Talk:Vaccine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

What about use of the avian leukemia virus to manufacture vaccinations in chicken eggs and then the subsequent vaccine allergies associated with people who are allergic to eggs?

There are a number of different media for manufacturing avian viruses, it's just that chicken eggs are one of the easiest to obtain and work with. Other options include insect cells and eggs from other species whose proteins are less likely to stimulate an allergic response. These other media are economically difficult to use, though.

---

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

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

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

So how come those who are looking at the the long-term effects of Thimerosal - ie "studying" it - and finding things you don't like, aren't looking at "evidence"? Why are they wrong, and not the politicised FDA (you think it's apolitical? Explain its tantrum about Canadian drugs)? I know perfectly well the difference between elements and their compounds - but we're not talking about an ionic compound essential to life as we know it. What's the proof this heavy metal has a bond in thimerosal strong enough to carry the Hg all the way through metabolism to excretion without side effects, esp and particularly in the several large per-body-mass doses given the developmentally sensitive very young? (I remind you that what little pharmochemical testing is done is in the main done in adults, not children, even in products targeted for children?) Your analogy with salt is as facile and misleading as that made by MSG lovers who say it's on the GRAS list, so are salt and vinegar so it must be safe (w/o regard for the scientifically dubious process by which the GRAS is maintained).

Thimerosal may be safe. But there're enough historical failings and worse by things like the FDA that I, personally, no longer trust authoritarian pronouncements. I want empirical science. I don't know if the rise in asthma, autism, "hyperactivity", etc are caused by inoculants, or the preservatives, or the pollution, or food additives, or leachates from the containers, or growth hormones, or TV, or the combination. But I see no good evidence anointed "proper authorities" are bothering to look or even "want" to look.

(And be careful writing (parroting?) phrases like "lack of evidence." I snicker every time i hear pronouncements about "lack of evidence" because a second look usually reveals there's no evidence because nobody's bothered to look for evidence. "Lack of evidence" is not equivalent to "null results.")

What I'm asking for, of course, is long-term blind large-sample science. It's unfortunate that the only way to get that for pharmochemicals like Thimerosal is to dump them on the market and watch what happens. Unfortunate, because it's treating people as guinea pigs instead of informed-consent patients, and because when contraindications do turn up the entities in charge of approving the release in the first place have every practical motive run contrary to telling the truth.

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

Autism

The MMR vacine has never contained thimerosal. It would not work if it did. While you could claim that thimerosal contains ethly mercury you can see from it's structure[1] that it contains a phenyl ring and a carboxcilic acid salt. It's like claiming polystyrene contians benzene.

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

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

Nothing about Pasteur?

Cleanup

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

Intro

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

Developing Immunity

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

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

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

This had already been stated earlier in the article

==Smallpox==

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

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

The threat from smallpox as a biological weapon has, however, caused a reconsideration, though not a reversal, of this position. A 2003 US vaccination effort was unpopular. There was poor turnout among hospital staff who were designated to be the first to receive the vaccine. In addition to the known risks of the vaccine, several deaths were reported from cardiac causes among the immunized, suggesting that people with coronary artery disease might be at risk. Development of newer formulations that might avoid the newly discovered risks is underway. Illinois and New York suspended the program pending investigation of the apparent vaccine deaths of two healthcare workers (the main focus of the program). The California Nurses Association opposed the effort from the start.[2][3]

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

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

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

The threat from smallpox as a biological weapon has, however, caused a reconsideration, though not a reversal, of this position. A 2003 US vaccination effort was unpopular. There was poor turnout among hospital staff who were designated to be the first to receive the vaccine. In addition to the known risks of the vaccine, several deaths were reported from cardiac causes among the immunized, suggesting that people with coronary artery disease might be at risk. Development of newer formulations that might avoid the newly discovered risks is underway. Illinois and New York suspended the program pending investigation of the apparent vaccine deaths of two healthcare workers (the main focus of the program). The California Nurses Association opposed the effort from the start.[4][5]

This is about the smallpox vaccine

Controversy'

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

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/032305EA.shtml%7C

under the 1997 FDA Modernization Act. In its report of October 1, 2001, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence is inadequate to either accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure from childhood vaccines and autism. In a further report, of May 2004 [6]

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

A second, parallel, controversy arose in the United Kingdom over the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), another vaccine that is routinely administered to children under the age of 2 in developed nations, but which contains no preservative. A possible link to autism came to the forefront when in 1998, Wakefield and colleagues reviewed reports of children with bowel symptoms and regressive developmental disorders, mostly autism, in a small sample of 12 children. The study was criticized for its small sample size, and for failing to use healthy controls. In 2004, 10 of the 13 authors of the original Wakefield study retracted the paper's interpretation, stating that the data were insufficient to establish a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism. This followed an investigation by Brian Deer for the London Sunday Times, who reported that Wakefield had links to lawyers hoping to sue the vaccines' manufacturers [7]. Further allegations were made by Deer in a UK television documentary, MMR: What They Didn't Tell You, first broadcast in November 2004 [8].

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

In response to the US and UK controversies, which closely mirror the framing of litigation in the two countries, a number of studies with large sample sizes were researched in many developed nations. These studies have sparked criticism over conflicts of interest, which has even been expressed by at least two Republican congressmen in the US, Dan Burton [9] and Dave Weldon[10]. The majority of those studies, funded primarily by pharmaceutical interests, showed no correlation between the use of vaccines (including the MMR vaccine) and increased autism: -

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

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

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

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

External links

• BrianDeer.com - Brian Deer's denunciation of MMR study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield

- * NationalAutismAssociation.org - NAA library of pdf files

- * NIH.gov - National Intitutes of Health

- * RatBags.com - Anti-vaccination Liars

- *

Durability of inactivated vaccines

On Immune Central[11], the entry on inactivated vaccines states that:

However, most inactivated vaccines stimulate a relatively weak immune response and must be given more than once. A vaccine that requires several doses (boosters) has a limited usefulness, especially in areas where people have less access to regular health care.

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

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

a) Most does not mean "all." B) Then edit the statement rather than take it out. --Leifern 18:20, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

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

Bowel Disorders

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

Vaccinia/Vacca

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

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

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

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

"How its made" section

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

==How its made==

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

The actual process goes like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

Influenza Vaccine, Thiomersal (*)

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

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

As a precaution, TCVs are gradually being phased out, 

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

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

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

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

SO I'll edit that bit...

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

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

done

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

Anti-vaccine movement

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

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

A fairly recent development: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY This REALLY should be mentioned.

Not here. Nothing to do with vaccination. (To save anyone else following to the link, it is a news piece alleging that Bayer Factor 8 was sold in Africa after being withdrawn in the USA due to fears of HIV contamination.)Midgley (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Vaccine / vaccination

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

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

Odd!

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

References, in the light of WP standards and policies

• TheDoctorWithin.com - 'Website of Tim O'shea, a prominent vaccine skeptic'

So, is there an argument that WP:RS is satisfied, and WP:EL should not apply, to that link? If there is, and it is convincing once presented here on this talk page, then let's see it go back in by concensus. Otherwise, not. Midgley 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Therapeutic Vaccine

• nytimes.com - 'Vaccine to Cut Risk of Shingles in Older People Is Approved'

"Zostavax represents a significant breakthrough, several scientists said. It is the first therapeutic vaccine, meaning it prevents or eases the severity of the problems from an infection that has already occurred." Therapeutic vaccine deserves either its own wiki entry or at least discussion in Vaccine. 208.42.18.222 27 May 2006

I'd suggest putting it in the Chickenpox article, where there is a discussion of the vaccine, and of Shingles. Smallpox and Rabies and Tetanus vaccines have been given when infection has already occurred and are effective, with luck, then. The oddity with Zoster is that the genetic elements of the virus are lying doggo in the cells for years. Midgley 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Vaccines Approved for US Distribution

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

POV in "Preservatives" section

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

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

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

Side effects : why nothing about adjuvants ???

Why does the "potential side effects" section ignore adjuvants ? Looking at the Immunologic Adjuvant article, it seems that this is a major concern regarding vaccines. As I remember, aluminium is a concern since years or more. The article about adjuvant is trying to give a balanced view : "generally reported as safe" - "but a recent paper suggest that "levels comparable to those administered to Gulf War veterans can cause motor neuron death". I had a quick look at the paper (Petrik et al., 2007), which is indeed very recent. It does not only suggest motor neuron death, but also cognitive impairment. In addition, it is not clear that these levels where "specific to the Gulf War", it seems that kids receive comparable if not large doses by comparison to their body weight (I did not check that carefully).

