Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:13, 3 September 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaccine hesitancy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 5 months

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chiropractic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Autism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Caroline O'Donovan (23 February 2019). "YouTube Just Demonetized Anti-Vax Channels". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 23 February 2019.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaccine hesitancy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 5 months

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). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benjy Hall (article contribs).

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.” (Misplaced Pages, 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.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The section on autism has a false statement. The claim that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism is incorrect.

Dr. William Thomson is a CDC whistle blower. He was part of a team who found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, for black American boys. He made a public statement on August 27th 2014.

' My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed'.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160220144837/http://www.morganverkamp.com:80/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/ 2A00:23C4:9E02:700:4813:47D0:DF1D:6473 (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been debunked so many times that it we could write an article just on this myth. The facts are these – vaccines are not linked to autism spectrum disorder. There are over 150 PUBLISHED and PEER-REVIEWED scientific articles that have dismissed that link. It's settled science. And Dr. Thompson continues to write outstanding articles of scientific research about vaccines done at the CDC. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

And a press release from a plaintiff law firm is the furthest thing from a reliable source that you could ever find. Nevermind being a medical reliable source. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an article on this topic or myth: Vaccines and autism. The extended discussion of this topic there can be cited from all over. -- econterms (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence tries to paint people who are critical of a single vaccine, as if they were critical of all vaccines.

Current: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases.

Proposal: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against one or more contagious diseases.

124.169.149.140 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The current text matches which "Refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccine services". The third sentence (second sentence, after a recent edit) states "The term encompasses outright refusal to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others". So IMHO think it's fine as-is. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think extra clarification on numbers is unneccesary. It's good as is. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparticusmaximus (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC) I disagree. The source cited does not use the term "anti-vax". Vaccine hesitancy is best considered as a point on a spectrum of varying degrees of concern about the the effects of vaccinations . Associating the term with "anti-vax" is to overly simplify this spectrum, and associate anyone who has any concerns about any vaccination with what is in fact a small fringe group. "People who have ongoing reservations about vaccinating against COVID-19 are not “anti-vaxxers” and shouldn’t be branded as such." . Doing so is a mischaracterisation and it is thought that such crude categorisations are actually harmful to public health efforts obtain mass vaccination . I therefore offer the following proposal which more accurately quotes the actual WHO definition cited by Rolf H Nelson, and which offers a degree of nuance necessary to avoid inaccurate generalisations that potentially harm vaccination efforts.

Current: Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases. People who subscribe to this view are commonly known as "anti-vaxxers". The term encompasses outright refusal to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.

Proposal: Vaccine hesitancy is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious diseases. The term exists on a spectrum of perceptions of about vaccines ranging from outright refusal to vaccinate (commonly known as "anti-vax"), delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.

Sparticusmaximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I understand what you are saying but disagree that the only true "anti-vax" are those who refuse all vaccines. I have spent quite a bit of time in anti-vax spaces and the first thing almost every single one says is "I"m not anti-vax but..." followed by copious misinformation and disinformation. I think the general effects on general public health, of anyone who is public about their hesitation, are anti-vax, and advocate the movement and therefore the public health danger. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021

(UTC)

Disagree. Your anecdote is not an appropriate source. You are saying anoyone who questions any vaccine is a danger to the public. This is absolutist in approach and is unsubstantiated. If we were to follow this reason, then those opposed the past vaccines that ended up actually being harmful as referenced on this very page are "anti-vax" and somehow a danger. I argue that such a mischaracterisation drives people deeper towards actual anti-vax sentiment. I provide evidence from public health experts that specifically note that it is not appropriate to label vaccine hesitancy as "anti-vax". Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, any anti-science stance wrt vaccines indicates anti-vax. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not "anti-science" to question the potential impacts of a medication. This very article provides a list of past vaccinations that proved to be harmful. Would it have been anti-science to question those vaccines? Science IS questioning. I provide expert evidence that absolute mischaracterizations used in this article are in fact not helpful.

