Talk:Vaccine/Archive 1

Old talk
What about use of the avian leukemia virus to manufacture vaccinations in chicken eggs and then the subsequent vaccine allergies associated with people who are allergic to eggs?
 * There are a number of different media for manufacturing avian viruses, it's just that chicken eggs are one of the easiest to obtain and work with. Other options include insect cells and eggs from other species whose proteins are less likely to stimulate an allergic response.  These other media are economically difficult to use, though.

-

"Despite the lck of evidence". *Snort* What suddenly makes mercury utterly harmless just because "Thimerosal" has been written on a label? I do wish folx like the FDA would treat their pharmochemicals with as much skepticism as they try to instill in us about medicines they can't make money on.


 * I'm sorry, this is just silly. It's based on a common misunderstanding. Thimerosal contains mercury in the same way that table salt contains chlorine. Chlorine is a poisonous gas used during the First World War as a chemical agent to kill or disable enemy troops.


 * Evidence that chlorine is dangerous doesn't mean that table salt is dangerous. To discover the dangers of salt you need to study salt, not chlorine! To discover the dangers of thimerosal, study thimerosal, not mercury. Nothing 'suddenly makes mercury utterly harmless', but nobody has claimed mercury to be safe. It's poisonous by ingestion and by breathing its vapour. But Thimerosal is not mercury! (Chris Jefferies, 6th December 2003)


 * So how come those who are looking at the the long-term effects of Thimerosal - ie "studying" it - and finding things you don't like, aren't looking at "evidence"? Why are they wrong, and not the politicised FDA (you think it's apolitical? Explain its tantrum about Canadian drugs)? I know perfectly well the difference between elements and their compounds - but we're not talking about an ionic compound essential to life as we know it. What's the proof this heavy metal has a bond in thimerosal strong enough to carry the Hg all the way through metabolism to excretion without side effects, esp and particularly in the several large per-body-mass doses given the developmentally sensitive very young? (I remind you that what little pharmochemical testing is done is in the main done in adults, not children, even in products targeted for children?) Your analogy with salt is as facile and misleading as that made by MSG lovers who say it's on the GRAS list, so are salt and vinegar so it must be safe (w/o regard for the scientifically dubious process by which the GRAS is maintained).
 * Thimerosal may be safe. But there're enough historical failings and worse by things like the FDA that I, personally, no longer trust authoritarian pronouncements. I want empirical science. I don't know if the rise in asthma, autism, "hyperactivity", etc are caused by inoculants, or the preservatives, or the pollution, or food additives, or leachates from the containers, or growth hormones, or TV, or the combination. But I see no good evidence anointed "proper authorities" are bothering to look or even "want" to look.
 * (And be careful writing (parroting?) phrases like "lack of evidence." I snicker every time i hear pronouncements about "lack of evidence" because a second look usually reveals there's no evidence because nobody's bothered to look for evidence. "Lack of evidence" is not equivalent to "null results.")
 * What I'm asking for, of course, is long-term blind large-sample science. It's unfortunate that the only way to get that for pharmochemicals like Thimerosal is to dump them on the market and watch what happens. Unfortunate, because it's treating people as guinea pigs instead of informed-consent patients, and because when contraindications do turn up the entities in charge of approving the release in the first place have every practical motive run contrary to telling the truth.


 * I stand by what I wrote, 'To discover the dangers of thimerosal, study thimerosal'; and most of your comment above agrees with that. Whether I (or you) 'like' the findings is not relevant - if studies of thimerosal show it to be unsafe then we all need to know. But to write, as you did, 'What suddenly makes mercury utterly harmless just because "Thimerosal" has been written on a label?', is silly. I don't believe anyone has claimed mercury to be safe because the word 'thimerosal' is written on a label! Please try to be more rational and people may take you more seriously. (Chris Jefferies, 11th December 2003)

Autism
The MMR vacine has never contained thimerosal. It would not work if it did. While you could claim that thimerosal contains ethly mercury you can see from it's structure that it contains a phenyl ring and a carboxcilic acid salt. It's like claiming polystyrene contians benzene.


 * smacks forehead* Yeah, I meant the DTP (Diphtheria Pertussis) vaccine, which DID contain thimerasol until the FDA revised their Mercury Containing Products act sometime in the late 1997. The MMR vaccine is supposedly immune-regulated. This is what happens when I "be bold" like they say in the help texts. *grins sheepishly*

All of the largest studies (which contain over 10,000 patients each) shows no statistical evidence supporting any vaccines causing autism. The supporting studies for the vaccines and autism have fewer than 1,000 (and in most cases, only a dozen or so) patients, and even then the link is tenuous at best. The real issue, I feel, and this is in no way related to the article, is the changing relationships between doctor and patient, especially when it deals with consent. In many ways, this controversy is similar to the circumcision debate: Should we, as parents, allow doctors to do these things to our kids just because they say so? The answer, of course, is that measles, mumps, diphtheria and a whole host of other diseases used to be the most common cause of death among those in developed nations. Now it's heart disease and cancer. It's a calculated risk, to be sure, but it's one that should be provided by informed choice, with doctors as counselors and information providers, rather than as authority figures. Of course, with multiple sources of information (the media, anti-vaccination groups, family magazines) other than the medical community, parenting decisions certainly ain't easy anymore.

Nothing about Pasteur?

Cleanup
I have gone through and removed the following from this article because it was either not npov, to specific for a general article on vaccines. *Kat* 08:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Intro


 * Vaccines may also help the immune system to fight against degenerative cells (cancer).


 * Developing Immunity
 * More recent vaccine technologies have provided vaccines made of highly purified antigen components derived from the pathogens themselves (e.g., pertussis) or through recombinant DNA technology producing such antigens in yeast or mammalian cell cultures (e.g., hepatitis B), as well as conjugate vaccines that chemically bond "weak" antigens such as bacterial polysaccharides (complex sugars found in a "capsule" that surrounds a bacterium; they are usually specific to a bacterial serotype) to carrier proteins that yield a better, longer lasting immune response than is seen with the polysaccharide antigens alone (e.g., meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines).

'''I removed this because I thought that it was too technical as well as too convoluted. There was also another paragraph that said almost exactly the same thing (in simpler language). After doing some research (to translate the above paragraph) I more or less combined the two. The second, "simple" paragraph was left almost intact with a few things from the above paragraph included.'''

Smallpox, for example, appears to have been completely eliminated in the wild.

This had already been stated earlier in the article


 * ==Smallpox==


 * Vaccination against smallpox is an especially contentious issue. Dissenters suggest modern vaccines might result in developmental disorders, and suggest that infections in the past (as in the small vaccinia outbreak in England in 1961) were more lethal and/or were spread in greater proportion, among those who were vaccinated. They contend that improved sanitation and nutrition, not vaccine, account for most of the reduction in smallpox.  Inoculation proponents dispute these allegations, while still recognizing the fact that the current vaccine has risks.  As the current risk of the disease (barring germ warfare) is effectively zero, routine smallpox vaccination has not been recommended for many years.

'''I removed this because it veer's off topic. The article is about vaccines in general, not the small pox vaccine in particular.'''


 * The threat from smallpox as a biological weapon has, however, caused a reconsideration, though not a reversal, of this position. A 2003 US vaccination effort was unpopular.  There was poor turnout among hospital staff who were designated to be the first to receive the vaccine.  In addition to the known risks of the vaccine, several deaths were reported from cardiac causes among the immunized, suggesting that people with coronary artery disease might be at risk.  Development of newer formulations that might avoid the newly discovered risks is underway.  Illinois and New York suspended the program pending investigation of the apparent vaccine deaths of two healthcare workers (the main focus of the program).  The California Nurses Association opposed the effort from the start.

'''Again, I think this is too specific for a general article on vaccines. There is an article on the Smallpox vaccine, perhaps it could be incorporated there.'''


 * Vaccination against smallpox is an especially contentious issue. Dissenters suggest modern vaccines might result in developmental disorders, and suggest that infections in the past (as in the small vaccinia outbreak in England in 1961) were more lethal and/or were spread in greater proportion, among those who were vaccinated. They contend that improved sanitation and nutrition, not vaccine, account for most of the reduction in smallpox.  Inoculation proponents dispute these allegations, while still recognizing the fact that the current vaccine has risks.  As the current risk of the disease (barring germ warfare) is effectively zero, routine smallpox vaccination has not been recommended for many years.  The possibility of smallpox being used as a biological weapon in the United States prompted the U.S. government to authorize the manufacture and injection of smallpox vaccine.  Due to the number of deaths that resulted, the project has been discontinued.