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

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

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

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

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

Veterinary vaccines

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

Scarring?

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

Vaccine Controversy

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

History needed

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

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

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

Proposed restructure of this article

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

• 1. Lead
• 2. History

2.1 Jenner

2.2 Polio

2.3 Smallpox eradication

• 3. Use of vaccines ("Indications")

3.1 Vaccine usage in the developed world, notably schedules and flu vaccines

3.2 Vaccine usage in the developing world, notably the lack of appropriate.

3.3 Note ongoing controversy ("Contraindications")

3.3.1 Known adverse effects to all vaccines in humans (e.g. Guillain-Barre)

3.3.2 Disease transmission from live vaccines (e.g. Polio and the Sabin vax)

3.3.3 Disputed adverse effects (e.g. Autism)

3.4 Cancer vaccines (mostly just a redirect, since they are fundamentally different)

• 4. Vaccine manufacturing ("Physical and Chemical Properties")

4.1. Types of vaccines

4.2. Delivery systems

4.3. Components, notably adjuvants

4.4. Economics of development

• 5. How vaccines work ("PK/PD", though not in those terms)

5.1 Brief discussion of adaptive immunity (no cell types, just the idea that previous exposure provides protection)

5.2 Efficacy discussion

5.3 Herd Immunity (very briefly)

• 6. Veterinary use

6.1 Use in companion animals.

6.2 Use in farm animals.

(Ref) (EL)

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

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

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

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

The general rule I try to use is to stick with the standard list unless there's a good reason otherwise. You're right that the standard list is for individual drugs, not for vaccines in general, so it doesn't fit that well. Still, the standard list has a nice sweep: history, why to use, why not to use/adverse/overdose, properties/PK/PD/interactions, legal, vet. Here are some suggestions for improving the above draft:

• I assume the lower-level bullet items (e.g., "Jenner") stand for paragraphs or something like that, not subsection headers.
• Put why to use ("indications") first; then why not to use ("contraindications/adverse/overdose"). How about putting efficacy and effectiveness under "indications", with safety under the other section?
• Physical and chemical properties could cover types and components, as you say. Surely "Economics" is better put under Legal.
• I like How vaccines work. Would like to see more PK/PD stuff there, but realize this isn't written yet.
• Interactions should briefly cover the popular theory of immune overload, along with real interactions. Perhaps this section should be put next to "contraindications/adverse/overdose".
• Legal should cover economics, intellectual property, mandated vaccination, lack of 3rd-world.

I kind of get the feeling that this reorganization is intended to remove chunks of the existing text, which leaves some qualms. What chunks would go? Hope it's not much. Eubulides (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

A few thoughts:

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

1. Lead
2. Schedule (Indications)
   • Efficacy
   • Herd immunity (i.e., protection for those w/ contraindications)
   • Contraindications/Adverse effects
   • Benefit vs risk
3. Physical and chemical properties
   • Types
   • Adjuvants
   • Preservatives
4. Mechanism of action (Developing immunity)
5. History
6. Society and Culture
   • "Controversy" (civil liberties, religion, refuted ideas like Autism) - might be better if can integrate and remove as separate section.
   • Availability of vaccines
     • Rich vs poor diseases
     • Economics of development
     • Intellectual property
7. Research directions
   • Delivery systems
   • Therapeutic cancer vaccines
8. Use in nonhumans

Zodon (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Vaccine Safety

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

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

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

Autism Rates Remaining High After Mercury Removed

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

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

Also, it's not true that autism is absent in the traditional Amish. See Strauss et al. 2006 (PMID 16571880) and A Photon in the Darkness. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Polyvalent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflist

Sorry, I don't understand the logic behind this edit, which replaced '{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}' with '<div class="references-small"><references /></div>'. This change makes the output look considerably worse on Firefox, because it drops support for multiple columns. From this comment on my talk page it appears that the motivation is support for a smaller font with IE7, but doesn't {{reflist}} already do that? (It certainly does that with Firefox.) In any event, as long as the output remains useful on IE7 I'm not sure it's a good idea to make the output ugly on more-modern browsers simply to make it look a bit better on IE7. Eubulides (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did try Reflist, but in IE7, it didn't make any noticeable change in size. Sorry about the incompatibility problems with IE7 vs. Firefox. If you want to change it back, go ahead, because it is still readable using the reflist template, it just is not any smaller, but it doesn't matter in IE, go figure!!.--Funandtrvl (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I did that. Eubulides (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, '<div class="references-small"><references /></div>' is an old code that has been superceded by {{reflist}}, a newer and better code. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect pages

Also, I don't understand the comment "links that you changed need to be piped to the "new" page names, not the "redirect" pages". For example, the text refers to variolation using "[[variolation]]". Currently, Variolation is a redirect to Inoculation, so I suppose one could change the Vaccine text to "[[Inoculation|variolation]]". But suppose in the future that Variolation becomes an article in its own right, separate from Inoculation. Then "[[Inoculation|variolation]]" will be incorrect. In the meantime, "[[Inoculation|variolation]]" isn't needed and makes the article harder to edit, so why make the change at all? Eubulides (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue won't be solved, because pages on WP are able to be renamed or moved anytime by anybody, unless the page is protected. The piping is only good for today, it may change tomorrow!--Funandtrvl (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that comment doesn't explain the motivation for replacing "[[variolation]]" with "[[Inoculation|variolation]]". Such a change doesn't fix any problem, and it makes the article harder to edit, so why make the change? Isn't it better to keep the article's source simple and easy to edit? Eubulides (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be related to WP's policy, that if certain pages are "orphaned", then they are deleted to keep data storage to a minimum. I noticed a lot of red-links in certain articles, where most of the original wikilinks were pages that were deleted. I don't know why Variolation became a re-direct, if you are well-versed in the subject, you should change it back to a real page and re-write the article, because it seems to me like it is worthy of its own page!--Funandtrvl (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get the connection. Which Wikipedia policy or guideline says that we should prefer "[[A|B]]" to "[[B]]" when B is a redirect to A? Regardless of whether Variolation is changed back to being a separate article, shouldn't we just keep the text "[[variolation]]" in Vaccine for now? That will make Vaccine (1) easier to edit now, and (2) easier to maintain in the future if and when Variolation stops being a redirect. Eubulides (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was redirected from "serum therapy" to this page. Vaccination and serum therapy are not the same. Serum therapy deserves its own page, if only as a part of the history of medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lriley47 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Other vaccine

Besides the Bill & Melinda Foundation, another company too is making a malaria vaccine. This is Sanaria, together with LUMC and St Radboud. Spokesman is Chris Janse, do google search and add to article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.168.20 (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Vaccine interference

The article Vaccine interference should be merged into this article; the most plausible section is Developing immunity. Eubulides (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No further comment, so I did the merge. Eubulides (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

History rewrite

A recent edit introduced some dubious material into Vaccine #History; in particular it added an unsourced and not-that-relevant claim that Franklin D. Roosevelt had polio. For what it's worth, the most reliable source I know of on that topic is Goldman et al. 2003 (PMID 14562158), which says FDR possibly had polio but most likely had Guillain-Barré syndrome. (For more on the topic, please see Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness.)

Rather than get bogged down in trivia about FDR, which after all is said and done is not that relevant to Vaccine, I looked for a reliable source on the topic of vaccine history, found Stern & Markel 2005 (PMID 15886151), and rewrote the section to match this source. Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this section could use a major rewrite to make it more readable to the average non-technical reader. As it reads now it's pretty cut and dry with a poor lead in. As for the FDR issue, it's not exactly irrelevant since at the time of his presidency it was thought that he had polio (which is still possible) and it was due to his efforts and promotion that the search for a polio vaccine took place. He started the March of Dimes and other organizations for getting donations and treating polio victims. There's more on this in the Jonas Salk article.

As for expanding the History section, which I tried to do, what most readers don't know is that with each new disease that's discovered, governments always get involved in the decision-making process where they need to balance the pros and cons of developing a new vaccine. You've got consumer advocates and average taxpayers concerned about side effects and costs, and there's always a battle with officials who feel that other, more pressing, health problems should get the attention. In 1976 40 million people in the U.S. were inoculated with a swine flu vaccine and the epidemic never happened! Then you've got those who are convinced that the costs and consequences of a vaccination campaign are less than the potential costs of a pandemic. And of course the drug companies are always more than happy to take tax money to develop a vaccine. As it's written now, this section is too short IMO.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both major points made in the previous comment.

