009 in Canada and further studies could replicate findings which conclude that flu strain vaccines can raise risk of severe infection. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationists
There is a phenomenom, and there are people, and orgnaisations, and they probably deserve a very small section here. There was a page called antivaccinationism, but a group of editors objected greatly to it, and it is currently called something else. It started before the word vaccination was coined - by Jenner from Vacca for cow - and is a continuation of the fuss over inoculation. One of the natural experiments carried out in the new American colonies around 1721 was kindly repeated in the 19th century, at the instigation of the antivaccinationists, and with the same result. http://www.ganfyd.org/index.php?title=Natural_experiments_in_medicine A pathognomic feature of these people is that they seek to turn every article touching on an aspect of immunisation into one on adverse efects, and are impervious to argument. Midgley (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is that if you write such a page you have to write a page on the people who opt for vaccination. And how do you even define "Anti-vaccinationists"? And you have to write about the financial conflict all these companies who make billion of profits from vaccines, without proof or studies on long term impacts. Also it is not helpful to generalize. frame and make claims such as "pathognomic feature of these people". In agreement with wikiepdia means to present information based on the best science and facts from reliable sources, without conflict of interest (company sponsored studies that is or actions through think tanks). However, most the topics on vaccination can be considered 1 sided since they avoid the mention of scientific studied adverse effects and they lack basic science about vaccination in general. For instance = The Director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy said recently "It really drives home the need to be very cautious about what are we actually accomplishing."Both Crowe and Osterholm stressed that this phenomenon probably isn't exclusive to vaccination against influenza. I think as we move forward with vaccine for influenza, we need to understand ... the subsequent host-virus interaction with any response we get" http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/study-raises-red-flag-for-universal-flu-vaccine-may-explain-2009-canadian-problem-1.604465 Prokaryotes (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not 'real' antivaccinationism, but they are choosy. People of some Moslem countries in Africa are willing to be vaccinated when the vaccine come and made by Moslem countries, due to halal matter, although most of the vaccines nowadays use egg yolk. Indonesia with BioFarma (previously Pasteur Institute in Dutch colonial era) which has been accredited by WHO sent many various vaccines to them. Indonesia Ulema Council has stated that vaccine with containing pork (such as MMR II) can be used due to the benefit is more than not use the vaccine, if there are no other option. Some of Yehovah followers (only a few in Indonesia) don't want to be vaccinated. A few others with different reasons avoid to be vaccinated and leave the homes when vaccination time occur. Maybe some people don't want to be vaccinated also in other countries, but may be it are not a movement and tend to be individually, so anti-vaccinationism is still in question. But may be anti-vaccinationism has excisted, but I missed it.Gsarwa (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vaccination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120625180622/http://www.npl.co.uk:80/environment/vam/nongaseouspollutants/ngp_metals.html to http://www.npl.co.uk/environment/vam/nongaseouspollutants/ngp_metals.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

India in 1000 AD
Just commenting here to show that the IP editor was indeed correct in their edit here. Verified in the source text at Google Books.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Cost-effectiveness of vaccination
Cost-effectiveness of vaccination

Vaccination: The Best Return on Investment
 * "How good is the return? Try 44-fold—yep, that’s 4,400 percent"

http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/ethics/vaccination-the-best-return-on-investment

By Vaclav Smil

28 Jun 2017

Reporting on a study reported in Health Affairs in 2016. The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

"The highest rewards were for averting measles: a 58-fold return, with a range from 29 to 105" [benefit 29 to 105 times cost, most likely range 58 times cost]

Report on this study:

Sachiko Ozawa1, Samantha Clark, Allison Portnoy, Simrun Grewal, Logan Brenzel and Damian G. Walker

Return On Investment From Childhood Immunization In Low- And Middle-Income Countries, 2011–20

DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1086

Health Aff February 2016 vol. 35 no. 2 199-207


 * "Across all antigens, net returns were greater than costs."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293640426_Return_On_Investment_From_Childhood_Immunization_In_Low-_And_Middle-Income_Countries_2011-20