The WHO source I cited is indeed for vaccine hesitancy, not for anti-vax; I was addressing a definition of vaccine hesitancy. Sparticusmaximus The source you provided doesn't use the word anti-vax except to say "Today in many countries the public conversation about vaccination has become mired in an aggressive argument, which characterises parents as either “pro-vax” (responsible) or “anti-vax” (irresponsible)." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. And the definition of vaccine hesitancy, the title of this page, does not directly equate with common understandings of "anti-vax". This is why I think the page should be changed to more accurately reflect actual definitions. The article I cites provide a reasonable spectrum of the range of vaccine hesitant positions. The section that you quote in this reply is the binary position that the cited article goes on to refute, arguing for greater nuance in the use of these terms. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitions of anti-vax/anti-vaccination/anti-vaxxer

Definitions

• "anti-vaccination", "opposed to vaccination", "a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination" (Webster
• "The anti-vaccination movement is when people don't believe that some or all vaccines are a good thing, and do not want themselves, family members or other people to be vaccinated." (BBC)
• "public health commentators refer to the activities of an anti-vaccination 'movement'... How much theoretical sense it makes to view anti-vaccination groups as (new) social movement organizations (as distinct from pressure groups or self-help organizations) is as yet unclear." (2006) (Blume, Stuart. "Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations." Social science & medicine 62.3 (2006): 628-642.)
• "The media plays a large role in disseminating and sensationalizing vaccine objections. Such objections are part of what has been called the “anti-vaccination movement”" (2010) (Kata, Anna. "A postmodern Pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet." Vaccine 28.7 (2010): 1709-1716.)
• (Added) "Today in many countries the public conversation about vaccination has become mired in an aggressive argument, which characterises parents as either “pro-vax” (responsible) or “anti-vax” (irresponsible)... (but our research instead suggests) within (people who decline all vaccines), only a handful are the noisy "anti-vaccination" activists" (The Conversation)

Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

While IMHO "vaccine hesitancy" has a different connotation from "anti-vax", the definition appears to usually be the same. It's also independently possible that this groups clusters into two subgroups, a "reluctant" and an "absolutely against" group, but I can't find strong support for demarcating one specific group onto "vaccine hesitant" and one other specific group onto "anti-vax" terminology-wise. Nor does there appear to be a large "vaccine hesitancy" movement distinct from the "anti-vax movement". The current article should probably directly source a definition for anti-vax if it doesn't already. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