• First, Vaccine #History is dry and should be made juicier; but we need to use the WP:WEIGHT suggested by reliable sources to decide what to emphasize, rather than guess that weight ourselves. For someone growing up during the 1950s, the polio vaccine story is the big gorilla; but a more neutral view of the history of vaccines, such as the one illustrated by Stern & Merkel 2005 (PMID 15886151), gives greater weight to other parts of vaccine history, so Vaccine #History should too.
• Second, I agree that government involvement, dueling constituencies, drug companies, etc., should all be covered; but these topics are not history, they're current; so they should go into some section other than Vaccine #History.

Eubulides (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As for another section, there's already one called "Economics of development" in the article which could be expanded. Yet a topic like 1976 Swine flu outbreak seems more relevant to a history of vaccines. It would also be useful to give side-effects, deaths, and other negative results from past vaccine campaigns, which seems a better fit for a "history" section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree about Economics of development. Vaccination would be a more-plausible candidate for extensive discussion of vaccination campaigns. The swine flu issue sure is topical, huh? but we must watch out for WP:RECENTISM; the cited source doesn't mention the 1976 swine flu outbreak, which suggests that perhaps we shouldn't either. Eubulides (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mannose receptors

A recent series of edits introduced the following text to the Trends section:

"Cells that function in antigen-presentation, such as Dendritic cells, through the mannose receptor<ref>Gazi U, Martinez-Pomares L. Influence of the mannose receptor in host immune responses. Immunobiology. 2009 Jan 20. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 19162368</ref>, may bind to and internalize vaccine proteins carrying mannose. The utilization, therefore, of recombinant proteins that carry mannose<ref>Vlahopoulos S, Gritzapis AD, Perez SA, Cacoullos N, Papamichail M, Baxevanis CN. Mannose addition by yeast Pichia Pastoris on recombinant HER-2 protein inhibits recognition by the monoclonal antibody herceptin. Vaccine. 2009 Jun 8. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 19520203</ref> has the potential to increase vaccine effectiveness."

While the mannose receptor is an important area of current research in vaccines, this text does not seem appropriate for the Vaccine article. First, one of the sources (Vlahopoulos et al.) is a primary study, and in a well-researched area like this Wikipedia should be citing reliable reviews. The second source, Gazi & Martinez-Pomares, is a review, but it is not about vaccines per se (the word "vaccine" and "vaccination" appears nowhere in the title or abstract) and we should be citing more on-point sources, so as to avoid original research.

Finally, the text is out of place. It is added, seemingly at haphazard, to a bullet item talking about stimulating innate immune responses (as opposed to adaptive). Mannose receptors are involved in both adaptive and innate immune response, but this bullet item is much broader than that, and includes topics such as CpG oligonucleotides or Toll-like receptors. Surely such a level of detail is inappropriate for Vaccine, and belongs in more-specialized articles. Eubulides (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Is vaccine not a Antibody generator ? If so, please include this to the definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.80.56 (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical data related to ineffectiveness of some vaccines

I don't really know much about adding this information or how to correctly format it, so I'm putting it here for your review and posting.

n 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (The Hadwen Documents)

- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don`t Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)

- In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)

- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

- In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

- In the 1970`s a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)

- In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk, who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )

- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People`s Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

- In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

-The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)

- In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)

- In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990) - In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated, "Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)

- In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994) - In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)

Thanks. 65.175.131.38 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This sort of material is briefly summarized in the Controversy section, and there would be definitely be a WP:WEIGHT problem to adding all that detail there. As the material seems to be a concatenation of primary sources its usefulness in an encyclopedia seems marginal; see WP:PSTS. Eubulides (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

DNA vaccination definition incorrect

The definition is unfortunately totally incorrect. Actualy what happens is that the DNA inserted into the cells codes for proteins that are of pathogenic origin and the immunity does not come from the cells that are infected but from the cells of the adaptive immune system (T-cells and B-cells) that recognise the proteins. Usually the DNA construct inserted codes for genes that have tags for secretion so they can be recognised by B cells

New way of making oral vaccines

By accident, a new way of making vaccines with plants has been discovered.[12] Probably it will take awhile before vaccines can be made, since this is a new approach.

Vaccine debate and NPOV

I think that since the vaccine debate article has an NPOV tag, that the referring section that is a summary of that article should also have an NPOV and particularly for the Potential for adverse side effects in general section should have a weasel words tag, since there are not attributed sources to either side of the debate.

Change wording of opening defenition sentence

Strictly speaking, the opening sentence is not correct: "A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease". Not every person will achieve immunity through reception of a vaccine. I propose a more neutral wording in this regard- change "that improves" to "designed to improve". A definition from the first source I looked at was inline with this, Princeton's open WordNet 2.0: "immunogen consisting of a suspension of weakened or dead pathogenic cells injected in order to stimulate the production of antibodies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs (talk • contribs) 10:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention in that source of "designed to". And it's a weak source anyway. A better source than an online dictionary is a reliable source about vaccines published in a medical journal. I used Google Scholar and the first definition I found was "We adopt the definition of vaccine as an agent that enhances the potentiality of a response to the challenge by an invader." The context was a discussion of immune responses. The source was Kohler et al. 2000 (PMID 11115710). The lead sentence for Automobile says that an automobile is a "wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor". Obviously some automobiles don't work, but it's not necessary to mention that fact here: the lead sentence is supposed to define the term, and does not and should not go into details about objects that might not be automobiles in the strict sense because they don't work properly. The situation for Vaccine is similar: the lead sentence should define what vaccines are, and not be cast in terms that raise doubts about effectiveness by talking about preparations that were supposed to be vaccines but are not. Eubulides (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comparison with automobiles, but there is a difference- if your automobile doesn't work when someone buys it, it is a lemon, whereas vaccines are expected to not work in certain individuals.

• The definition should probably also avoid "immunity", since that word is usually used in the context of all or nothing. The current Wikipedia definition of immunity doesn't seem to leave room for the concept of a weak immunity that is overcome.

medical defintions- from the first websites when searching for "medical definitions" on google, these may be for lay people

• http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vaccine - a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), or of antigenic proteins derived from them, administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases.
• http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=vaccine - a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.
• http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?vaccine - A suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (bacteria, viruses or rickettsiae), administered for the prevention, amelioration or treatment of infectious diseases.

First two "online biology textbooks"

• http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossV.html#vaccine - A preparation containing dead or weakened pathogens that when injected into the body elicit an immune response.
• http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vaccines.html any preparation of dead or weakened pathogens, or their products, that when introduced into the body, stimulates the production of protective antibodies or T cells without causing the disease

So far it seems like the biological definitions avoid the intent phrases "administered for, administered to, in order to", which makes sense. But this article is not solely about the biology of vaccines, so we may not want to mimic that style. Gregwebs (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the definition description of "a small amount of an agent . . ." because it is not a small amount that is used. A relatively large amount is used in on injection in order to provoke an immune response. This is a very common misconception among students, and needs to be worded properly here. Egon14 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection

{{Adminhelp}}

Please semi-protect this article, preferably permanently. It is a magnet for IP vandals. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected. Try using WP:RFPP for a quicker response. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Autism

But what about all the parents that say they watched their kids slip into diseases like autism soon after they recieved a vaccine? I know there isn't much research on this, but there is probably a reason for that. I feel that reason is if it suddenly became apparent that vaccines potentially caused diseases like autism, then no one would get their kid vaccinated, thus financially effecting the pockets of many MD's, companies, etc. I don't know, but it all seems suspicious and I wish there was actual research into this. If there isn't anything to worry about in a vaccine why isn't there more research. It seems someone is afraid of what they might find. 199.34.4.20 (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)1/25/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.34.4.20 (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First, please check out articles on MMR vaccine controversy, Thiomersal controversy, Causes of autism & Epidemiology of autism. There has been extensive research on the subject, which has effectively eliminated vaccination or any vaccine components in the etiology of autism. This is not to say that vaccines are without risk of adverse effects, rather the scientific and medical consensus is that the benefits of the current vaccination schedules far outweigh the risks for almost everyone. I suggest you do some actual investigation before you assume that there isn't sufficient research and imply a vast greedy conspiracy to cover your own ignorance. — Scientizzle 16:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

History

The History section of this article starts in the 1770s with the famous story about Edward Jenner. It looks to me, however, that the history of inoculation goes back much farther, with people in Boston getting inoculated from smallpox in 1721, after Cotton Mather learned of the practice from Onesimus, a Sudanese slave. You can read more in the article about Mather. I think that we should include some information about the use of inoculation predating Jenner in Boston, and also in Africa and Turkey, so that we don't give the impression that vaccines were something that Jenner started up out of the blue.Gary (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