With the exception of the last sentence (which I wrote trying to make the paragraph relevant) this paragraph is about vaccinations


 * The threat from smallpox as a biological weapon has, however, caused a reconsideration, though not a reversal, of this position. A 2003 US vaccination effort was unpopular.  There was poor turnout among hospital staff who were designated to be the first to receive the vaccine.  In addition to the known risks of the vaccine, several deaths were reported from cardiac causes among the immunized, suggesting that people with coronary artery disease might be at risk.  Development of newer formulations that might avoid the newly discovered risks is underway.  Illinois and New York suspended the program pending investigation of the apparent vaccine deaths of two healthcare workers (the main focus of the program).  The California Nurses Association opposed the effort from the start.

This is about the smallpox vaccine


 * Controversy'
 * Some groups in the United States claimed a link due to a preservative called thimerosal. Thimerosal is a preservative that contains mercury. It was (and in some cases still is) used in some DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine formulations.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032305EA.shtml|


 * under the 1997 FDA Modernization Act. In its report of October 1, 2001, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence is inadequate to either accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure from childhood vaccines and autism.  In a further report, of May 2004

The reason why I removed this is because the 2004 report (mentioned in article) rendered this 2001 report moot.


 * A second, parallel, controversy arose in the United Kingdom over the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), another vaccine that is routinely administered to children under the age of 2 in developed nations, but which contains no preservative. A possible link to autism came to the forefront when in 1998, Wakefield and colleagues reviewed reports of children with bowel symptoms and regressive developmental disorders, mostly autism, in a small sample of 12 children.  The study was criticized for its small sample size, and for failing to use healthy controls.  In 2004, 10 of the 13 authors of the original Wakefield study retracted the paper's interpretation, stating that the data were insufficient to establish a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism. This followed an investigation by Brian Deer for the London Sunday Times, who reported that Wakefield had links to lawyers hoping to sue the vaccines' manufacturers . Further allegations were made by Deer in a UK television documentary, MMR: What They Didn't Tell You, first broadcast in November 2004.

Since this said almost the same thing as the paragraph on the US's vaccine related controversy I more or less combined the two and did my best to make the end result more readable without changing the intent of either paragraph.


 * In response to the US and UK controversies, which closely mirror the framing of litigation in the two countries, a number of studies with large sample sizes were researched in many developed nations. These studies have sparked criticism over conflicts of interest, which has even been expressed by at least two Republican congressmen in the US, Dan Burton  and Dave Weldon.  The majority of those studies, funded primarily by pharmaceutical interests, showed no correlation between the use of vaccines (including the MMR vaccine) and increased autism: -


 * "Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association" PEDIATRICS Vol. 114 No. 3 September 2004
 * "Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta" PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 2 February 2004
 * "Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data" PEDIATRICS Vol. 112 No. 3 September 2003 - This study shows an increase in autism after the discontinuation of the thimerosal formulations of the MMR vaccine in the Danish population.
 * "An Epidemiological Study on Japanese Autism concerning Routine Childhood Immunization History" Jpn. J. Infect. Dis., 56, 114-117, 2003

reincorporated in a [more] neutral form and as a result, I removed this line: The study also garnered criticism for its small sample size, and for failing to use healthy controls. A couple of the links have been placed in the External links section as well.


 * The autism controversy highlights several issues pertaining to public health, biological science, ethical standards, and the medical community. First, it beckons greater attention to the value of large-scale, case-controlled scientific studies in proving or disproving a hypothesis (in this case, a link between autism and vaccines).  Secondly, it demonstrates both the importance of medical professionals having the most solid and up-to-date information and the importance of communicating this information in a clear and unbiased fashion to patients.  Thirdly, it suggests a possible need to change the role of the medical community, from authoritarian wardens to counselors who provide informed choices, which might influence evolution of the doctor-patient relationship to become more of a partnership.  Lastly, it emphasizes how medical issues involve all aspects of modern culture and society, including the media, the affected families, and the scientific community at large.

Seriously POV, but I'm not enough of an expert to make it NPOV


 * External links
 * BrianDeer.com - Brian Deer's denunciation of MMR study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield
 * - * NationalAutismAssociation.org - NAA library of pdf files
 * - * NIH.gov - National Intitutes of Health
 * - * RatBags.com - Anti-vaccination Liars

Durability of inactivated vaccines
On Immune Central, the entry on inactivated vaccines states that:
 * However, most inactivated vaccines stimulate a relatively weak immune response and must be given more than once. A vaccine that requires several doses (boosters) has a limited usefulness, especially in areas where people have less access to regular health care.

So why did Geni see fit to take that caveat out? I'm putting it back in. --Leifern 18:13, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)


 * The word "most"? You made an absolute statement. I know there are exceptions.Geni 18:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * a) Most does not mean "all." B) Then edit the statement rather than take it out.  --Leifern 18:20, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * Now I get it - "may" means "not necessarily" or "not always" which makes a statement such as "You may experience dizziness" equivalent to "some people will experience dizziness." Strictly speaking, "most people may experience dizziness" is a meaningless statement, since it implies that a minority of people definitely will not experience dizziness.  But it's a common way to hedge, so I don't have any objections to the way it is now.  --Leifern 18:48, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Bowel Disorders
What were the bowel disorders that the Lancet article identified? Are we talking IBD, IBS or something else? Just curious. I recognize the issues surrounding that study, so no need to defend/attack the study. --Westendgirl 07:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Vaccinia/Vacca
In the book "Vaccines: Are they really safe and effective?: A Parent's Guide to Childhood Shoots" by Neil Z. Miller, on page 17 it says

"The term "vaccine" is derived from "vacca," the Latin word for cow.

In wikipedia we say "The term derives from vaccinia, the infectious viral agent of cowpox". - (unsigned)

Both are correct, though our version, giving the closer derivation, is more informative. Vaccine, from French vaccin, from vaccine (cowpox) from New Latin vaccina (in variolae vaccinae = cowpox) from Latin, feminine of vaccinus, adjective, of or from cows, from vacca cow. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"How its made" section
Removed this section for lack of NPOV, unprofessional manner, non-specific language ("our..." instead of "the United States'...") Col.Kiwi 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ==How its made==


 * It takes more than half a year for our antiquated system of producing flu vaccine to ramp up to develop a new vaccine. This is because flu vaccines are biological products, made fresh every year from eggs laid by real chickens. Yessiree, real chickens!


 * The actual process goes like this:


 * In late-February or early-March, the World Health Organization picks its three strains based on the virus going around. If it acts too soon, newly emerging strains can be missed, as in last year’s Fujian strain. By August, vaccine production begins on nearly 50 farms throughout Pennsylvania.


 * The Associated Press was allowed inside Aventis, America’s only flu shot manufacturer for a rare, firsthand look at the process of making flu vaccine. Here’s what the AP reported:


 * Egg laying starts in late-December, typically one a day. The fertilized eggs are collected and incubated for 7 to 12 days, and then brought to Aventis. A machine punches a tiny hole in each shell, and a needle inoculates the chick embryo with a single flu strain. The virus is allowed to multiply for about three days.


 * Then the eggs are broken, and the fluid around the embryo containing the virus is collected and purified. Formaldehyde is added to inactivate the flu virus, and the mixture is centrifuged to separate out the part containing the virus.


 * Once again, eggs are needed: A sample of the spun solution is put back in the eggs to see if any virus grows – a test to ensure the germ was inactivated. A few more processing steps turn it into a lot, or batch, of several hundred thousand doses of a single strain.


 * Next comes sterility testing. This was how Chiron’s vaccine was discovered to have been tainted with serratia bacteria. As Aventis tests for sterility, samples also go to the Food and Drug Administration, which begins testing late-May or early-June. After that, three viral strains are combined to form the trivalent vaccine. Four weeks of potency and sterility tests follow. Then, the vaccine is packaged into single-dose syringes and 10-dose vials. A few more quality checks for potency are made before the doses are shipped by the end of September.