-- The following article provides evidence in the form of peer reviewed research (see the links within the article) for the demarcation of anti-vax from vaccine hesitancy. As I argue in the previous section, I believe it is harmful to public health to mischaracterise anyone who has a concern about a vaccines as being "anti-vax" and this article should avoid doing so. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sparticusmaximus: OK, it does say "Within (people who decline all vaccines), only a handful are the noisy "anti-vaccination" activists." Do you have other independent sources with the same (extremely strict) demarcation? If it's just the one source, IMHO it can be listed in a section if desired alongside other definitions, either here or (if the article is over length) in another page, since Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTPAPER and there is certainly enough literature to support (for example) a "vaccine outreach" article if there isn't already one. However, we would need more sources to put it in the lead, and we would have to weigh the sources against sources that say differently. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the spectrum shown in that article refers to other sources which they used to establish the spectrum. The sources I cite in the previous section on this talk page reflect this view point and specifically note the dangers of mischaracterising those who simply have concern or reluctance about vaccinations as "anti-vax". The misrepesentation of vaccine hesitancy as "anti-vax" in the lead of the article at present is currently poorly cited and should be updated to provide a more nuanced definition that does not unfairly associate people who have genuine concerns about vaccination with fringe, borderline conspiracy theorist antivaxers. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The people who have genuine concerns about specific vaccines are typically scientists who know about vaccines and are generally in favor of them: people like Paul A. Offit, David Gorski, or Seth Mnookin. There is no danger of confusing them with anti-vaxxers. Non-experts are usually unable to tell apart genuine concerns from bullshit, so if they do have genuine concerns, it is by pure chance. The Conversation source you linked, and the "Australian attitudes to vaccination fall into a spectrum comprised of five unfixed groups" diagram in it, only talk about the rate of acceptance of anti-vax bullshit: it is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, people at home and the media don't do the science, they get their information from good or dubious sources and have their opinions. If there's a valid medical reason they should avoid a specific vaccine, their doctor should determine. It may still be legal for them to refuse vaccination (even if recommended in their situation)... —PaleoNeonate – 11:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Validating a degree of vaccine mistrust from a (non-immunologist) layperson as not "anti-vax" is more of a threat to public health than placing it on some sort of spectrum: The origin is scientific misinformation and poor sourcing, whether that applies to quiet rejection of one vaccine or vocal activism against all of them. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of definition. The WHO definition of "vaccine hesitancy" does not include the term "anti-vax". Those who are vaccine hesitant are not necessarily the same as anti-vaxers as commonly understood. The definition of vaccine hesitancy should therefore include the nuanced spectrum of opinion on the topic rather than labeling anyone who has concerns about a vaccine as "anti-vax". The qualifications of those who have concerns about vaccines is irrelevant to that point. As I note in previous citations, labeling those with concerns about vaccines as "anti-vaxers" is a mischaracterisation, inappropriate, and ultimately harmful to public health. The fact someone has concerns about a particular medication against their doctor's advice does not make them a crack pot conspiracy theorist such as implied by the term anti-vaxxer. The arguments I see here are absolutist and require an individual to blindly accept some monolithic concept of "the science" else they be labelled anti-vax. If you want to create more anti-vaxxers, labeling people with concerns about vaccinations in this way is a great way to create them. The article text should therefore be amended.Sparticusmaximus (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You are starting from the wrong end here. Misplaced Pages's business is summarizing what reliable sources have to say about something, not popularizing the concerns of the user Sparticusmaximus about this thing and that thing. You are synthesizing your own ideas from bits and pieces you found in reliable sources. If you want those ideas to end up in Misplaced Pages, you need to get them into reliable sources first. Or, if they are already there, you need to find those sources. Until you do, we cannot help you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing in this article where it defines "anti-vaxxer" as "crack pot conspiracy theorist". I think you're making it more prejudicial than it is here. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the article with the overwhelming evidence? People like you should be ashamed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Going back to the initial request for additional reliable sources: the conceptual distinction and its importance for formulating public health strategies is widely recognized by authoritative sources: in addition to those in Sparticusmaximus' cited piece in "The Conversation":

a closer look indicates the anti-vax crowd remains small in number, but can appear larger when clumped together with people who are hesitant ...

“The number of people who have very strong, very negative ‘I am definitely not going to vaccinate period is quite small,” said Brian Zikmund-Fisher, associate director of the University of Michigan Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine.

“There are not that many people who hold that strong and confident of a belief. There are a lot of people who are questioning, hesitant, want to wait and see how it goes … or are not sure whether the hassle is worth it.”

The difference between those who are anti-vaccine and those who are hesitant of the COVID-19 vaccines is how likely they are to change their mind, said Anna Kirkland, a University of Michigan professor of health management and policy, and member of Michigan’s Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.

Kirkland said the vast majority of people who remain undecided on the vaccine don’t have a strong ideological commitment against vaccines. They’re persuadable, and they’re who health care and public health workers are targeting to help them make informed decisions.

Anti-vaccine individuals on the other hand are publicly committed to their ideology. “That person is never going to change their mind and they’re not persuadable,” she said.

MLive via MSN News

The vaccine debate is more complicated than just those who are for or against immunizations. The vast majority of people support vaccination efforts, while a loud minority of those against vaccines (anti-vaxxers) dominate the other side with outlandish narratives and scare tactics ― and it’s typically those people whose minds we try to change.

But there’s a third group that’s often overshadowed: “hesitant vaxxers.” And when it comes to convincing people to trust science and get shots like the COVID-19 vaccine, we should focus more on this camp.

According to William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease at Vanderbilt University, hesitant vaxxers want to learn more about the benefits of vaccination, while anti-vaxxers have already made up their minds.