TH2

Hygiene hypothesis says "..., vaccination only uses the Th2 mechanism." but I can't see any mention of this in this vaccine article. Is it [still] correct and are there any sources ? Rod57 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Invention

This is my first edit. Please be gentle. :) This article starts with "Invented by the Chinese..." but the Chinese connection isn't mentioned at all in the History section or anywhere else in this article. The inoculation page does mention a Chinese history, but it also discusses the possibility of an Indian origin. Based on my understanding of the distinction being drawn between vaccination and inoculation and given the lack of certainty regarding the origins of inoculation, I suggest striking these words from the vaccine article. Would this be the appropriate action? Paul24682003 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the page was in a vandalized state. I have now reverted to the last good version. Thanks for catching the problem and reporting it here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious section

The "oppositon to vaccination" section includes a claim referenced to a link from an activist website alleging that spreading opposition to vaccination amounts to involuntary manslaughter. It's not making medical claims, so WP:MEDRS isn't an issue, though I have some doubts as to the usefulness of the source. Given that this section is a summary of the Vaccine controversy article and that topic is not covered there, I've removed it for now. SDY (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

opposition to vaccination

I have several concerns with the last sentence in this section, which I have re-posted below. Following the numbered responses, I include a brief referenced quotation and then my comments on it.

"In response, concern has been raised that spreading unfounded information about the medical risks of vaccines increases rates of life-threatening infections, not only in the children whose parents refused vaccinations, but also in other children, perhaps too young for vaccines, who could contract infections from unvaccinated carriers (see herd immunity).[24]"

1) "In response, concern" Phrasing the above as a response indicates it deviates from the subject / subheading. It starts a criticism of opposition to vaccination.

2)"concern has been raised" stated in the passive voice, this phrasing covers that no source is referenced. I find it biased.

3)"spreading unfounded information" This is a straw-man falacy, unfounded information is never a good thing. As the author did not prove that all opposition to vaccination is unfounded, I find it biased, implying that all opposition to vaccination is unfounded, yet not listing specific oppositions and specific criticisms of them.

4)"information about the medical risks of vaccines increases rates of life-threatening infections" The above quote makes a causal statement: information increases infections. 4a- I believe it is incorrect to discourage discussion / discourse 4b- information is not action, though people may chose to act on information.

5) the last section of the sentence with those "perhaps too young for vaccines" a phrase taken from the referenced New England Journal of Med. The referenced article is a decent one, and the comments on 'herd immunity' are perhaps better suited to the Vaccine / Effectiveness section (which appears above the 'opposition to vaccination' section. The Effectiveness section could include text about vaccination rates and herd immunity and use the included reference link. However, its present inclusion in this section gives this subsection the appearance of a persuasive argument as the text about young infants and then the sole citation of a medical text seems to be a rebuttle of any who would oppose vaccination.

---Suggestion--- The sentence be deleted. Herd immunity and associated NEJM reference would be well placed in the section above entitled "Effectiveness" with a sentence on vaccination rates.

Thank-you for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.1.65 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with point 4b about that information does not mean it will change behaviour. The claim implies that information critical of vaccination leads to people not vaccinating in a discrete and linear fashion. This claim should be backed by evidence of a direct causal link. The link between the existence of vaccine-critical information and disease outbreaks is not adequate because there are too many intervening variables. Vaccination behaviour is complex and not easily changed. Where large scale changes have occurred as a result of vaccine-critical information, this has usually been because a medical professional has put forward the theory which has been acted upon by governments in vaccine policy or by sustained media attention.

OM OM (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Common Chemicals May Weaken Vaccine Response

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

Very interesting if correct. It seems that the page cited as the report is down, which is a shame. If you have links to a mirror of it or something, that would definitely make adding the information much more reliable. Its just a fairly large claim, so that primary source would be very important to have before putting it up on the main page. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted this in the talk of 'god gene'

Pentagon video on 'removing' 'god gene'. I dont know what to make of this? is this real or fake?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nADFJlAggnY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

National Academies' new book "Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality"

Came here just to plug the book, but noticed that this page has nothing on adverse effects or safety - which is pretty far from the recommendations over at WP:MEDMOS, and, regardless of where one stands on the vaccine controversies, looks to violate WP:NPOV. The closest section is Vaccine_controversy#Safety. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality has come through in 2012; these studies are regularly done pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Page ix describes the publication as "the largest study undertaken to date, and the first comprehensive review since 1994", although it also says the IOM has done its duty pursuant to the act 11 times, so it's not exactly breaking new ground. Freely accessible online. Page 18 says "the evidence convincingly supports 14 specific vaccine-adverse effect relationships"; the following pages have a table describing those results. II | (t - c) 06:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a subject that should be covered. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance

I have added a section and quote. Other quotes could be added. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Plotkin/Orenstein/Offit quote

The quotation "With the exception of safe water, no other modality, not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction and population growth." appeared twice in this article, sourced to "Plotkin S, Orenstein W, Offit P. Vaccines, 5th ed. Saunders, 2008." but with no indication of which of the three authors actually wrote that line. Checking the source, it just appears in plain text in the book, attributed to nobody. If we can't be sure who actually holds an opinion, it seems a little odd to emphasise it in this way. --McGeddon (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Vaccine Contamination

The user jps removed the edition of this section with the revert reason = "Massive WP:WEIGHT problem here. This issue should be covered on the page of the specific vaccine"

In 1960, it was determined that the rhesus monkey kidney cells used to prepare the poliovirus vaccines were infected with the SV40 virus (Simian Virus-40). SV40 was also discovered in 1960 and is a naturally occurring virus that infects monkeys. In 1961, SV40 was found to cause tumors in rodents. More recently, the virus was found in certain forms of cancer in humans, for instance brain and bone tumors, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, and some types of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, it has not been determined that SV40 causes these cancers.

In 2010 the FDA announced that components of an extraneous virus have been found in a Rotarix vaccine. As a response they recommended a temporarily suspension. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• support removal of desired content, per WP:UNDUE. KillerChihuahua 17:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We have many articles about things that people consume or use, food, drink, clothes, pills, etc. When any of these become contaminated it can be bad for the consumer, but we don't describe individual cases of contamination in the articles on those items. Such descriptions belong elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

it has been estimated that 10–30 million Americans may have received a dose of vaccine contaminated with SV40. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Polio_vaccine Prokaryotes (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So, there MAY be an issue concerning one vaccine in one country. This is the article about vaccines in general (i.e. all of them) for the whole world. Your concern belongs elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe read again, it is about 2 vaccines. Also there are many more incidents like that. Baby vaccine recalled over bacteria fears http://www.smh.com.au/national/baby-vaccine-recalled-over-bacteria-fears-20121016-27p35.html Prokaryotes (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's about TWO vaccines, perhaps your editing needs to become more competent. I responded to the apparent intent of your post, and now you tell me I should have commented on something else. When conversations become difficult like that I lose interest. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Two similar articles

I'm no expert on this topic, but it seems half of the information on this page is virtually repeated on the vaccination page. This makes me wonder why there are two pages. 122.107.217.142 (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Space for edible vaccines

I think it would be interesting to include some of the developments in edible vaccines on the page. Alexstrom14 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline Needs References

I just noticed that the timeline is missing references. The 1000AD figure for Chinese variolation seems to be hard to find on the Internet, and I'm wondering where it's from. Dmutters (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

vaccine vs. actual infection

I suggest that the article should explain why a vaccine can be effective even after infection by the actual virus. Why does the actual disease agent not itself work as effectively as a vaccine. What benefit is obtained by vaccinating after infection ?92.21.214.28 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

virus or what ?

