Talk:Vaccine hesitancy

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

Reason for Controversy

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

References

Samoan anti vaxx activist detained by Law Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68 people reported dead in the Samoan Measles Outbreak.

Vaxxed II

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

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

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

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

Information Warfare

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

In 2019 RFK Jr was named as one of the parties named in a Washington Post article saying that his group spammed Facebook with political ads relating to vaccines.

Individual liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dengvaxia controversy in the Philippines

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

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

Improving education for expecting parents

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

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

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

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

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

Potentially harmful medical advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sociology of the anti-vaccine movement

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

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

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

Map of vaccination laws

Vaccination policy by country:

  Mandatory vaccination

  Voluntary vaccination

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

Pinging User:Avatar317

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

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

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

@RockingGeo: and again pinging User:Borysk5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow-up question

Vaccination policy by country

Mandatory      Required for schooling or welfare      Recommended

See or edit source data.

Percentage of males either overweight or obese by year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Title

The current title(1) is misleading. This article, as currently written is not about hesitation or the tendency to hesitate, it is about opposition. Its a good article on a significant subject, made less useful to the world by the title being weakened. (1) Vaccine Hesitancy Midgley (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's incorrect. Vaccine hesitancy has a spectrum from having/expressing uncertainty or hesitancy about vaccination to overt opposition. This is the standard terminology. My question to you is if you don't like that wording, then what do you propose it be changed to? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Article needs some pro 'Vaccine hesitancy' info, from sources like [1]. Otherwise it is a violation of WP:POV, and should be titled as such: "Against Vaccine hesitancy" --Ne0 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, the very title 'Vaccine hesitancy' is a violation of WP:NPOV, as it implies noncompliance with vaccine mandates stem from irrational fear rather than rational scepticism. It belittles and WP:discriminates against people with a different POV. It should be titled 'Vaccine scepticism' and present all significant sides of the debate:

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

Guarapiranga (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't scepticism, which is another red herring to cover up opposition to immunisation. The origin of this article was simply opposition to vaccination. Midgley (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The title is not a violation of WP:NPOV. As mentioned previously, it is the standard terminology for the described phenomenon. Noncompliance with vaccine recommendations based on irrational fears is what is being described. People generally do not avoid vaccines because of rational skepticism. Vaccines are very safe, highly effective (the flu vaccine is variable), and save lives. There is no debate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No doubt there is little debate, but one can't really say those opposing compelled vaccination don't debate what they oppose without self-contradiction. This page is precisely about the debate they engage in.

@TylerDurden8823: People generally do not avoid vaccines because of rational skepticism.
Guarapiranga (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)