“I’ve learned that you’ll never change the opinion of someone who’s truly against vaccination,” Schaffner said. “The more logic and reason you use, the more they dig in their heels.” Those who are hesitant, on the other hand, “just want to understand vaccines better,” he said.

HuffPo

It's the 'vaccine hesitant', not anti-vaxxers, who are troubling public health experts

the next giant leap towards herd immunity will be persuading everyone to actually take whatever emerges, a task made harder by the viral spread of anti-vaxxer sentiment online. What really keeps public health experts awake at night, however, isn’t a handful of people convinced that Bill Gates wants to inject them with invisible microchips, nor the Russian bots now amplifying their loopy theories. It’s the “vaccine hesitant”; people in a sense not so very different from Lydia Guthrie. Or you. Or me.

The Guardian

Some of those who watch the anti-vaccine movement closest agree that the fight against the most trenchant anti-vaxxers is a lost cause. “To say that they’re suspicious of a potential vaccine would be an understatement,” says Cassie, a pro-vaccine mole who until recently was a member of a large anti-vax group in order to keep tabs on the movement. “A lot believe that this is finally the moment we put microchips in vaccines to track people and usher in the new world order. They firmly believe that if the virus is real, everyone needs to build up immunity naturally.”

So therein lies, to the surprise of few, the views of the hardcore anti-vaxxers. But what of the vaccine-hesitant? This group is itself a sizable one and, importantly, one that can be swayed in either direction. These are parents who aren’t sure it’s safe for their babies to get so many shots at once, for example, or they know someone whose kid had a bad reaction to a vaccine and are now leery. ...

a lot of parents in the middle of the vaccine debate feel alienated by both anti-vaxxers and pro-vaccine parents. Express fears about vaccines, and some parents peg you as an anti-vax nutjob, Daria says, while anti-vaxxers would castigate her for vaccinating her children at all. This isolated position in the debate makes them more vulnerable to anti-vaccine messaging which might be more persuasive than you think ...

Fatherly

being hesitant doesn't mean never. And being hesitant is like protection from what has happened to my community, black people, over the years in the name of: "Hey, I'm here to help you. Here's a vaccine. I'm here to help you. And not treat you." So let's hold up and make sure you understand why I'm hesitant now...

Marshall: Hesitancy isn't anti-vaccine, it's just caution.

Thomas: Thank you. So once we get that straight, now let's deal with the broken system out there. It was like this. I could see it, three weeks ago, we had people that said "hell no, I'm not taking a vaccine." Those folks are now saying "maybe." In the people who were saying "maybe," they are now saying, "where do I sign up?" ...

I think hesitancy needs to be contextualized. So just to keep it simple, for many African-Americans they need look no further than the Tuskegee syphilis step. ... Then you have the anti-vaxxers protesting at Dodger Stadium, trying to shut down a COVID vaccine site. That's a whole different ball game. Therefore understanding what it means with those two populations requires different strategies.

MedPage Today

The page really needs to clearly draw this distinction in the lede, and maybe have separate subsections to address both.Mikalra (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Mikalra, the issue of course is that vaccine hesitancy is the desired goal of anti-vax propaganda, and separating cause from effect is notoriously difficult in this respect. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG: First, to quibble: the goal of antivax propaganda is not vaccine hesitancy, but vaccine refusal. Putting that aside, the distinction is still very clear and important. Again: antivaxxers are dug-in, ideological opponents of vaccination; the vaccine hesitant are still swayable, and open to arguments and incentives supporting vaccination and may even respond to just lowering the barriers to vaccination.

If Political Party X funds ads attacking the candidate of Political Party Y, they may have several audiences in mind: they reinforce motivation in their own voters, but also hope to win over some independents who are on the fence, and even to leave enough uncertainty in Party Y voters' minds that they just sit out the election. Still, these same independents and demotivated Party Yers could be won back over with the right arguments, whereas Party Xers would rather be tarred and feathered. And even if the X ads are successful for this election, the independents and Party Yers will tend to return to their normal stances when the next election comes around. It would be wrong to conflate the dissuaded independents and demotivated members of Party Y to be truly in the same bucket as members of Party X.Mikalra (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mikalra, it is both hesitancy and refusal. Hesitancy leads to refusal. Like so much other propaganda, the intent is to spread Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

But the WHO describes hesitancy as a top ten threat t public health, so that's the focus of this article.