The article uses terms such as virus, agent, disease-causing microorganism, microbe and so on as if they are interchangeable or equivalent. Is this in fact the case. Could a clearer introcuction be written describing in less nebulous terms the range of disease causing agents that can be tackled by vaccines. If any disease might potentially be subject to a vaccine, please explain more clearly.92.21.214.28 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Effectiveness

I have changed the introductory line. Previous entry was scientifically very dubious and seemed the product of someone on a political (anti-vaccine) agenda. The reference [3] seemed quite misinterpreted to support a statement of non-effectiveness of vaccines. Please do not revert to previous version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.246.184 (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived too soon and nothing recent left

Archive-1 is less than 31k (2003-2014) and could have been left here a while longer. Even when an archive is made it would be helpfull if only the stuff older than say 1 year is moved ? Much of Archive 1 still seems relevant to the current article. Any objection to dearchiving most or all of it ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Spam

These edit look like spam [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120307130121/http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSz000113928zPzhtm to http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSz000113928zPzhtm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Vitamins

Recent edits [14] have added this statement: "There is those who oppose vaccines and support Vitamin D supplementation and/or sun exposure in conjunction of a healthy diet since scientific research has concluded that the immune system requires sufficient blood levels of Vitamin A and Vitamin D to produce sufficient immune system cells to defend its host from pathogens." Ignoring grammar, there is no dispute that I'm aware of that appropriate levels of vitamins are required to maintain one's immune system. How this is tied to "those who oppose vaccination" is not made clear. The sources simply support the need for vitamins, not the statement of opposition. This appears to be a synthesis or a form of coatracking. Acroterion (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the human body can defend itself when it has sufficient Vitamin D circulating in the blood since Vitamin D is ANTIVIRAL. Hence vaccines aren't required. No need to force someone to be injected with a vaccine when their immune system is strong enough to kill the virus themselves. The information is relevant to the present article.Essereio (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Not even close to credible or supported by sources. Acroterion (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Lying and disregarding the science really shows who the fraud is. I really don't know how you sleep at night by making a mess. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3308600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166406/Essereio (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in that abstract does it state that vaccines are unnecessary. The connection between Vitamin D and healthy immune response is well-documented, that reference simply reinforces that. Acroterion (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Vaccines(training wheels) are required by those with weak immune systems because it is self evident their immune system is too weak to kill the real virus. Using logic, sufficient Vitamin A & D makes our immune system strong, therefore vaccines are unnecessary to those with strong immune systems because it is self evident our immune system can kill the virus ourselves and if vaccines were necessary to those with a strong immune system, you wouldn't have deleted my post on the main page and no reputable scientist is going to focus on the negative by pointing out that vaccines(man made) are unnecessary to those with strong immune systems. They are focusing on the positive of Vitamin A & D. Lastly, (forcing) vaccines is a subtle form of abuse(stab with a needle) to those with strong immune systems. Completely unnecessary. Hopefully you're capable of following this form of basic logic.Essereio (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is unsupported by the reference you mention. Vitamins augment immunity, they do not replace vaccine. All medical articles must adhere to WP:MEDRS, not your analysis, and attempts to push an anti-vaccination agenda will be met with sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is supported and you're contradicting yourself. Is it possible to gain immunity without vaccines? Yes. The majority of people have trouble gaining immunity because they lack sufficient immune system cells to defend themselves since they have accepted their domesticated way of life. Hence no sunshine to produce sufficient Vitamin D. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vaccine#Developing_immunity It isn't my analysis. It is self-evident that Vitamins are required to prevent degeneration and promote healthy growth. There is no anti-vaccination agenda. Just a non-vaccination agenda since a vaccine is a cutthroat solution originating from a Frankenstein mentality. Sadly corruption pays and your political bullying is useless.Essereio (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No MEDRS-compliant citation, no change. Stop using this talkpage as a soapbox for your personal views. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about Excipients category

I had made a change on this page, adding truthful and documented facts here on Wiki. It was then "rightfully reverted" and I was told to talk here about it. Please let me know if this is not the appropriate location for this discussion. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter.

I reworded this:
"Egg protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present."
to say this:
"Egg protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present, such as human fetal DNA from aborted babies, fetal bovine serum, human serum albumin, porcine DNA, bovine serum albumin, and other animal DNA"

The only thing I can think of would be changing "human fetal DNA from aborted babies" to "recombinant human albumin" or "human albumin", or "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts", or "MRC-5 cells", or "human diploid cell cultures (WI-38)", or any of the various ways they explain it, but ultimately, you are still talking about human aborted fetal cells. I didn't add the guinea pig DNA that is in varicella, because that isn't in as much. But between the others I listed above, you get all the main methods of DNA in vaccines.

The changes I made should stand, as they are entirely truthful, and documented by the CDC, along with proof from the CDC in the form of a link. Therefore my edits should stand and be left alone. Instead, they are being removed. This is the second time it was removed, so I am wondering what the purpose is of removing truthful and accurate information. I figured rather than putting it up again, I would attempt to find out the reasoning to delete truthful information. At this point, it just seems that some want this hidden, and no one should hide facts from those wanting to research any medical choice, such as vaccines.

By the way, am not intending to "IP-hop", but am not able to control my IP address. It is based on my location, work or home, and whether I am on my VPN or not...

Thank you in advance for your reply.

47.185.111.92 (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I would like to change this sentence from:

• Egg protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other proteins may be present.
  

to:

• Egg protein is present in influenza and yellow fever vaccines as they are prepared using chicken eggs. Other growth mediums are commonly used, such as human cell cultures (WI-38, MRC-5, human serum albumin, etc), bovine cultures (fetal bovine serum, bovine serum albumin, bovine extract, Medium 199), porcine (vero cells or hydrolyzed porcine gelatin), canine kidney cell protein, monkey kidney cell culture and various other animal DNA.

69.78.235.130 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This wording seems reasonable to me except the "various other animal DNA" part. DNA is not a growth medium. And any cells derived from animals are going to contain DNA, as well as many other classes of biomolecules to make up a cell, so that should be a given. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Short Feedback

I think some of the bulleted lists in the article require citations in certain places. For example, under "Types - Experimental" there is no source verifying the statements made about DNA vaccines, particularly that experimental work has been done as of 2015 but not for human use. Similarly under "Effectiveness" there exists a list of factors affecting vaccine efficacy with citations for only two of the five claims being made.

There are also recent developments underway commercially for new forms of vaccines that are unmentioned here. One of which that comes to mind is the work being done on encapsulated vaccines or encapsulated surface antigens for the body to detect similar to traditional vaccines.

Adel Attari (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

References

"Effectiveness" needs an extra line or two.

Some discussion should be had in this paragraph about how both bacteria and viruses mutate; and one of the mutations can be (and very very very orften is) that mutations proceed to the point where the (now mutated) infectious organism is sifficiently different to the agent in the vaccine that the antibodies, developed in response to the vaccine, will no longer work against the organism. A discussion of how quickly or slowly this happens and why (eg, influenza versus say tetanus) coudl also be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.147.226 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vaccination

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clearly there is no consensus for the merge. Unfortunately, the merge has already been done; and two months have gone by since, so undoing it, or splitting it per WP:SUMMARY STYLE as also suggested below is going to be an effort. I'll do it if no one else steps up, but this isn't really my area, so may make mistakes. --GRuban (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Articles cover the same subject matter, the article "vaccination" is basically a stripped down version of this article. I think any content in "vaccination" that is not also in this article should be added to this article and "vaccination" should redirect here, it seems confusing that there is at article "vaccination" and a separate article "vaccine" but I wanted to get consensus before merging such large important articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The effectiveness section is the same because I copied it from vaccine after another user pointed out that vaccination lacked an effectiveness section, eaven befor this I felt the articles were too similar to be separate. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) P.S why are the links another user added stuck to the bottom of the page as if they were added by whoever was the last person to comment here? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tornado chaser, regarding the preceding "P.S why ... links ... bottom of page ..." (page as it appeared). In short, because the page bottom is where ref links get put automatically by the Wiki software if no one has otherwise assigned a specific location for them. In main article space this is generally avoided by having a typical == References == section containing a {{reflist}} template, but for talkpages and such which lack a dedicated ref section it's pragmatic to place {{Reflist-talk}} (or one of its many redirects) in proximity as needed in individual sections/subsections where refs have been used. You may have already noticed this in practice but I thought it worthwhile to note here in case others coming by may wonder as well. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was having issues with this on my talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No. They are two different concepts, something a pro-science person understands completely. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

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

RfC on merge

Seeking consensus on above merge. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I like the bullet/machine gun analogy above. Entirely unnecessary merge. Keira1996 04:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support in principle - The bullet/machine gun analogy sounds good until you actually try to apply it and review the current article content. I assume the proposal is that Vaccine is the medicine and Vaccination is how the medicine is administered. If that's the case, it looks like the majority of the material in Vaccination is actually about Vaccine. Maybe start by merging just that material to Vaccine and see where we stand after that.

