One reason this is potentially interesting is that the HPA vaccine enquiry team give indications that they are not aware of the nature of the material and the arguers presented against immuisation, and are therefore liable to talk at cross-purposes with hostile briefers.
- Adrian, that's a very interesting comment. Can you tell me more about the HPA vaccine enquiry team? --Penglish 22:49, 28 January 2006 (CET)
- I don't mean to overdo it, just that when I spoke to one about a specific topic, a conversation which is not fully concluded in fact, I formed the impression that what I was talking about which was related to this stuff IE refuting or being able to respond directly with direct evidence to specific assertions made by anti-vaccinationists in an effort to persuade citizens to choose a coruse of action other than public and HPA policy ... was pretty much news to her. It seems sensible to me that if youare answering questions, it is sensible to have examined the ones that are being suggested to people who may come to ask for your offical view on them. And some of them are very specific - although "What was the incidence of Smallpox in teh Phillipine islands in 1917?" is obviously one that we don't expect the UK HPA to be the best authority for. If you find a reference, BTW ... Midgley 01:07, 29 January 2006 (CET)
I'm undecided whether the HPA should be making a request to the domain registrar for vaccination.org.uk to be re-assigned to them. The current user would be entirely appropriately housed at anti-vaccination.org.uk and the HP is reasonably enough .org. and certainly, .uk I suspect a dispute resolution would hold that the domain was being squatted by a user hoping to confuse people and give people looking for vaccination information something rather different. Midgley 01:11, 29 January 2006 (CET)
I lurk on various anti-vaccine email lists - but to be honest, I no longer bother reading them, they are so tedious! I hope that somebody at HPA or DH keeps track of their nonsense. In general the people in the imms division at HPA's Centre for Infections - Natasha Crowcroft, Liz Miller, and Mary Ramsay are the doctors I know best there - are extremely well-informed on vaccination issues. If you reached the "duty doctor", you might not have been so well served. --Penglish 17:08, 29 January 2006 (CET)
- Duty nurse. Had the book to hand, which of course I don't. It is about £1k per copy. Midgley 12:26, 7 April 2008 (BST)
Spare or uncertainly relevant material
Anti-vaccination activity also increased in the United States in the latter part of the 19th century. In 1879, after a visit to New York by William Tebb, the leading British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. Subsequently, the New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882 and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885.
- "The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization.....There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease."--Dr Robert Mendelsohn, M.D (Ref: How To Raise Your Child In Spite Of Your Doctor)
- "I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instances of these diseases you will realize that this is not so."--Dr Archie Kalokerinos MD (Interview---- International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995 )
- "The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors--and certainly not by vaccines.....the decline...has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvements and especially of improved nutrition.....the claim that vaccinations are the cause for the decline of infectious diseases is utter nonsense."--Dr. med. Gerhard Buchwald (Ref: The Vaccination Nonsense. ISBN 3-8334-2508-3 page 108.)
Fitzpatrick on Donnegan etc http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,,1299268,00.html
Gillray cartoon on smallpox vaccination
Can anybody find a better quality of the cartoon than this: The Cow Pock-or-the-Wonderful Effects of the New Inoculation!?
- Higher definition, that is... --Penglish 14:55, 3 March 2006 (CET)
- Its at http://wwwihm.nlm.nih.gov/ihm/images/A/21/551.jpg and is http://wwwihm.nlm.nih.gov/ihm/images/A/21/551.jpg but this could have some copyright I would assume, so please check before downloading to Ganfyd. The copyright notice that seems to apply is "Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine." at http://wwwihm.nlm.nih.gov/copy.html so it looks an excellent source. I will explore further. Mlj 11:00, 4 March 2006 (CET)
Ganfyd linking to the anti-vaccination websites will currently improve their Google pagerank. Now, I know it's not popular, but I think we should work out how to include the rel="nofollow" parameter in these links and do it, as detailed on the Google website: [] Rupert 21:08, 30 January 2006 (CET)
Can you expand on and explain those comments, Rupert? Peter.
I'm sure you agree that anti-vaccination websites ranking highly on google searches for vaccination information is bad. A google pagerank is increased by being linked to by another site, more so by one with a high pagerank, unless the link is a tag of the form: <A href="www.example.com" rel="nofollow"> The rel="nofollow" part is somewhat unpopular, but it would dissociate us from these websites in the eyes of search engine crawlers, who can't read it like people and understand that we are linking to these sites as examples of nonsense. Rupert 13:30, 31 January 2006 (CET)
- I agree. Thanks for bringing up that example of technology. Let us avoid giving Googlejuice to quacks. make it so, Rupert, if you would. Let us make that an RFC for a persisting policy as well. Midgley 17:03, 31 January 2006 (CET)
- however, it may be in place already! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anti-spam_Features#rel.3Dnofollow_link_attribute
- Does this mean that our links to them will still work, but that it will stop robots from counting them as links? Or will is stop the links from working? --Penglish 23:10, 31 January 2006 (CET)
- Sorry - have just looked at the wiki link above and see that it seems to be unnecessary for Wikis.
Page getting untidy
This page is getting untidy.
There's a bit of apparently orphan text about smallpox in USA at the bottom. (Have deleted this - sorry!)
Since it was first written the citation methods have been changed - I'll try to sort that out. I'm not quite sure what to do where there are two ways of accessing an article, however - the BMJ article referenced also has a pubmed link. My personal preference is to go to bmj site. But then, as a member, I might be able to access things others can't, so maybe Pubmed is more inclusive... I see from Help:Citations that Pubmed is preferred, so perhaps I'll make that the link... --Penglish 14:41, 3 March 2006 (CET)
- Better? That technique needs to be put on the help page, I think. (In fact, it's used there, but not explained.) Rupert 15:11, 3 March 2006 (CET)
- Beastly page. I have a load of notes, and will do a rewrite at some time. The WP page is also horrible, but differently. Midgley 15:15, 3 March 2006 (CET)
- Thanks, guys! --Penglish 16:01, 3 March 2006 (CET)
I've got no idea how to fix the typo in the references section (3rd Match, 2006) - surely match = march? MoLE 05:19, 12 March 2006 (CET)
- Ah, well its trivial to correct in fact by editing the article as references are inserted in line and then the software automatically moves them to a correlated listMlj 12:52, 12 March 2006 (CET)
- Thanks Mlj MoLE 13:06, 12 March 2006 (CET)
Key paper debuking immune overload
an interesting model (from climate science)
Apart from being interesting, this is an example of one thing I had in mind...