It's also better than the title it had for several years: "vaccine controversies". That really was a gross violation of NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, I agree entirely that vaccine hesitancy is a threat to public health. If vaccine hesitancy is the focus of this article, then this article should be titled "vaccine hesitancy," and there should be a separate article for anti-vaccine activists/antivaxxers. They're both problems — but they're different problems, and require different public health responses, as I and others have extensively documented from authoritative sources, above.Mikalra (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The difference between both is quantitative, not qualitative. Mere hesitancy in the sense of "I can't decide that yet" is a mild case of full-blown antivaxx. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist vaccine related Death

• Marvin Hagler
• DMX On April 8, family members stated that drugs were not involved and the reason for the hospital stay was possibly due to a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine which had been received days earlier. EarthWorship (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

1. ^ https://mtonews.com/dmx-received-covid-vaccine-days-before-heart-attack-family-says-no-drugs-exclusive

So, the vaccine does not prevent 100% of all heart attacks in the next few days? Because only if it did, such things would never happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• EarthWorship, Hagler's death was unrelated to vaccines. There's no credible evidence that DMX's was either. Even the notorious "blood clots" from AstraZeneca actually occur less often in the vaccinated population than in the general population.

  See also post-hoc fallacy. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Timeline and name

"It has existed since the invention of vaccination, and pre-dates the coining of the terms "vaccine" and "vaccination" by nearly eighty years." appears in the lede. Vaccine was coined by Jenner, who was the first person to publish, systematise and define inoculation with Cowpox. Vacca means cow, and he probably took all of 5 minutes to come up with it. There's a clear line of continuity with the anti-inoculationists, but that's a badly edited sentence. (BTW, I wrote the first version of this page, calling it anti-vaccinationism.) Midgley (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Heavy Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page is packed with good information, but it seems to me that its entire purpose is to say, 'People who are against vaccination are stupid and wrong, so there!'

This is incredibly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Mougar (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. The argument used to justify that is that WP reflects its reliable sources, in its facts and biases (with a Jim Wales quote to boot), but that's clearly abused to go above and beyond reflecting facts to include loaded terms, e.g. conspiracy theorist, and basically serve as an extension of the mainstream media propaganda machine. Misplaced Pages could still be a reflection of reliable, i.e. mainstream, sources, without bringing itself down to the level of mass propaganda we see in mainstream media everyday. It suffices to avoid loaded language, and protect its WP:NPOV. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that Misplaced Pages should promote untruths. This is a difficult subject because there are strongly held beliefs on both sides. Honest intelligent people can hold widely differing views and we should treat them with respect. But when the matter is as clear cut as this, Misplaced Pages must be cautious in its presentation. A number of sections present reasons for refusing vaccines followed by an evaluation showing them to be false. The refutations must be (and are) cited. This is fair providing that the original hesitancy reasons are actual reasons and not Straw man arguments. There are also some valid hesitancy reasons, such as CIA fake vaccination clinic and these have been fairly presented. The following quote from the Individual liberty section states "Others argue that, for compulsory vaccination to effectively prevent disease, there must be not only available vaccines and a population willing to immunize, but also sufficient ability to decline vaccination on grounds of personal belief." That is typical of the tone of the entire article and shows the lack of bias. Any claim for undue bias really must be more specific than, "I disagree with it."OrewaTel (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that Misplaced Pages should promote untruths.

1. No one said it should. My point was about not using WP:LOADED language.
2. WP:NOTTRUTH

  — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If the reliable sources use strong language - and they do - then we should follow them. Otherwise we are whitewashing.

Look at it like this: Antivaxers kill people. In the fight between humanity and disease, they are on the side of disease. Doesn't it show a lot of restriction on our part not to put it like that?

But if you find the place in the article which says antivaxers are "stupid and wrong", tell us. It must be changed to "ignorant and wrong" immediately. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If the reliable sources use strong language - and they do

Indeed.

then we should follow them.