Some sort of work is required here because, taking a reader's perspective, it is not obvious where you would expect find whatever particular information you're looking for with the current organization. It is a big topic so WP:SUMMARY should be applied but it looks like we're trying to do that with two master summary articles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have started to move content from vaccination to vaccine where applicable. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the bullet/machine gun analogy. Does it assume that "vaccination" primarily means "mass vaccination"? If this is how "vaccination" is widely understood, the Vaccination article should do more to say so. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I have merged the articles and CSD'd vaccination. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

I am open to a redesigning of both articles, I was planning to better organize vaccine and If vaccination was rewritten I would have no problem with that, if it contained different material from related articles. As far as your assertion that this was a unilateral change, I opened an RfC, and was following suggestions from multiple editors, maybe I should have waited, but is was not a unilateral merge. Also how am I supposed to know who has seen the RfC? It doesn't seem that 1 editor not seeing the RfC is alone an indication that I was too hasty. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Suggestions from multiple editors" doesn't mean a thing. Bold action means action in respond to a need, it does not mean trashing an RFC as soon as you feel like it. "Multiple editors" means 0 or more, and in this case it seems to mean about 3, one comment, one pro and 1 con. Are you trying to be funny? You don't own those articles; your behaviour is disruptive. Oh, and see the remarks below about reading WP:RFC. JonRichfield (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

how am I supposed to know who has seen the RfC? You are not supposed to. RFC usually waits for about a month. People have real life (not to say lots and lots of articles on their watchlist). Please read WP:RFC. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please AGF, I was not trying to be funny, nor do I think I own any articles, I had no idea RfC was supposed to be open for a certain amount of time, I thought I was just asking for the opinions of other editors, and following there suggestions. I was not trying to "trash" the RfC and if I wanted to do anything "whenever I felt like" I would never have requested comments in the first place.

It is now clear to me that I made a mistake, but please recognize this as the good-faith error it was. If anyone wants to revert the merge I will not revert them.Tornado chaser (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to merge of the concepts. However a temporary merge before redesigning the two articles is a reasonable idea, so I would not advise reverting the merge. Instead, now the article, with all duplication and overlaps removed, must be split in two according to the WP:Summary style guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Does anyone have any suggestions for recruiting authors/editors for restructuring the topics? A team could approach it on a top-down basis I reckon. JonRichfield (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• oppose do not see the point in such merge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Question - Since this RFC is still open, should we restore the merge banners on the involved articles. This might assure that more editors are aware of this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this would confuse people, they would think the articles were merged and someone forgot to remove the banners. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The discussion above 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.

Reworking

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

IMO the following sections belong to "Vaccination":

• Most of "History" belongs to Vaccination#History . Vaccine#History must have a brief summary of Vaccination#History plus the history of the development of various vaccines. Also, please think about the idea of a separate History of immunization, as explained above. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• "Vaccination versus inoculation"
• "Schedule" ; {{main}}: Vaccination schedule
• "Routes of administration" IMO logically belongs to both; rather short now, but if it becomes longer, then main ext belongs to "Vaccination"

Other remarks

• "Trends" is a pointless section title. First, "trends" means something temporaneous, which wikipedia is not. Instead, its content must be distributed over meaningful sections. If none fitting, add new ones, albeit short.
• "Mechanism of function" and "Developing immunity" - these two sections IMO must be merged and focused on vaccination (cf. Artificial induction of immunity).

Any other suggestions on restructuring? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Help!

@Tornado chaser: @Staszek Lem: @BD2412: @Paul August: @Scope creep: @Kvng: @JonRichfield: @CapitalSasha: @Keira1996: @Moriori: @Azcolvin429: @SkepticalRaptor: @Doc James: @Maproom: @Diannaa: I'm going to ping everyone who participated above; if you aren't interested, my apologies, feel free to go on about your life, but I didn't want to take the chance of not enlisting someone who might want to participate. Clearly the merge needs to be undone, and I will do it if no one else steps up, but it is not really my area, so I will not be able to follow Staszek's proposal of a well thought out split or BD2412's proposal of merging in yet other articles or anything else complex. I'll be basically reverting Vaccination to how it was on September 2, then removing all the sections that then become duplicated on Vaccine. If someone has the knowledge and energy to do it better themselves, please say, and I will be more than happy to let you do it. --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Travelling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

it is not really my area - neither me. I see you "work for a company that makes software"; if you make software yourself, you must be familiar with the concept of refactoring. You do not really need to know the subject in depth to carry it out formally. So I would use logic and common sense to perform the first step: to rearrange the text as is into two parts, resisting an urge to edit. The first step, restructuring, is IMO the most intellectually challenging, because this must be done in one step. After the new structures are set, I am sure there will be plenty of "microeditors" to assist you to cleanup/evolve the articles in smaller steps. BTW, you do not need to "revert". Please see "#Reworking" above, which gives examples how to decide which section belongs which article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

When you say "I would", does that mean "I will"? Because I'd be happy to let you. I'm not asking for advice on how I should do it, I'm asking for someone who wants to actually do it. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping with and advice, triggered by your "not my area". How about we both do it and compare the results? I will do it in my user space. I hope a mechanical split will not waste much of my time. I am waiting for 22 hours, to give a chance for real experts in the area. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good idea, user space. Yes, please. I'll make a version of the two articles in my user space, and you can either make minor changes there, or if you wildly disagree, do an alternate split in yours, and we'll compare, and when reasonably happy move to main space. That will work. --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a plan, then. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As threatened, User:GRuban/Vaccination, basically Vaccination as of August 26 and User:GRuban/Vaccine, based on the current Vaccine article with everything I could find word-for-word in Vaccination removed, and the History section patched up from Vaccine of August 29. --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: So, good, bad, indifferent? --GRuban (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry forgot. I will look at it next hour or two. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I moved one section, the rest looks like a correct split to me. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I asked an admin, Anthony Appleyard, to merge histories of article pairs, if this is possible. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I sympathise, but am in a fix for time just now. I also am not a medical man, let alone an immunologist, but if you still are in difficulty in mid-January... JonRichfield (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

January? Oh lord I hope not! :-) I was thinking days, not months... --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for all the confusion I caused, I'm not sure if I can do too much work on this, as the history is not my area, my work on vaccine-related topics is more correcting scientific errors, POVs, SYNTH/OR, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Tornado chaser: Here, "history" likely means the edit history of the Wikipedia page, not the history of vaccination. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Tornado chaser, Staszek Lem, BD2412, Paul August, Scope creep, Kvng, JonRichfield, CapitalSasha, Keira1996, Moriori, Azcolvin429, SkepticalRaptor, Doc James, Maproom, and Diannaa: About these 2 history requests:
  • "Put User:GRuban/Vaccine on top of Vaccine" :: sorry  Not done, due to WP:Parallel histories :: while people were using User:GRuban/Vaccine as a scratch page, other people were editing page Vaccine directly.
  • "Put User:GRuban/Vaccination on top of Vaccination" ::  Not done :: it seems that page Vaccination has been text-merged into page Vaccine, and if I performed that history-merge, thus undoing the text-merge, it would annoy some of the people here :: best first discuss for a consensus about whether to un-textmerge page Vaccination from page Vaccine.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• In the discussions above there was no objection to reordering the two pages. Since history merges are impossible I would suggest user:GRuban to be bold and copy his article versions on top of existing pages. In case of serious objections this can be easily undone. Until now I put "underconstruction" tags (ignored by GRuban) so that nobody makes edits which would be in need of merging. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Everyone should feel free to improve further. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018 - Oxford comma addition

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

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

Sources

For reference:

Recently published Vaccines: An achievement of civilization, a human right, our health insurance for the future Natureium (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ebola vaccine now available

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

SECTION: Production -> Excipients "Thimerosal is a mercury-containing antimicrobial..." > Change the spelling of Thimerosal => Thiomersal Thyon (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The "Thimerosal" spelling is used throughout the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh, no it isn't, and it should be Thiomersal, as that's the international name (and indeed, our article is at Thiomersal).  Done Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I found 7 instances of "Thimerosal". I guess I should have taken a look for "Thiomersal" as well. Either way, as long as the same spelling is used throughout the article, I'm good. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries, there are quite a few references to Thimerosal in the references, which is fine as they are US documents and I haven't changed those, only the Wikitext. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - DNA vaccine

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

I concur; and remember, currently both RNA and DNA vaccines are in development for human use (coronavirus).Roland Of Yew (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Vaccination-introduction-and-cases-or-deaths-scaled.jpg

The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the number of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced

Has nothing to do with death rates. Also the changed description is misleading ("The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the number of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced"). The spread of inf. dieseas cannot me measured by the death cases - rather with number of cases. Among antivaxxers, referring to death rates is a common motiv, but simply wrong. I would remove at least the small pox diagramm. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Change the text then, but don't remove the figure. I would make it "The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the share of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced". The share of deaths is a good indication for the spread of the disease (for smallpox, but nowadays also for covid). This has nothing to do with antivaxxers, the graph just shows vaccines work. --PJ Geest (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 13:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, the share of deaths is NOT a good indication. Vaccines should prevent diseases, not death. For death rates, many more factors play a crucial role (aseptic techniques, antibiotics, generell improvment of medicine,...). For smallpox (first picture), you clearly see that the death rates were falling regardless of the vaccination. Also, for measels and polio cases were listed, why not for small pox? Why do we see percentages for small pox death rates, and not absolut numbers?