 * Gah! I just linked to this section not 3 minutes ago as it's the only wiki description I could find on how viruses are "killed". And then it vanished :\ LadyPhi 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So our article stays without a "How it's made" section? Unfortunately I'm not aware of any trusted source to get this info. The guy in my yoga lessons was telling us (the attendants) that some kind of the vaccines is made by making slits in a living cow and waiting for the pus to be generated.. but i don't buy this story. perhaps this was true in the 1980s, but surely automated chemical processes are in effect these days. Ai.unit (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Influenza Vaccine, Thiomersal (*)
Because the only safety study yet conducted for thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) took place in the 1930s, little is known about its neurotoxicity.

We might or might not know about its neurotoxicity, but the reason adduced is not logically consistent.

As a precaution, TCVs are gradually being phased out,

I think they are being phased out as the need for them decreases because precision in production processes renders infection less likely.

although most flu shots are still manufactured with the preservative.[10]

In the UK, I have not seen any multiple dose containers of Influemza vaccine. Thiomersal(*) is not mentioned in the components of the one we use this year. (example Summary of Product Characteristics here: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=2080 Patient Info leaflet: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=3534 )

In both UK and US I suspect the situation is as given at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/thimerosal.htm with preservatives used in the production, but not deliberately included in the individual doses of finished product. 3 micrograms of Mercury remaining in a dose seems unlikely to cause trouble - it is more closely similar to the amount in 1 litre of body fluids in the population walking around than to a significant exposure.

SO I'll edit that bit...


 * we spell it that way here. Humour us.  Midgley 00:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Midgley. I noticed that in your last edit, your change caused the "Preservatives" section to begin in the middle of a sentence. Could you take a look at this? --Arcadian 23:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * done

Check out http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_7910416 195.38.117.220 (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine movement
Shouldn't we have an article about this? Not my field of expertize, so if there are volunteers here to write about it - treat it as an request :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We do. See Vaccine_controversy. --Arcadian 18:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And the rather troubled anti-vaccinationist article. One started by an antivaccinationist on vaccine critics was later afd'd.  Midgley 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A fairly recent development: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY This REALLY should be mentioned.
 * Not here. Nothing to do with vaccination.  (To save anyone else following to the link, it is a news piece alleging that Bayer Factor 8 was sold in Africa after being withdrawn in the USA due to fears of HIV contamination.)Midgley (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Vaccine / vaccination

 * This has been crossposted to the talk pages of both articles. Please respond on Talk:Vaccination.

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)

Odd!
I goto wiki to invesigate Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and somehow end up at the vaccine entry. ALL articles with huge talk pages, btw. Alternative health woo-woo's know no bounds! --Kvuo 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

References, in the light of WP standards and policies
So, is there an argument that WP:RS is satisfied, and WP:EL should not apply, to that link? If there is, and it is convincing once presented here on this talk page, then let's see it go back in by concensus. Otherwise, not. Midgley 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * TheDoctorWithin.com - 'Website of Tim O'shea, a prominent vaccine skeptic'

Therapeutic Vaccine
"Zostavax represents a significant breakthrough, several scientists said. It is the first therapeutic vaccine, meaning it prevents or eases the severity of the problems from an infection that has already occurred." Therapeutic vaccine deserves either its own wiki entry or at least discussion in Vaccine. 208.42.18.222 27 May 2006
 * nytimes.com - 'Vaccine to Cut Risk of Shingles in Older People Is Approved'
 * I'd suggest putting it in the Chickenpox article, where there is a discussion of the vaccine, and of Shingles. Smallpox and Rabies and Tetanus vaccines have been given when infection has already occurred and are effective, with luck, then. The oddity with Zoster is that the genetic elements of the virus are lying doggo in the cells for years. Midgley 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Vaccines Approved for US Distribution
Does someone keep deleting a URL for this section due to the controversy over administering vaccines? I wonder if rewording the heading would help prevent deletion ... something like List of Vaccines Approved by the FDA for US Distribution.Keesiewonder 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

POV in "Preservatives" section
The last sentence of the section states: "Recently, the Bush Administration has taken measures to drastically ease many regulations preventing mercury from being put into vaccines, and also has taken measures to permit industrial producers to use levels of mercury in vaccines much higher than previously permitted."

However, the sentence is sourced by www.dissidentvoice.org. The source states that "Research has now determined that the cause of the escalation is Thimerosal, a mercury-based product that until recently was added to childhood vaccines as a preservative in multi-dose bottles to increase profits for the drug companies that manufacture vaccines."...which has been later debunked by numerous other researches. Also, the last sentence states: "For autistic children, doomed to life-long suffering, the introduction of this new bill adds insult to injury. I can’t believe this corrupt band of Republicans can have the audacity to draft this kind of legislation and still sleep at night." I highly doubt that the source is neutral or qualified for use on Wikipedia.

Also, the source never stated that the Bush Administration has eased regulations and allow for higher levels of Thimerosal in vaccines. The sentence is not sourced by the ref and uses an inappropriate source. I'm removing the sentence. Revert if you like, but please explain. Thanxs. =)  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Side effects : why nothing about adjuvants ???
Why does the "potential side effects" section ignore adjuvants ? Looking at the Immunologic Adjuvant article, it seems that this is a major concern regarding vaccines. As I remember, aluminium is a concern since years or more. The article about adjuvant is trying to give a balanced view : "generally reported as safe" - "but a recent paper suggest that "levels comparable to those administered to Gulf War veterans can cause motor neuron death". I had a quick look at the paper (Petrik et al., 2007), which is indeed very recent. It does not only suggest motor neuron death, but also cognitive impairment. In addition, it is not clear that these levels where "specific to the Gulf War", it seems that kids receive comparable if not large doses by comparison to their body weight (I did not check that carefully).

I would not regard a single paper as the final proof that there is a serious risk. However, since the issue was already debated in the past is apparentlly not fully rulled out (as shown by the new publication), it seems to me that it should be mentionned here, as a potentially significant side effect of vaccines.

Note : I have no training in medicine and would not like to suggest the contrary. However, I do not think that this automatically dismiss my remark / question. - unsigned


 * Immunologic Adjuvants are not a necessary part of a vaccine any more than salt always must accompany meat. a discussion in meat about whether it is or is not harmful may mention and refer to the article salt but should not itself go into the issue of is salt harmful. We link articles. WAS 4.250 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice comparison but I think that it is exagerated and thus innapropriate. Low doses of NaCl are not at all harmfull (both elements are in fact needed buy the body in some form). The paper cited in the immunologic adjuvant article (see above) clearly concludes that these levels of aluminium components found in many vaccine (not just a minority) may be harmfull, i.e. it seems very likely to be harmfull provided that the effect on human is the same as on mice at comparable concentrations. I did not investigate the cited literature but it is not a new story and it appears in the peer reviewed litterature. My impression is that this aluminium issue is one of the most, if not the single, serious topic for a controversy regarding vaccine security. It seems to me that it is possible, really possible, that the aluminium found in usual vaccines may have adverse consequences on the exposed public - i.e. everyone, not just the gulf war soilders motivating the investigations. It is of course not sure but it does not need to be sure to be a major concern regarding vaccines. - unsigned


 * I found Overview of Adjuvants interesting. I had read that chickens got an oil based adjuvant with bird flu vaccine but that it wasn't used for humans but until I read this I did not know more but was curious. WAS 4.250 18:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Veterinary vaccines
This article needs to be completed with a vet's contribution. Vaccines are used in animals too, as you can see here 1. Doesn't any of you have a pet? Ask his vet about veterinary vaccines and their history. RO BlueMonday 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scarring?
Just wondering why some vaccinations cause scarring around the injection area while others do not? Perhaps an explanation could be added to the article. Thank you. JRWalko 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Vaccine Controversy
In vaccine controversy, nothing is mentioned about the OPV_AIDS_hypothesis, which points to AIDS being created trough vaccin manufacturing in Belgian Congo. Please include information about the dangers, ... Also, in the documentairy I watched it was mentioned that now, vaccin manufacturing can be done without eggs and other animal products, which would eliminate the potential hazard of introuducing virusses, bacteria into the vaccin. Please include information about this too. I also found atleast 1 company that makes his vaccins this way. It is called Akzo Nobel and the site where it is doing it is in Boxmeer (the Netherlands). See this website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.192.177 (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