That's where we differ.

Otherwise we are whitewashing.

Personally, I want my encyclopaedias "whitewashed". Just the facts, thanks. If I want to hear people's opinions about a topic, I can read it in the newspaper columns, or turn on the TV. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedias deal primarily in knowledge, not "facts". And knowledge and opinion are inextricably intertwingled. Just reflect what the best sources say and all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, Guarapinga, it doesn't really matter "what you want." This sounds a lot like "I don't like it" to me. Misplaced Pages reflects what high-quality mainstream sources say and that's what this article does too. I have yet to see you propose a specific change. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 has a valid point. Misplaced Pages is a source of cited facts. It can report opinions and it can link to editorials but it should not promote a point of view nor should it deprecate other views. Read NPOV Consequently if there is a statement that says "antivaxers are stupid and wrong" it should be changed to "antivaxers are wrong". (Providing there is a cited reference that agrees.) Name calling has no place here. Of course saying, "Professor Joe Bloggs ABC,DEF and Bar declared antivaxer are stupid" is allowed providing that there is evidence that Prof Bloggs actually said such a thing and that his utterances are Notable.OrewaTel (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

OrewaTel, it doesn't, and as far as I can tell it never did. Antivaxers are certainly hurt in the feels when they read a reality-based article on the topic, but that's not really our problem to fix - their reaction is to statements from CDC, the WHO and other sources we regard as extremely reliable, they need to fix the way the topic is represented in sources and then Misplaced Pages will change. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, it's more that we deal with facts not Truth™ Guy (help! - typo?) 07:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, if that is untrue get onto the RS and get them to change it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think anyone advocating that we not follow the sources has no business editing WP. Following the sources is one of our core policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Typical unsubstantial straw man arguments. In addition, there is no need in discussion about "feelings", what matters are facts of reliable sources. We should close that "discussion" per WP:FORUM. --Julius Senegal (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Reason for Controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

1. Lantos, John D; Jackson, Marry Ann; Harrison, Christopher J (February 2012). "Point-Counterpoint: Why We Should Eliminate Personal Belief Exemptions To Vaccine Mandates". Journal Of Health Politics, Policy & Law. 37 (1): 131–140. doi:10.1215/03616878-1496038.

There are some obvious biases with the way vaccine hesitancy and "anti-vaxxers" are discussed. I suspect that this largely comes down to different moral systems at play: deontological and utilitarian-consequentialist. Pro-vaccine arguments are largely intended to be justified by how well the consequences benefit everybody. Anti-vaccine arguments will largely emphasize the right of an individual to personal autonomy, and they will be bolstered by the inherent uncertainty present in all consequentialist reasoning.

It is probably worth noting that "anti-vaxxers" have at times been designated as a target of public health institutions (WHO) and popular reporting outlets, despite a concerning lack of evidence that such a group as "anti-vaxxers" really had any significant impact on vaccination rates of a general population. The term "scapegoat" has been used by those concerned.

Additionally, there is likely no such thing as "overwhelming" scientific consensus. This is a form of political rhetoric which appeals to authority, and many reasonably consider it inherently fallacious. At the very least, some agreement needs to be made on what constitutes a scientific community, and what makes the scientific image of the world a more realistic image of the world, but no such consensus actually exists within the parties commonly debating the subject of vaccine usage. In the context of an actual scientific process: when two minds agree, one of them is unnecessary. If you are an expert, or a member of a "scientific community," and your reasoning is not compelling to your audience, there is always a strong possibility that this is merely due to the limitations of your own expertise, rather than the limitations of the reasoning capacities of your audience. To jump to the conclusion that the latter is the case, rather than the former, is an irresponsible approach to the scientific process, especially when the process is being used to justify overriding the right/ability of a group of people to refuse a medical treatment. There are strong moral arguments against a paternalistic approach to healthcare, which make use of both the principles of patient choice and informed consent, as well as the consequentialist risks associated with the role of such an approach in the emergence of totalitarian regimes and genocidal practices.