This is misleading and could feed antivaxxer's wrong claims. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Again, wrong. Vaccines are not designed to beat death, but to prevent infections. By that ofc the worst outcome (death) can be prevented, but also many other factors contribute to that. And in that particular case you clearly see that the death rates were falling BEFORE vaccination. The severity is not shown.

Using misleading figures is a no-go. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Before vaccination there where natural fluctuations in share of deaths in smallpox. Only after vaccination you have a significant fall in share of deaths, so to say death rates were falling before vaccination is nonsense. The vaccine was not immediately widely used, but coverage only increased gradually after invention. A decline in deaths is a very important result of vaccins (for smallpox there where millions of deaths), so it is important to show that. Why don't you want to show that vaccins diminish deaths?--PJ Geest (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For deaths other factors can also play a rol (but the spread of the disease is the main factor). You say antibiotics have an influence on the death rate (of smallpox), but the first antibiotics was only invented in the 20th century, while the graph of smallpox is only until 1900. Plus antibiotics don't work against viruses (like the smallpox, polio and measle viruses), antibiotics only work against bacteria. Also there where no medications available for treating smallpox in the 19th century. Furthermore also the number of cases is not an exact number for the spread of the disease, but only an indication: it depends of the amount of testing or the way of registering sick persons. For example nowadays for covid there is much more testing in a lot of countries in the second wave in August then in the first wave in March-April (only severe cases where tested and registered). So comparing the spread between both waves is not reliable based on the number of cases, the number of deaths are more reliable then the number of cases to compare the first and second wave. This graph comes from a highly reliable source (Our World in Data), which is used to presenting data. So I propose to @Julius Senegal: to first come with a source which says that the deaths or death rate are unreliable as indication for the spread of the disease, before this part of the graph can be deleted. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Again wrong. Besides of the fact that this small-pox image represents only London until 1900 (!), I have taken antiobiotics as example. Others are e.g. better medicine on the whole or hygienics. Death is the worst outcome of a disease, but many other dieseases don't result in death.

This image compares death rates with infection rates. Vaccines show a clear convincing influence on infection rates, not to death rates because - as pointed out zig times - other factors contribute to this.

Interestingly, why are u not showing the case numbers, which are also shown on https://ourworldindata.org/smallpox ?

Your argument with the numbers as not exact is - sorry to say this - nonsense. If this was the case, then death numbers would be even more biased.

And, no, you want to have this image of death rates, you have to explain why you 1) dont show the infections rates as found in OWID and 2) why you are comparing death rates with infection rates (and city vs. world, different years) and so on. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: That there is no correlation between death cases and infection cases is exemplified here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Senegal (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

You say there is no correlation in this graph here between deaths and cases. I just calculated the correlation on this graph between deaths and cases [15] and the correlation is 0.61. This is a moderate to strong correation (see Guideline for interpreting correlation coefficient. Certainly if you take into a account that the death numbers are highly rounded (which limits the possible correlation), this is a strong correlation. So you come up with a source which backs up my argument.--PJ Geest (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Death cases are not a good indicator

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

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

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

Saying my calculation is irrelevant and then saying you calculate it differently without showing your calculation is not really constructive. I calculated the correlation for all the years you have both data for deaths and cases by the way and took the standard way to calculate correlation.

Yes the measles where low before introduction of the vaccine, but probably the cases where also much higher before 1940, but unfortunately you don't have data of the cases from that period. So it does not show deaths have a bad correlation with the introduction of the vaccine. At the introduction of the vaccine both deaths and cases drops (but you cannot sea this well on the graph because of the scaling).

You say "This is similar to the smallpox situation" about that the infections drastically lower before the introduction, but you still give no source. Also it is the death/case ratio which counts: if this is very irregular then the deaths are not a good predictor (but only for that disease). But the fact that the cases go down or up (and the deaths at the same time also) does not say anything about that deaths are a bad predictor for the spread of the disease. --PJ Geest (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't get the point - what YOU are calculating is simply WP:OR, so irrelevant for this discussion.

As for measles we do have data before 1940, maybe you shouldn't simply grab images from OWID, but look at those (it is the third sub image above).

So no, from 1921 to 1963 the measles cases were ~ 500,000 per year, whereas the death rates fell dramatically from 1925 to 1950. Vaccination started 1963, and only this had an affect on infection rates.

Hence infection rates is the key, not death rates as for vaccination. That is why the smallpox image is misleading. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added the diagram. I fail to see the argument you are making, and multiple people disagree with you. If you think this image really should be removed, you are welcome to hold an WP:RFC. But so far, three people think it should stay, and only you think it should go. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Measles in England & Wales 1940-2017

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

"But it is not correct vaccination had only an effect on infection rates".

I have never claimed that. I only pointed out that death rates are inferior to infection rates in respect to the effect of vaccinations. If you don't get the disease, you won't suffer from it (including fatal outcomes).

"Luckily the OWID graph does not show the number of deaths for measles."

Correct, but there is ofc data avaialbe: https://vaxopedia.org/2018/04/15/when-was-the-last-measles-death-in-the-united-states/

"Infectious diseases before and after a vaccine was introduced. Vaccinations have [or had?] a direct effect on the diminishment of the number of cases and contributes [or contributed?] indirectly to a diminishment of the number of deaths." would be fine indeed. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Add a word on controversies?

There's obviously been a lot of talk about the vaccines, and alternate theories about them. I think it's all nonsense, but it's significant enough that it warrants a section on its own. VALENTINE SMITH | TALK 05:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean Vaccine hesitancy? --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Technology platform" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"The adjuvant enhances the immune response of the antigen"

I believe it should read "The adjuvant enhances the immune response to the antigen" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.193.91 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. Done. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:VET

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

Change Image?

I personally don't understand why we use an image of Edward Jenner to illustrate the idea of "Vaccine." We have images of actual vaccines (See commons:Vaccine), so why not use those? AviationFreak💬 00:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

agree. i vote picture of a vaccine Clone commando sev (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the image of a vaccine is far superior to either Jenner or Salk holding the vaccines. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, only problem: smallpox vaccines are not used anymore. Don't we have a better image? --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

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

Thanks. 195.77.128.147 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Medupdate, this is the sentence as you have edited it: Vaccine manufacturers do not receive licensing until a complete clinical cycle of development and trials proves the vaccine is safe and has long-term effect, followed by scientific review by research institutions and by multinational or national regulatory organizations, such as US VRC.... My problems with your changes are these:

• 'Effectiveness' reads better than 'effect'
• 'Following' means the opposite of 'Followed by'. You are drastically changing the meaning of the sentence, and I don't think you realise you're doing it.
• You don't explain what the US VRC stands for, and you seem to miss the fact that we mention the US FDA later in the sentence.

I'm not necessarily against a mention of the VRC, but you're going to have to explain what it is, and why we need to mention it alongside the FDA. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

History

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

Edit Request June 2021

Request to edit to insert a section on contraindications as follows:

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

The reference to be inserted is as follows:

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

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

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

References

Generality

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

Vaccine Nomenclature Reference

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

 Done. Thanks for the heads up.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine definition

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

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

Edit request August 2021: distinguishing between sterilizing immunity and non-sterilizing immunity?

It seems people are very emotional about (Covid19) vaccination based on a believe that all vaccines are created equal.

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

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

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

•  Not done It is unclear what changes you are requiring to be made. Please supply a "change X to Y" format with supporting sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

Vaccine hesitancy

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

Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective. Vaccine hesitancy often results in disease outbreaks and deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, the World Health Organization characterizes vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats.

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

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

Sources

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

Sourcing the statement "The effectiveness of vaccines has been widely studied and verified."

@MrOllie: I'd like to continue the conversation here to avoid an edit war. Wikipedia is not a place where we post obviously well supported information without providing the support. The issue is that statement is not supported by the reference. If you know of a source that supports the statement, put it into the page. Poppa shark (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the referenced body of the article. Did you look at the four references in the first sentence of the Effects section, not to mention the cite that immediately follows the statement in the lede? Whether or not that citation is the best support for that statement, it is not cause to remove it all - it doesn't even have to be cited, since it's in the lede. As for your statement concerning edit-warring, you will be sanctioned if you continue to remove content without an appropriate consensus. Threatening to edit-war is itself sanctionable if persisted in.. Acroterion (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I was not threatening to edit war, I was stating that this was the appropriate venue to continue for the conversation after we'd each reverted each other. The cite immediately following the statement does not support the statement, and I don't think any of the sources in the first sentence of the Effects section do either, though they are closer. Two of them are papers that discuss how to monitor vaccine efficacy and two are articles that state the importance of childhood vaccinations.