History needed
The article needs a History section, also a discussion of the (perceived) difference between vaccine and bacterin. --Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See Vaccination, and elsewhere in the vaccination article. Zodon (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article needs a history section, addressing the history of vaccines (target selection, design, licensing, production, distribution, etc.); that history is distinct from the history of vaccination. --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restructure of this article
This article, as it stands, wanders a bit, and so I'd like to propose some restructuring:


 * 1. Lead
 * 2. History
 * 2.1 Jenner
 * 2.2 Polio
 * 2.3 Smallpox eradication


 * 3. Use of vaccines ("Indications")
 * 3.1 Vaccine usage in the developed world, notably schedules and flu vaccines
 * 3.2 Vaccine usage in the developing world, notably the lack of appropriate.
 * 3.3 Note ongoing controversy ("Contraindications")
 * 3.3.1 Known adverse effects to all vaccines in humans (e.g. Guillain-Barre)
 * 3.3.2 Disease transmission from live vaccines (e.g. Polio and the Sabin vax)
 * 3.3.3 Disputed adverse effects (e.g. Autism)
 * 3.4 Cancer vaccines (mostly just a redirect, since they are fundamentally different)


 * 4. Vaccine manufacturing ("Physical and Chemical Properties")
 * 4.1. Types of vaccines
 * 4.2. Delivery systems
 * 4.3. Components, notably adjuvants
 * 4.4. Economics of development


 * 5. How vaccines work ("PK/PD", though not in those terms)
 * 5.1 Brief discussion of adaptive immunity (no cell types, just the idea that previous exposure provides protection)
 * 5.2 Efficacy discussion
 * 5.3 Herd Immunity (very briefly)


 * 6. Veterinary use
 * 6.1 Use in companion animals.
 * 6.2 Use in farm animals.

(Ref) (EL)

Concepts not listed: Overdose (usually n/a), Legal status ("usage" will cover things like mandatory vaccination, otherwise too product-specific)

I think I've covered everything that's currently in the article, added a few points like the Salk vaccine and smallpox eradicaton to the history. Feel free to edit the proposed structure if you reply to this post. SDY (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest looking at the proposed section order in Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) . It has many of the topics you suggest, but in a different order, and with more top-level emphasis on safety issues, which is probably appropriate. Eubulides (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That list is sort of tailored to specific medications, but I've re-ordered the list somewhat. Should the various topic headings be the standardized ones?  SDY (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The general rule I try to use is to stick with the standard list unless there's a good reason otherwise. You're right that the standard list is for individual drugs, not for vaccines in general, so it doesn't fit that well. Still, the standard list has a nice sweep: history, why to use, why not to use/adverse/overdose, properties/PK/PD/interactions, legal, vet. Here are some suggestions for improving the above draft:
 * I assume the lower-level bullet items (e.g., "Jenner") stand for paragraphs or something like that, not subsection headers.
 * Put why to use ("indications") first; then why not to use ("contraindications/adverse/overdose"). How about putting efficacy and effectiveness under "indications", with safety under the other section?
 * Physical and chemical properties could cover types and components, as you say. Surely "Economics" is better put under Legal.
 * I like How vaccines work. Would like to see more PK/PD stuff there, but realize this isn't written yet.
 * Interactions should briefly cover the popular theory of immune overload, along with real interactions. Perhaps this section should be put next to "contraindications/adverse/overdose".
 * Legal should cover economics, intellectual property, mandated vaccination, lack of 3rd-world.
 * I kind of get the feeling that this reorganization is intended to remove chunks of the existing text, which leaves some qualms. What chunks would go? Hope it's not much. Eubulides (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't plan on removing that much, though there are some parts that could be rewritten. The subsections are mostly just "things to cover" and are definitely not proposed titles.  I'm not 100% sure that we literally want a "legal" section when it's covering so many topics that have very little to do with the legal status of vaccines.  It's a template, not a straitjacket.  SDY (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts:
 * The history topics listed above seem to largely duplicate the history section of vaccination. No point in duplicating that history.  (Smallpox eradication, e.g. is a vaccination issue, not a vaccine issue.)  I would assume the history for vaccines would cover development of different vaccine technologies, manufacturing processes, etc.  (See ).  Not that can't refactor vaccination history, but shouldn't duplicate it.
 * I don't care much for putting history first, something like the order in general medical MOS (down next to social) makes more sense. I think what they are and how they work makes more sense to start with, but it depends on what is in the section and how it is handled.
 * Suggest borrowing a few sections from the general medical article MOS (Society & culture, Research directions). (Don't have to be under those names, just the section ideas.)
 * I think vaccine controversy should be down in Society and Culture section, kept distinct from contraindications or adverse effects. Contraindications or adverse effects should be reserved for medically documented effects (i.e. effects accepted in medical literature, recognized by regulatory bodies, etc.  e.g. Risks from live attenuated virus).  Things like Autism allegations (where there is no good evidence for and plenty of evidence against), religious doctrinal issues, etc. belong in the society and culture section. For items where there is some reasonable medical question, could be covered in research directions.
 * Put material about what vaccines get developed together (e.g. in Society & culture). (e.g. Developing world diseases, economics develop, intellectual property)
 * Put Efficacy and herd immunity up in "Use of vaccines" section (herd immunity protects those who can't take because of contraindications, etc.)
 * Put research material (e.g. Delivery systems) in Research directions section. (Maybe also be place to put vaccines against established cancers.)
 * Here is a rough outline of what I am thinking (Most of the items here are not suggested titles for sections, but indicators of what they are currently called, or what would be in the section - mostly a readjustment of where a few things go from above).

Zodon (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead
 * 2) Schedule (Indications)
 * 3) * Efficacy
 * 4) * Herd immunity (i.e., protection for those w/ contraindications)
 * 5) * Contraindications/Adverse effects
 * 6) * Benefit vs risk
 * 7) Physical and chemical properties
 * 8) * Types
 * 9) * Adjuvants
 * 10) * Preservatives
 * 11) Mechanism of action (Developing immunity)
 * 12) History
 * 13) Society and Culture
 * 14) *"Controversy" (civil liberties, religion, refuted ideas like Autism) - might be better if can integrate and remove as separate section.
 * 15) *Availability of vaccines
 * 16) **Rich vs poor diseases
 * 17) **Economics of development
 * 18) **Intellectual property
 * 19) Research directions
 * 20) * Delivery systems
 * 21) * Therapeutic cancer vaccines
 * 22) Use in nonhumans