2601:645:4580:2240:F0FF:9C69:8834:9B45 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://medium.com/politicoid/is-the-antivax-movement-being-used-as-a-scapegoat-2aafc081a7cb
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5796738/
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589086/
4. https://www.medscape.com/courses/section/898061

• The issue is that their "concerns" are founded on assiduous disinformation by grifters. 2/3 of all online anti-vaccination bullshit emanates from twelve people, all of whom make huge sums from it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:FORUM #4, and no, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. And no, antivaxxer's concerns are based of false conclusions, sources, statements. We are not talking about moral, but about facts.

Please abstain for misusing the discussion site for personal "thoughts". --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post: Concerns about missing work may be a barrier to coronavirus vaccination

I'm not sure how or where to include this, seems important to have in the article https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/27/time-off-vaccine-workers/

Here's a the study they are reporting on https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-april-2021/

John Cummings (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Incentives

Here is a list of COVID-19 vaccine incentives in the U.S. should that be deemed appropriate/notable for the respective article section. Mapsax (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Mapsax thanks for this. We also have incentives to deter vaccine hesitancy in the Philippines, though it's still a little chaotic as they are disbursed on a local level . I have created a Incentive Programs subsection of the Dealing with vaccine hesitancy section to cover this topic with good sources. CutePeach (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine eagerness

A small sub-section on "vaccine eagerness" could be created within this article. DTM (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Why? Can you present any solid sources that discuss such a phenomenon in detail? If so, please present them here for further discussion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Vaxxers stopping other people getting the vaccine.

The anti-vaxxers have been attacking the vaccine bus and throwing objects at it not only because they don't want to get the vaccine they also want to prevent anyone else getting the vaccine too. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/14/gp-staff-receive-abuse-every-day-over-covid-vaccine-reminders 194.207.86.26 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we can have a small section, as long as more incidents can be shown.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/24/tennessee-coronavirus-covid-delta-variant-cases-vaccines <quote>"outside the city of Knoxville, a woman attempted to drive her car through a state vaccine site, reportedly coming within inches of mowing down a dozen healthcare workers as she shouted “no vaccine”."</quote> 194.207.86.26 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That isn't vaccine hesitancy. I'd call it "anti-vaccine militancy". If there are enough sources on that, perhaps it would warrant a separate article. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's an extreme example. As discussed in the article, vaccine hesitancy encompasses a spectrum from the person who is uncertain about whether to vaccinate to extremists and everyone in between. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Unlock

Locking the page is unhelpful. We don't want the official establishment line, we want the truth. (unsigned edit made by IP address )

You can't handle the truth! ~Anachronist (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The internet is full of places selling Truth. You may find those places more compatible with your version. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This page is not locked. Anyone can edit it providing they

1. Register an account.
2. Make factual 10 edits.
3. Follow Misplaced Pages's rules.

It is not unreasonable when a page is subject to vandalism to require that people do not hide behind an anonymous IP address. 10 edits is an incredibly low threshold. And if you are going to play here then you should play by the rules. If you don't like the rules then you can raise a discussion to get them changed but you had better have something better to offer. OrewaTel (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The only reason this page has been locked is that there has been rampant vandalism on it with the promotion of pseudoscience, falsehoods, attempts to remove correct, well-sourced information, etc. So, in short, no. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The linked article does not support the general claim.

Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of large-scale vaccination campaigns is well established.

Without a specific request, there is nothing to be done here. Also, your statement is false. Like, breathtakingly false. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Side Effects Conspiracy

With the release of the vaccines to combat the covid-19 outbreak, several conspiracy theorists online have made up false stories about medication having potential and unknown to them side effects. Some even brought up the existence of allergies as part of this conspiracy theory. Things that are done for the greater good never have negative consequences, that's why it's called the greater good. 92.5.188.1 (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You have a suggested edit, backed by RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section 'vaccine overload', please change from :

"A study published in 2013 found no correlation between autism and the antigen number in the vaccines the children were administered up to the age of two. Of the 1,008 children in the study, one quarter of those diagnosed with autism were born between 1994 and 1999, when the routine vaccine schedule could contain more than 3,000 antigens (in a single shot of DTP vaccine)."

to:

"A study published in 2013 added up the antigen number in the vaccines administered to 1008 children, a quarter with autism, and found no correlation between autism and increasing antigen number through completion of the vaccine schedule up to age of two. These children were born from 1994 to 1999, when the routine vaccine schedule could contain more than 3,000 antigens (in a single shot of DTP vaccine) " 

A little rewording/rephrasing to make it more clearer(and less confusing) that the study found no relation between increasing antigens and risk of autism.