I realize English Wikipedia is very western centered, but there are several vaccines in common use that are not well monitored, and whose efficacy are questioned, which is what made me initially scrutinize that statement. If we want to keep that sentence in the lede, and feel that the Hub article and the HealthyChildren article are enough to support it, I would not argue further, but I would prefer that we remove the citation immediately after the statement, and that we make the statement more specific to vaccinations that are approved in the US and EU. Poppa shark (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you're reading something into the statement that isn't there. It doesn't say that all vaccines available anywhere have been widely studied and verified, just that vaccines as a concept have been. I think that's quite uncontroversial, though sadly it does need to be said given the latest trends in misinformation. MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to talk about vaccines as a concept, as each individual vaccine performs very differently. I know it doesn't say all, but I'd still prefer that we make the statement more specific to vaccines approved and/or recommended in the US and EU. Unfortunately, I'm not certain how to do that without making the section sound clunky. If you have any good ideas, I would like to see a change, but barring that, I will not push for the removal of the statement.

I also feel strongly about removing the NY Times reference just beyond it, as it is unrelated to the statement. Are you opposed to that change? Poppa shark (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the NYT citation absolutely supports the statement. [16] Given:

• “The fundamental logic behind today’s vaccine trials was worked out by statisticians over a century ago.“
• “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a long history of following the effectiveness of vaccines after they’re approved.“
• “Vaccines don’t protect only the people who get them. Because they slow the spread of the virus, they can, over time, also drive down new infection rates and protect society as a whole."
• Scientists call this broad form of effectiveness a vaccine’s impact. The smallpox vaccine had the greatest impact of all, driving the virus into oblivion in the 1970s. But even a vaccine with extremely high efficacy in clinical trials will have a small impact if only a few people end up getting it.”

I think these statements verify the content pretty completely. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't it have to be a WP:MEDRS? jp×g 06:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're absolutely right. This should do:

Amanna, Ian J.; Slifka, Mark K. (2018). "Successful Vaccines". Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–30. doi:10.1007/82_2018_102. eISSN 2196-9965. ISSN 0070-217X. PMC 6777997. PMID 34129355. The effect of vaccines on public health is truly remarkable. One study examining the impact of childhood vaccination on the 2001 US birth cohort found that vaccines prevented 33,000 deaths and 14 million cases of disease (Zhou et al. 2005). Among 73 nations supported by the GAVI alliance, mathematical models project that vaccines will prevent 23.3 million deaths from 2011–2020 compared to what would have occurred if there were no vaccines available (Lee et al. 2013). Vaccines have been developed against a wide assortment of human pathogens. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Now that's the good stuff!! :^) jp×g 09:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve added “safety and” given the large number of doses described in that quote and extremely low adverse event rate reported. But I’m not wed to it, if someone felt it was an overreach we could remove it or add another MEDRS to bolster — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

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

 Done— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Definition of a vaccine

Article states "A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease." which is correct depending on the source. However many organisations and professionals use the CDC or Merriam-Webster definition, so a brief summary of their changes to the definition could be a good addition.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.iflscience.com/fact-check-why-did-the-cdc-change-its-definition-of-vaccination-62577 Sarka9000 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Both those organisations are from the one country. This is a global encyclopaedia. Why should they influence what we say? HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Because many countries and professionals in them also use those definitions, at least in the EU. So not only one country. This is not to say I agree with that definition, but that it is used a lot today. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Here in Australia we don't use the CDC definitions for things, and we have our own dictionary. Anything we add would need to somehow demonstrate that the Americans definitions are used extensively outside that country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

Macmillan dictionary has British definition "a substance put into the body, usually by injection, in order to provide protection against a disease".

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/vaccine

Australian government defines vaccine as "A product often made from extracts of killed viruses or bacteria, or from live, weakened strains of viruses or bacteria. A vaccine can stimulate an immune response that protects against natural infection."

https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/technical-terms

Up till 2021, Finnish THL defined it as "a preparation that stimulates the immune system to produce immunity to a specific infectious disease, providing protection against the disease." but now it is defined as "an effective and safe way to combat infectious diseases. A vaccine provides protection to the vaccinated person and also indirectly to other people by reducing the spread of pathogens in the population."

https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/information-about-vaccinations/why-are-vaccinations-needed-

You can see how vaccines by todays definition do not provide immunity, but protection against infection. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as our article links to acquired immunity, which is still what the COVID vaccine provides, I see no reason to change our definition. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the differences in definition should be discussed. Even the experts seem to somewhat disagree about whether you should be talking about immunity or just protection. The traditional definition gives the impression of almost perfect resistance to disease, while the new one may include less potent inoculations.

Also this article isn't about Covid, it's about vaccines. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'm open to a suggestion for wording in the body text. But otherwise I'm not sure what we're arguing over. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Could something like this work:

Traditionally a vaccine has been defined in literature as a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease.[1] Since 2021, many organisations have adopted a wider definition of a vaccine. These newer definitions try to dispel the misconception that vaccines always give almost perfect resistance to disease replacing wording regarding immunity as producing some level of protection against a disease or infection. In some cases, vaccines are also said to give indirect protection to other people by reducing the spread of pathogens in the population. Both definitions are still in use depending on the country or organisation.

The safety and effectiveness of vaccines has been widely studied and verified. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not accurate. Forty years ago, my toddler daughter caught measles after having been vaccinated against it as a baby. The doctor explained to us then that the vaccine did not provide total protection, but significantly reduced symptoms. The 2021 date is simply wrong. And I'm not convinced that it's accurate today to say "often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe". My impression is that most are not. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe change that a bit then, "originally vaccines were made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, but today other technologies are more common"?

The comment about the protection level is from that earlier source regarding the changes made to the definition. Of course there must have been some doctors and people who have known they are not 100%, but it is a common misunderstanding that vaccines were 100%. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about vaccines, not common misunderstandings about vaccines. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

So it is OK in a global encyclopaedia that we present a definition from Iowa, but not the definition used by CDC and a bunch of other organisations & countries and do not explain it in any way? 91.156.95.220 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not OK that we present a definition from Iowa. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, so how about this:

Traditionally a vaccine has been defined in literature as a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease.[1] Since 2021, many organisations have adopted a wider definition of a vaccine. These newer definitions try to dispel the misconception that vaccines always give almost perfect resistance to disease by replacing wording regarding immunity as producing some level of protection against a disease or infection. In some cases, vaccines are also said to give indirect protection to other people by reducing the spread of pathogens in the population. Both definitions are still in use depending on the country or organisation.

The safety and effectiveness of vaccines has been widely studied and verified. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and was originally made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins but today other technologies are more common. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that, at least in the US, medical literature described the “action” of a vaccine as a solution introduced into the body and the body responding to “that solution.” It wasn’t until SARS-CoV-2 emerged that it changed. And millions received mRNA-based solutions before agencies under Health and Human Services changed the definition of vaccine/inoculation to include gene-based therapies.

I know this because I was a vocal opponent to mRNA shots being called a vaccine before the change, precisely because the body is not reacting to the solution but to what the cells at the injection site are instructed to produce. A new step had been introduced in the process! Until the body’s cells follow the mRNA instructions and begin making the virus spike protein, no antibodies are produced.

This is a vastly different sequence of events from traditional vaccines in which antibodies are produced against the contents of the shot. ChloeMS (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Your cells are part of your body. If they do something different as a result of the solution being administered, the definition is still accurate. Your activism doesn't change the definition. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Overall this seems like a change in search of a reason. I think the current article wording is excellent, and doesn't need further complication. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reason enough that it isn't accurate 91.156.95.220 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Which part is not accurate? 22:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

I want to modify the following sentence: "A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins."

I have three changes to this sentence:

1. change the word "an agent" to "a substance". 2. add phrase "or its components" after the word "microorganism" 3. include polysaccharide vaccines.

So the new sentence will read as "A vaccine typically contains a substance that resembles a disease-causing microorganism or its components and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, one or more of its surface proteins or polysaccharides"

See this web page for importance of polysaccharide vaccines. https://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts_pneumococcal_vaccines.asp Bondsubb (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a better reliable source. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)