 * I like Zodon's comments; they're quite insightful. Like the outline too. Eubulides (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks fine too. My main concern is that the article has a logical structure.  As it is, it's a little chaotic.  SDY (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As a random aside, would it actually make sense to merge Vaccine and Vaccination? If not, what goes in which article? SDY (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why there are two articles. But it sort would make sense for Vaccination to be the top-level article, which talks about all aspects of vaccination, leaving Vaccine to be a subarticle that talks strictly about vaccines themselves. For example, herd immunity would belong under Vaccination, not Vaccine. Eubulides (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vaccine Safety
There should be more content here on vaccine safety. I would like to mention Dr. Kenneth Bock, who has has dedicated his pediatric practice to the connection between toxic exposure and illnesses like asthma, allergy, autism, and ADHD. His highly successful work with severely ill children (with natural implications for adults with chemical sensitivity and other debilitating illnesses) may not be performed under "controlled" conditions, but the research and bibliography starting on page 419 of his book The Healing Program should convince the Wiki team that Wiki's Vaccines page is incomplete. Mel0209 (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mel0209 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of information about vaccine safety in peer-reviewed medical journals; I don't think we need to rely on books by individual clinicians, which are less reliable. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Autism Rates Remaining High After Mercury Removed
Further regarding the scope of Wiki's Vaccines page: studies show autism rates remain high when mercury is removed from vaccines. However, autism appears by age 3 in 1 per 160 people in the United States but is absent from communities (like traditional Amish) that do not use vaccines--a statistically very significant difference. Maybe the toxins that replace mercury (such as aluminum and formaldehyde) are equally damaging. If Wiki does not delve deeper into the implications of statistics like these then the article seems quite biased. Mel0209 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's extremely silly to suggest that a disparate autism rates between two groups can be attributed to a single difference between them, when they differ in thousands of other attributes. - Nunh-huh 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, it's not true that autism is absent in the traditional Amish. See Strauss et al. 2006 and A Photon in the Darkness. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Polyvalent
Do you think that the dicdef at Polyvalent vaccine could be merged into this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that'd make sense. "Multivalent vaccine" is a term as often these days, perhaps even more often, and should also be mentioned. Eubulides (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a difference between the two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they're synonyms. Eubulides (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out where to introduce the terms. I'd have put it (with monovalent) under #Types, except that section already exists and is being used for something else.  What do you think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For now I'd just append a sentence or two to Vaccine, next to the sentence which distinguishes natural from synthetic vaccines. It's an independent axis. No need to mention all the combinations, e.g., multivalent synthetic vaccines, unless you think some of the combinations are notable. Eubulides (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the text. One nit: doesn't "monovalent" go together with "polyvalent", and similarly "univalent" go together with "multivalent"? The current text mixes this up. Eubulides (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reflist
Sorry, I don't understand the logic behind this edit, which replaced ' ' with '  section containing a   template, but for talkpages and such which lack a dedicated ref section it's pragmatic to place   (or one of its many redirects) in proximity as needed in individual sections/subsections where refs have been used. You may have already noticed this in practice but I thought it worthwhile to note here in case others coming by may wonder as well. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was having issues with this on my talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. They are two different concepts, something a pro-science person understands completely. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Undecided but leaning towards support There is a lot of duplication. The "effectiveness" sections are nearly word for word the same. Yes one is the substance and the other is the giving of said substance. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. As the proposer of the merge. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bit like merging bullet with machine gun. Moriori (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Scientific and health communities discuss these concepts independently. The article may be a slimmed down version with significant redundancy; however, that is purely the fault of the editors.  Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  07:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on merge
Seeking consensus on above merge. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I like the bullet/machine gun analogy above. Entirely unnecessary merge. Keira  1996  04:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - The bullet/machine gun analogy sounds good until you actually try to apply it and review the current article content. I assume the proposal is that Vaccine is the medicine and Vaccination is how the medicine is administered. If that's the case, it looks like the majority of the material in Vaccination is actually about Vaccine. Maybe start by merging just that material to Vaccine and see where we stand after that.
 * Some sort of work is required here because, taking a reader's perspective, it is not obvious where you would expect find whatever particular information you're looking for with the current organization. It is a big topic so WP:SUMMARY should be applied but it looks like we're trying to do that with two master summary articles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started to move content from vaccination to vaccine where applicable. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled by the bullet/machine gun analogy. Does it assume that "vaccination" primarily means "mass vaccination"? If this is how "vaccination" is widely understood, the Vaccination article should do more to say so. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have moved some content in vaccination to vaccine, rather that attempt a full merge, although it still seems redundant to have major articles on vaccine, vaccination, and vaccination policy, is there any material in vaccination that doesn't belong in either vaccine or vaccination policy? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

comment as the articles stand now it's not clear to me as a reader what I would expect to find different between the two of them, so I would suggest either merging or proposing a clear plan of what the difference between the two topics should be and then making that clear in the intros. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I have merged the articles and CSD'd vaccination. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is entirely inappropriate. For one thing it is a major change while the matter has not been resolved by consensus. I for one have not been aware of the discussion till I got the RFC today. I have contacted Diannaa to that effect and propose that the whole thing be opened up to redesign the articles in question and meet any valid objections without amateurish botch-ups. It is not my field, but if no one qualified in the matter is ready to deal with it I can undertake it. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am open to a redesigning of both articles, I was planning to better organize vaccine and If vaccination was rewritten I would have no problem with that, if it contained different material from related articles. As far as your assertion that this was a unilateral change, I opened an RfC, and was following suggestions from multiple editors, maybe I should have waited, but is was not a unilateral merge. Also how am I supposed to know who has seen the RfC? It doesn't seem that 1 editor not seeing the RfC is alone an indication that I was too hasty. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Suggestions from multiple editors" doesn't mean a thing. Bold action means action in respond to a need, it does not mean trashing an RFC as soon as you feel like it. "Multiple editors" means 0 or more, and in this case it seems to mean about 3, one comment, one pro and 1 con. Are you trying to be funny? You don't own those articles; your behaviour is disruptive. Oh, and see the remarks below about reading WP:RFC. JonRichfield (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * how am I supposed to know who has seen the RfC? You are not supposed to. RFC usually waits for about a month. People have real life (not to say lots and lots of articles on their watchlist). Please read WP:RFC. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please AGF, I was not trying to be funny, nor do I think I own any articles, I had no idea RfC was supposed to be open for a certain amount of time, I thought I was just asking for the opinions of other editors, and following there suggestions. I was not trying to "trash" the RfC and if I wanted to do anything "whenever I felt like" I would never have requested comments in the first place.
 * It is now clear to me that I made a mistake, but please recognize this as the good-faith error it was. If anyone wants to revert the merge I will not revert them.Tornado chaser (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose to merge of the concepts. However a temporary merge before redesigning the two articles is a reasonable idea, so I would not advise reverting the merge. Instead, now the article, with all duplication and overlaps removed, must be split in two according to the WP:Summary style guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Does anyone have any suggestions for recruiting authors/editors for restructuring the topics? A team could approach it on a top-down basis I reckon. JonRichfield (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, last remark of Tornado chaser understood as good faith. Accordingly I oppose reversion. For everyone then, where does this leave us with the proposal of Staszek Lem, which I support? JonRichfield (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * oppose do not see the point in such merge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Question - Since this RFC is still open, should we restore the merge banners on the involved articles. This might assure that more editors are aware of this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this would confuse people, they would think the articles were merged and someone forgot to remove the banners. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose One is the process and one is the product. Two different concepts with a commonality in the name, with some overlap, is where the confusion lies. Over time, the articles will clearly differentiate. scope_creep (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing the merge, as it has been a month without additional comment, and it seems the majority is opposing - if I am doing this wrong please inform me immediately - Ncfriend (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, it was already merged, closing as it has been merged Ncfriend (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Each topic seems deserving of its own article. And while each would share some of the same content, they would approach it from different points of view. Paul August &#9742; 00:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Reworking
Please notice that there are two more articles to merge: Inoculation and Variolation, both speaking mostly about the history of smallpox inoculation (and even in that they both overlap and diverge, a classical case of WP:CFORK). In fact, IMO there must be a massive merge into a new article, History of immunization, see Immunization. In addition, as I see from article text, the term Inoculation requires disambiguation. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO the following sections belong to "Vaccination": Other remarks
 * Most of "History" belongs to Vaccination . Vaccine must have a brief summary of Vaccination plus the history of the development of various vaccines. Also, please think about the idea of a separate History of immunization, as explained above. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Vaccination versus inoculation"
 * "Schedule" ; main: Vaccination schedule
 * "Routes of administration" IMO logically belongs to both; rather short now, but if it becomes longer, then main ext belongs to "Vaccination"
 * "Trends" is a pointless section title. First, "trends" means something temporaneous, which wikipedia is not. Instead, its content must be distributed over meaningful sections. If none fitting, add new ones, albeit short.
 * "Mechanism of function" and "Developing immunity" - these two sections IMO must be merged and focused on vaccination (cf. Artificial induction of immunity).