Thank you! 2409:4042:2E13:BF34:8C83:1F7C:DF48:34DB (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, how is 2013, just published, it was published 7 years ago.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I did it anyway. If I wasn’t meant to you can revert it. Tintinkien (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You should not have done, you knew it had been objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, now I've now made the correction by removing the word 'just'. I initially copied it from the source(which was published in 2013) and while editing forgot to correct it. Now that I've made the corrections, please consider accepting my request. Sorry again for that mistake. 2409:4042:2E13:BF34:8C83:1F7C:DF48:34DB (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, it's not acceptable to copy & paste content into our articles, even with minor alterations. see WP:COPYVIO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. No consensus for inclusion as well as copyright concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That part kinda needs rewording/restructuring because it wrongly reads that only the ones diagnosed with autism(the quarter) were born in that high antigen time period(between 1994 to 1999), while every children involved were selected from that same time period(between 1994 to 1999).2409:4042:2E13:BF34:CCB6:68EE:E6C:F106 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with that part.  Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Also please consider changing "one quarter of those diagnosed with autism" to either "one quarter of those were diagnosed with autism" or " of which a quarter were diagnosed with autism". 2409:4042:2E13:BF34:F803:4070:FA16:2CBF (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Changed it to "one quarter of whom were diagnosed with autism". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Just in case it comes up

PhDs and hesitancy.. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

More of this

Great article - thanks for the brilliant work. And folks, shouldn't there be more hesitancy articles in WP, like?:

• Eco mode car driving hesitancy
• Veggie-meat hesitancy
• Seat belt fastening hesitancy
• Death penalty execution hesitancy
• Central bank interest rate revival hesitancy

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy is a well established syndrome and is a commonly accepted name. If any of the other 'hesitancies' become well known then a Wiki page may well be appropriate. But to create a page because a disagreement could be given a similar label to an existing page would not be useful. Of the 5 suggested topics, only Seat Belt Hesitancy makes sense. There are people who, against the evidence, declare that seat belts put the user at risk of becoming trapped in an accident. That is analogous to Vaccine Hesitancy whereas choosing to meticulously drive at all times to conserve fuel or just driving normally is more about what people think is important. And that is completely different. OrewaTel (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:N. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

From the 315 references in this article, only 14 do actually use the term "vaccine hesitancy". So ok, the article may not be the best example, but certainly an interesting variant - inside WP itself - for: original research, fueled by - may we call it vaccine activism? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous title was "Vaccine controversies", it was changed per this discussion: Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism/Archive_3#Time_to_move. Btw, did you actually check the full text of all those 315 refs? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead paragraph states that the term 'Vaccine Hesitancy' is a catch-all name for several issues. These vary from ignorant, absolute anti-vaccination to honest, thoughtful doubt about one particular vaccine and include not only every intermediate shade of opinion but other, some good, reasons not to take the jab. With such a vast gamut of opinions it is not surprising that only 4% of the references actually use the term 'Vaccine Hesitancy'. OrewaTel (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So it's a good point, and personally I was vaccinated asap and applaud the attitude of the article - but it is an attitude article, and thus IMHO questionable for an encyclopedia. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:FRINGE, WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB. There is nothing wrong with Misplaced Pages articles taking the side of science against its enemies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating an attitude. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That isn't an attitude, it's the wikipedia attitude, by policy. Mainstream scientific POV. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Top-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Chiropractic articles
• Low-importance Chiropractic articles
• WikiProject Chiropractic articles
• B-Class Autism articles
• High-importance Autism articles
• WikiProject Autism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press