Any other suggestions on restructuring? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is definitely worth mentioning in Inoculation that the traditional method of rendering children immune to diseases was to intentionally expose them to a child with the illness, so that the exposed child would catch the illness itself by exposure and then recover from it. See, e.g., Pox party. This is a practice distinct from vaccination. There is tremendous potential for expansion of all of these concepts. bd2412  T 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Help!
I'm going to ping everyone who participated above; if you aren't interested, my apologies, feel free to go on about your life, but I didn't want to take the chance of not enlisting someone who might want to participate. Clearly the merge needs to be undone, and I will do it if no one else steps up, but it is not really my area, so I will not be able to follow Staszek's proposal of a well thought out split or BD2412's proposal of merging in yet other articles or anything else complex. I'll be basically reverting Vaccination to how it was on September 2, then removing all the sections that then become duplicated on Vaccine. If someone has the knowledge and energy to do it better themselves, please say, and I will be more than happy to let you do it. --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Travelling. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * it is not really my area - neither me. I see you "work for a company that makes software"; if you make software yourself, you must be familiar with the concept of refactoring. You do not really need to know the subject in depth to carry it out formally. So I would use logic and common sense to perform the first step: to rearrange the text as is into two parts, resisting an urge to edit. The first step, restructuring, is IMO the most intellectually challenging, because this must be done in one step. After the new structures are set, I am sure there will be plenty of "microeditors" to assist you to cleanup/evolve the articles in smaller steps. BTW, you do not need to "revert". Please see "" above, which gives examples how to decide which section belongs which article.  Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When you say "I would", does that mean "I will"? Because I'd be happy to let you. I'm not asking for advice on how I should do it, I'm asking for someone who wants to actually do it. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for jumping with and advice, triggered by your "not my area". How about we both do it and compare the results? I will do it in my user space. I hope a mechanical split will not waste much of my time. I am waiting for 22 hours, to give a chance for real experts in the area. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a good idea, user space. Yes, please. I'll make a version of the two articles in my user space, and you can either make minor changes there, or if you wildly disagree, do an alternate split in yours, and we'll compare, and when reasonably happy move to main space. That will work. --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a plan, then. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As threatened, User:GRuban/Vaccination, basically Vaccination as of August 26 and User:GRuban/Vaccine, based on the current Vaccine article with everything I could find word-for-word in Vaccination removed, and the History section patched up from Vaccine of August 29. --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, good, bad, indifferent? --GRuban (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry forgot. I will look at it next hour or two. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved one section, the rest looks like a correct split to me. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked an admin, Anthony Appleyard, to merge histories of article pairs, if this is possible. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, but am in a fix for time just now. I also am not a medical man, let alone an immunologist, but if you still are in difficulty in mid-January... JonRichfield (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * January? Oh lord I hope not! :-) I was thinking days, not months... --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for all the confusion I caused, I'm not sure if I can do too much work on this, as the history is not my area, my work on vaccine-related topics is more correcting scientific errors, POVs, SYNTH/OR, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

✅ Thanks! Everyone should feel free to improve further. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here, "history" likely means the edit history of the Wikipedia page, not the history of vaccination. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * About these 2 history requests:
 * "Put User:GRuban/Vaccine on top of Vaccine" :: sorry, due to WP:Parallel histories :: while people were using User:GRuban/Vaccine as a scratch page, other people were editing page Vaccine directly.
 * "Put User:GRuban/Vaccination on top of Vaccination" :: :: it seems that page Vaccination has been text-merged into page Vaccine, and if I performed that history-merge, thus undoing the text-merge, it would annoy some of the people here :: best first discuss for a consensus about whether to un-textmerge page Vaccination from page Vaccine.
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In the discussions above there was no objection to reordering the two pages. Since history merges are impossible I would suggest user:GRuban to be bold and copy his article versions on top of existing pages. In case of serious objections this can be easily undone. Until now I put "underconstruction" tags (ignored by GRuban) so that nobody makes edits which would be in need of merging. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018 - Oxford comma addition
Change the following sentence to include an oxford comma (makes it easier to read): "factors such as diabetes, steroid use, HIV infection or age." to "factors such as diabetes, steroid use, HIV infection, or age." 0x1B39 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Tornado chaser (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ebola vaccine now available
https://apnews.com/e92f413c864240d1a6583a3cc8fa3ebd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.254.209 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020
SECTION: Production -> Excipients "Thimerosal is a mercury-containing antimicrobial..." > Change the spelling of Thimerosal => Thiomersal Thyon (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The "Thimerosal" spelling is used throughout the article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, no it isn't, and it should be Thiomersal, as that's the international name (and indeed, our article is at Thiomersal). ✅ Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I found 7 instances of "Thimerosal". I guess I should have taken a look for "Thiomersal" as well. Either way, as long as the same spelling is used throughout the article, I'm good. Thanks, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, there are quite a few references to Thimerosal in the references, which is fine as they are US documents and I haven't changed those, only the Wikitext. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - DNA vaccine
The "experimental" section claims (correctly, as of today, I think) that no DNA vaccine is 'approved' for human use. This is just half of the picture. Please add the sentence:"Several DNA vaccines are available for veterinary use." -which I copied from the specific DNA_vaccination Wiki. article. I believe the fact that they are used (in animals) is important enough to note here. Also, doesn't the fact that they ARE used make (some of) them NOT "experimental"? and doesn't this mean that this article's exclusionary language needs to be revised? (vaccines are not all live, attenuated, dead, or purified fragments or proteins of the specific target virus)98.17.180.195 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur; and remember, currently both RNA and DNA vaccines are in development for human use (coronavirus).Roland Of Yew (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Vaccination-introduction-and-cases-or-deaths-scaled.jpg
Has nothing to do with death rates. Also the changed description is misleading ("The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the number of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced"). The spread of inf. dieseas cannot me measured by the death cases - rather with number of cases. Among antivaxxers, referring to death rates is a common motiv, but simply wrong. I would remove at least the small pox diagramm. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Change the text then, but don't remove the figure. I would make it "The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the share of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced". The share of deaths is a good indication for the spread of the disease (for smallpox, but nowadays also for covid). This has nothing to do with antivaxxers, the graph just shows vaccines work. --PJ Geest (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Paul August &#9742; 13:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the share of deaths is NOT a good indication. Vaccines should prevent diseases, not death. For death rates, many more factors play a crucial role (aseptic techniques, antibiotics, generell improvment of medicine,...). For smallpox (first picture), you clearly see that the death rates were falling regardless of the vaccination. Also, for measels and polio cases were listed, why not for small pox? Why do we see percentages for small pox death rates, and not absolut numbers?
 * This is misleading and could feed antivaxxer's wrong claims. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Some vaccines do prevent death/lessen severity if not necessarily prevent the disease though. For example, if you get the chickenpox vaccine, you can still get chickenpox, but it will be far less severe, you'll get a handful of pox at most instead of being covered from head to toe. Same goes for the flu vaccine, simply having gotten the vaccine in a year makes you more likely to fight off said vaccine. So I think the chart is very illustrative. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, differing data lines were added because we had different data sources. It seems that smallpox death numbers weren't tracked, partly because the graph goes back the 1700's before modern data collection. But the point of the charts is showing that: vaccines save lives intrinsically, by both preventing cases and lessening case severity. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, wrong. Vaccines are not designed to beat death, but to prevent infections. By that ofc the worst outcome (death) can be prevented, but also many other factors contribute to that. And in that particular case you clearly see that the death rates were falling BEFORE vaccination. The severity is not shown.
 * Using misleading figures is a no-go. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Before vaccination there where natural fluctuations in share of deaths in smallpox. Only after vaccination you have a significant fall in share of deaths, so to say death rates were falling before vaccination is nonsense. The vaccine was not immediately widely used, but coverage only increased gradually after invention. A decline in deaths is a very important result of vaccins (for smallpox there where millions of deaths), so it is important to show that. Why don't you want to show that vaccins diminish deaths?--PJ Geest (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For deaths other factors can also play a rol (but the spread of the disease is the main factor). You say antibiotics have an influence on the death rate (of smallpox), but the first antibiotics was only invented in the 20th century, while the graph of smallpox is only until 1900. Plus antibiotics don't work against viruses (like the smallpox, polio and measle viruses), antibiotics only work against bacteria. Also there where no medications available for treating smallpox in the 19th century. Furthermore also the number of cases is not an exact number for the spread of the disease, but only an indication: it depends of the amount of testing or the way of registering sick persons. For example nowadays for covid there is much more testing in a lot of countries in the second wave in August then in the first wave in March-April (only severe cases where tested and registered). So comparing the spread between both waves is not reliable based on the number of cases, the number of deaths are more reliable then the number of cases to compare the first and second wave. This graph comes from a highly reliable source (Our World in Data), which is used to presenting data. So I propose to to first come with a source which says that the deaths or death rate are unreliable as indication for the spread of the disease, before this part of the graph can be deleted. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again wrong. Besides of the fact that this small-pox image represents only London until 1900 (!), I have taken antiobiotics as example. Others are e.g. better medicine on the whole or hygienics. Death is the worst outcome of a disease, but many other dieseases don't result in death.
 * This image compares death rates with infection rates. Vaccines show a clear convincing influence on infection rates, not to death rates because - as pointed out zig times - other factors contribute to this.
 * Interestingly, why are u not showing the case numbers, which are also shown on https://ourworldindata.org/smallpox ?
 * Your argument with the numbers as not exact is - sorry to say this - nonsense. If this was the case, then death numbers would be even more biased.
 * And, no, you want to have this image of death rates, you have to explain why you 1) dont show the infections rates as found in OWID and 2) why you are comparing death rates with infection rates (and city vs. world, different years) and so on. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: That there is no correlation between death cases and infection cases is exemplified here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Senegal (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You say "Vaccines show a clear convincing influence on infection rates, not to death rates". Both the image we talk about in this section as your additional graph here show the contrary. So please come up with a source which backs this.

The image doesn't compare city vs the US, these are different graphs. The image just shows different cases (one case about a city and another case about the United States), so what? It just shows the effect of a vaccin for different cases.

Your say my "argument with the numbers as not exact is nonsense. If this was the case, then death numbers would be even more biased." It seems to me that you don't understand that there is a difference between the real number of cases and the registered number of cases. The number of deaths is dependent on the real cases not on the registered cases. Suppose following theoretical example. You have x number of real cases. And the number of registered cases is only a part of that. Suppose you have 30% variation in the part of the number of cases which are registered. Supose you have on average 0.01*x deaths with a variation of 5% (because for example hygienic differences). Only a part of these deaths are registered. Suppose you have 5% variation in the part of the deaths which are registered. Then the deaths are more representative for the spread of the disease then the cases (in total less variation). This show theoretically it is not impossible that the deaths are a better indication then the cases for the spread of the disease.

You say there is no correlation in this graph here between deaths and cases. I just calculated the correlation on this graph between deaths and cases and the correlation is 0.61. This is a moderate to strong correation (see Guideline for interpreting correlation coefficient. Certainly if you take into a account that the death numbers are highly rounded (which limits the possible correlation), this is a strong correlation. So you come up with a source which backs up my argument.--PJ Geest (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, this chart is very useful. Julius, you've yet to suggest a better alternative. I still fail to understand your argument. Yes, part of lowered death rate is due to hygenic practices. But as PJ notes, there is good correlation between vaccines and a lowered death rate. And this chart does not show only the death rate, it shows several different data points to give some nice comparisons. I think this chart excellent, you will need to come up with either a better one, or a source that shows this graph is wrong. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, death cases are not a good indicator, which was exemplified with that measles image: Death rates fall dramatically from 1920 to 1950. Vaccinations were introduced 1963. But only then the infections rates fell dramatically. This is similar to the smallpox situation.
 * Vaccinations should prevent the spread of a disease; yes, if you are not infected, you cannot die from the disease. But this is secondary to the best since more factors contribute to this.
 * Why is there specifically a comparison between a city vs. US, why death rates vs. infections rates?
 * Talking about "real" numbers and "recorded" numbers is nonsense. What we have are only the recorded numbers, you cannot deduce anything. Also, the "real" death numbers (which you don't have) are not a benchmark for the efficacy of vaccinations.
 * What "YOU" are calculating is irrelevant. I calculate sth different. You are even not able to see that in the measles example the death rates were pretty low BEFORE introduction of the vaccine.


 * Hence I would keep the image BUT simply omit the small pox death rates for London (!). --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see how the measles death rate in London is misleading. It very clearly shows that after the invention of a vaccine, the death rate dropped dramatically. What about that is bad?  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Saying my calculation is irrelevant and then saying you calculate it differently without showing your calculation is not really constructive. I calculated the correlation for all the years you have both data for deaths and cases by the way and took the standard way to calculate correlation.
 * Yes the measles where low before introduction of the vaccine, but probably the cases where also much higher before 1940, but unfortunately you don't have data of the cases from that period. So it does not show deaths have a bad correlation with the introduction of the vaccine. At the introduction of the vaccine both deaths and cases drops (but you cannot sea this well on the graph because of the scaling).
 * You say "This is similar to the smallpox situation" about that the infections drastically lower before the introduction, but you still give no source. Also it is the death/case ratio which counts: if this is very irregular then the deaths are not a good predictor (but only for that disease). But the fact that the cases go down or up (and the deaths at the same time also) does not say anything about that deaths are a bad predictor for the spread of the disease. --PJ Geest (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't get the point - what YOU are calculating is simply WP:OR, so irrelevant for this discussion.
 * As for measles we do have data before 1940, maybe you shouldn't simply grab images from OWID, but look at those (it is the third sub image above).
 * So no, from 1921 to 1963 the measles cases were ~ 500,000 per year, whereas the death rates fell dramatically from 1925 to 1950. Vaccination started 1963, and only this had an affect on infection rates.
 * Hence infection rates is the key, not death rates as for vaccination. That is why the smallpox image is misleading. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the diagram. I fail to see the argument you are making, and multiple people disagree with you. If you think this image really should be removed, you are welcome to hold an WP:RFC. But so far, three people think it should stay, and only you think it should go. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right: for measles death rates fell before introduction of the vaccine (I think we both learn gradually in this discussion). The graph on the right (Measles in England & Wales 1940-2017) illustrates your point better. So also other factors contribute to the number of deaths (next to vaccination). But it is not correct vaccination had only an effect on infection rates. Vaccination also contributed to the diminishment of the deaths of measles (see the graph Measles in England & Wales 1940-2017). Luckily the OWID graph does not show the number of deaths for measles. It also does not mean the death rate for smallpox was just as variable as for measles. So let's change the subtext of the graph to for example "Infectious diseases before and after a vaccine was introduced. Vaccination has a direct effect on the diminishment of the number of cases and contributes indirectly to a diminishment of the number of deaths." I hope we can find a compromise here. --PJ Geest (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "But it is not correct vaccination had only an effect on infection rates".
 * I have never claimed that. I only pointed out that death rates are inferior to infection rates in respect to the effect of vaccinations. If you don't get the disease, you won't suffer from it (including fatal outcomes).
 * "Luckily the OWID graph does not show the number of deaths for measles."
 * Correct, but there is ofc data avaialbe: https://vaxopedia.org/2018/04/15/when-was-the-last-measles-death-in-the-united-states/
 * "Infectious diseases before and after a vaccine was introduced. Vaccinations have [or had?] a direct effect on the diminishment of the number of cases and contributes [or contributed?] indirectly to a diminishment of the number of deaths." would be fine indeed. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Add a word on controversies?
There's obviously been a lot of talk about the vaccines, and alternate theories about them. I think it's all nonsense, but it's significant enough that it warrants a section on its own. V ALENTINE S MITH | T ALK  05:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean Vaccine hesitancy? --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Technology platform" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Technology platform. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"The adjuvant enhances the immune response of the antigen"
I believe it should read "The adjuvant enhances the immune response to the antigen" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.193.91 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Done. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:VET
This is one of the most popular pages in WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Change Image?
I personally don't understand why we use an image of Edward Jenner to illustrate the idea of "Vaccine." We have images of actual vaccines (See commons:Vaccine), so why not use those? AviationFreak 💬 00:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * agree. i vote picture of a vaccine Clone commando sev (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the image of a vaccine is far superior to either Jenner or Salk holding the vaccines. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, only problem: smallpox vaccines are not used anymore. Don't we have a better image? --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add an image like this to show the timescale of how vaccines are developed (source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coronavirus-vaccine-development-compares-to-other-shots-in-history-2020-11 ). The mRNA technology allows for unusually rapid development. Maybe include on Timeline of human vaccines as well. TGCP (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021
Hi, I wanted to edit the article to add a link form the ELISA concept to the ELISA page in wikipedia (just substitute ELISA for ELISA ). Since the page is semi-protected, I can not do it myself.

Thanks. 195.77.128.147 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Thjarkur (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
, this is the sentence as you have edited it: Vaccine manufacturers do not receive licensing until a complete clinical cycle of development and trials proves the vaccine is safe and has long-term effect, followed by scientific review by research institutions and by multinational or national regulatory organizations, such as US VRC.... My problems with your changes are these: I'm not necessarily against a mention of the VRC, but you're going to have to explain what it is, and why we need to mention it alongside the FDA. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  15:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Effectiveness' reads better than 'effect'
 * 'Following' means the opposite of 'Followed by'. You are drastically changing the meaning of the sentence, and I don't think you realise you're doing it.
 * You don't explain what the US VRC stands for, and you seem to miss the fact that we mention the US FDA later in the sentence.

History
I'm curious why the history is so far down in the article. Judging by other science articles, particularly something with such a long history, typically that would be before the rest of the article...? Anastrophe (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request June 2021
Request to edit to insert a section on contraindications as follows:

Various vaccines have various contraindications to adminstration, including, but not limited to, the following: anaphylaxis after a previous dose, Encephalopathy not attributable to another cause after reciving DTP or DTAP vaccine, allergies to eggs or yeast, Known severe immunodeficiency, and pregnancy, among others.

The reference to be inserted is as follows:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, May 4). ACIP Contraindications Guidelines for Immunization. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.(Ret. 2021, June 12). https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/contraindications.html

98.178.191.34 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Red x.svg Not done: Most of the above content is already found in various parts of the article, including the very first section Vaccine. As for encephalopathy after DTP or DTAP, there has been a lot of research conducted in subsequent years that showed this link is really tenuous. If such a risk exists, it is in the range of 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 10,000, exceedingly rare, and only truly a problem if the child already has encephalopathy or epilepsy. And what has been found is that the actual risk of brain damage is extremely low (near zero), because most post-vaccine seizures self-resolve and have similar risk of run-of-the-mill febrile seizures, which are relatively common and inert in children.  Children already are at a much higher risk than any other age group of non-epileptic febrile seizures, so many vaccinologists consider this a false positive finding that only represents increasing the risk of recurrence of an already present seizure disorder (something that is true of any vaccine that causes a fever, but probably slightly higher for the pertussis vaccine). It's also why these seizure-risk children must be monitored carefully, but everyone else is pretty safe. Also worth noting, the risk of brain damage from pertussis is much higher than from the vaccine. Pertussis the disease causes brain damage in roughly 1 in 300 kids, and death in 1 in 100. Suffice to say, this is not a general risk, but instead a very specialized case, which is not notable for inclusion in the general Vaccines article here due to our prohibition against including all examples of something which would cause many extremely long lists and our guidelines on only including items that are established as notable by secondary sources. But you will find mention of this in the dedicated DTaP/DPT vaccine article. -- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Generality
in the Effects section, the sentence "recognizes the protein coat on the virus" makes specific reference to "protein coat" and "virus", but vaccine targets are restricted to neither of those. I would generalize this sentence to be more inclusive, e.g. replacing it with "recognizes it". 81.0.162.111 (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine Nomenclature Reference
Currently, within Section 5 ("Nomenclature") footnote 80 is a reference to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) web page on vaccine names. The URL needs to be corrected (it would appear that the CDC changed the path to the webpage). The correct URL as of 21-Aug-2021 is https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/usvaccines.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbigler (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the heads up.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine definition
This definition has been changed significantly since COVID-19. Vaccines for polio were 4 total. Then done. Covid vaccines should be called Covid shots 71.85.210.59 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Vaccine should be reverted to its previous definition (prevent disease) and not be reflecting a political point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.174.131.148 (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request August 2021: distinguishing between sterilizing immunity and non-sterilizing immunity?
It seems people are very emotional about (Covid19) vaccination based on a believe that all vaccines are created equal.

“The [smallpox] vaccination caused sterilizing immunity, meaning that you don’t carry any of the virus. The antibodies that you generate, the responses you generate, clear the virus from your system entirely,”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccines-need-not-completely-stop-covid-transmission-to-curb-the-pandemic1/

Recent research from Israel shows that people vaccinated in January get infected more than we had hoped for when the Scientific American article was written. Expectations should be realistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ It is unclear what changes you are requiring to be made. Please supply a "change X to Y" format with supporting sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

GAVI: "IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREVENTING DISEASE AND PREVENTING INFECTION"

"There is a subtle yet important difference between preventing disease and preventing infection. A vaccine that “just” prevents disease might not stop you from transmitting the disease to others – even if you feel fine. But a vaccine that provides sterilising immunity stops the virus in its tracks.

In an ideal world, all vaccines would induce sterilising immunity. In reality, it is actually extremely difficult to produce vaccines that stop virus infection altogether." https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/coronavirus-few-vaccines-prevent-infection-heres-why-thats-not-problem


 * Sterilizing immunity most likely does not actually exist. It's an outdated concept from when the immune system was not as well understood. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kassidee999.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daysiaamariee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tzc0725.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy
I don't understand why there isn't a small section about vaccine hesitancy with a "main" link to the daughter article. Per WP:Summary style we should have such a section. Using content from the lead of that article is often an easy way to produce such a section. How about using this:

Valjean (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022
Under 'Adverse events', after the sentence, 'Elderly (above age 60), allergen-hypersensitive, and obese people have susceptibility to compromised immunogenicity, which prevents or inhibits vaccine effectiveness, possibly requiring separate vaccine technologies for these specific populations or repetitive booster vaccinations to limit virus transmission.[36]', add: People with a compromised immune system also have a lower ability to produce antibodies to neutralise vaccine targets. Bionrv (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably more approriate at the page for covid 19 vaccines right?--TZubiri (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing the statement "The effectiveness of vaccines has been widely studied and verified."
I'd like to continue the conversation here to avoid an edit war. Wikipedia is not a place where we post obviously well supported information without providing the support. The issue is that statement is not supported by the reference. If you know of a source that supports the statement, put it into the page. Poppa shark (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead summarizes the referenced body of the article. Did you look at the four references in the first sentence of the Effects section, not to mention the cite that immediately follows the statement in the lede? Whether or not that citation is the best support for that statement, it is not cause to remove it all - it doesn't even have to be cited, since it's in the lede. As for your statement concerning edit-warring, you will be sanctioned if you continue to remove content without an appropriate consensus. Threatening to edit-war is itself sanctionable if persisted in..  Acroterion   (talk)   17:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not threatening to edit war, I was stating that this was the appropriate venue to continue for the conversation after we'd each reverted each other. The cite immediately following the statement does not support the statement, and I don't think any of the sources in the first sentence of the Effects section do either, though they are closer. Two of them are papers that discuss how to monitor vaccine efficacy and two are articles that state the importance of childhood vaccinations.
 * I realize English Wikipedia is very western centered, but there are several vaccines in common use that are not well monitored, and whose efficacy are questioned, which is what made me initially scrutinize that statement. If we want to keep that sentence in the lede, and feel that the Hub article and the HealthyChildren article are enough to support it, I would not argue further, but I would prefer that we remove the citation immediately after the statement, and that we make the statement more specific to vaccinations that are approved in the US and EU. Poppa shark (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading something into the statement that isn't there. It doesn't say that all vaccines available anywhere have been widely studied and verified, just that vaccines as a concept have been. I think that's quite uncontroversial, though sadly it does need to be said given the latest trends in misinformation. MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's difficult to talk about vaccines as a concept, as each individual vaccine performs very differently. I know it doesn't say all, but I'd still prefer that we make the statement more specific to vaccines approved and/or recommended in the US and EU. Unfortunately, I'm not certain how to do that without making the section sound clunky. If you have any good ideas, I would like to see a change, but barring that, I will not push for the removal of the statement.
 * I also feel strongly about removing the NY Times reference just beyond it, as it is unrelated to the statement. Are you opposed to that change? Poppa shark (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the NYT citation absolutely supports the statement. Given:
 * “The fundamental logic behind today’s vaccine trials was worked out by statisticians over a century ago.“
 * “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a long history of following the effectiveness of vaccines after they’re approved.“
 * “Vaccines don’t protect only the people who get them. Because they slow the spread of the virus, they can, over time, also drive down new infection rates and protect society as a whole."
 * Scientists call this broad form of effectiveness a vaccine’s impact. The smallpox vaccine had the greatest impact of all, driving the virus into oblivion in the 1970s. But even a vaccine with extremely high efficacy in clinical trials will have a small impact if only a few people end up getting it.”
 * I think these statements verify the content pretty completely. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it have to be a WP:MEDRS? jp×g 06:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're absolutely right. This should do: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 07:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that's the good stuff!! :^) jp×g 09:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve added “safety and” given the large number of doses described in that quote and extremely low adverse event rate reported. But I’m not wed to it, if someone felt it was an overreach we could remove it or add another MEDRS to bolster — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023
The link of the first reference does not lead directly to the cited document, but opens a pdf with just the citation again. Please exchange for this link, which leads directly to the cited source: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/02-27-2019.657.39.11.pdf 31.18.116.85 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)