Talk:MMRV vaccine

"Clinical trials"

I removed a section titled "clinical trials", which read like this:

A number of adverse effects have already been reported from ProQuad clinical trials in 2002. Among the 33 trial participants enrolled in a small Olympia, Washington clinical trial for the ProQuad quadruple vaccine, one child developed autism afterwards; another case of autism, at the same pediatrician's office in Olympia, was reported in a separate clinical trial with 68 participants.

No direct reference is provided. This makes these claims untenable as per WP:CITE and WP:V. Perhaps Ombudsman could - before reverting blindly - provide the sources for this. What was the confidence interval of both trials? Is this paediatrician known to overdiagnose PDD spectrum disorders? It all sounds a bit too bad to be true. JFW | T@lk 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it's Dan Olmsted's investigative reporting again. Thought so. Naturally, there are allegations of a coverup. Sounds juicy. But 33 and 68 are fairly small series to prove the efficacy of a vaccine, and such a trial is by definition underpowered to detect associations with autism. No conclusions can be drawn statistically from the minuscule amount of actual information provided.

Olmsted's tone is also far from objective. It is not a detached description of the events but starts with the emotive "Call it the silence of the feds." On Wikipedia he'd have an {{NPOV}} tag on his work within no time. In the external link description there is no indication that these are columns that contain personal opinion rather than real reporting. JFW | T@lk 01:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who care: some useful links[1], [2], [3], [4]. JFW | T@lk 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Better still[5]. JFW | T@lk 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

removed uncited speculation or assertion

", apparently to overcome immune interference from the other attenuated (weakened) live viruses in the combined shot". WP:CITE. Whence the apparition? Midgley 09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a vaccine article? --- RFC on vaccine articles

Or is it another article giving the ombudsman view that vaccines cause autism?

• If the latter it is surplus.
• If the former, then I suggest that the whole arrangement of vaccines in articles needs looking at. Consider this an informal RFC, please.

Using an article to talk about a single brand of a particualr mixture of vaccines is not a good way to proceed. (We have the same problem in medical infromatics, in handling the data on immunisation preparations, administrations, and expected immunity in medical records - each vaccine/disease component gets handled as a separate entity, while the serial numbers link it to the preparation used. It is informatically correct that way.

I suggest articles on each vaccine - thus the Chickenpox vaccine article would note that it is put up in Varivax by one manufacturer, in {brand} by another, as a component in the 4 and 5 component mixtures by other mfgrs as brands. The information that one brand or mixture has a higher titre is interesting, provided it is verifiable, and the reasons for the dose in each preparation are also interesting.

I suggest that the article on a mixture should be either a redirect to a page on mixed vaccines - economical for soemone looking them up, since they will typically need to see several, or the shortest possible note pointing to the individual component vaccines pages.

The current situation is over-particularised. Midgley 09:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Partly corrected but too bad to stand there

I've removed this for discussion. Midgley 10:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The MMR controversy

Main article: Vaccine controversy

Controversy has arisen regarding the safety of the MMR vaccine, because a growing number scientists and parents have reported serious adverse events and related them to the vaccine, in particular the increased incidence of autism . For several years from 1995, on behalf of a number of families who claimed their children were seriously injured by the MMR vaccine, the Legal Aid Board in the United Kingdom granted financial assistance to investigate the claims. This was withdrawn when it became clear to the Board that the case had no chance of success, and large amounts of publicly funded research had concluded there was no likely link. In February 1998, a group led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a paper Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children in the respected medical journal The Lancet that has become the grist of an acrimonious dispute between medical authorities and those who have questioned their wisdom on vaccination matters.

Reporter Dan Olmsted, a frequent writer on autism, reports that a in a clinical trial conducted in 2002 in Olympia, Washington, more cases of autism occurred than to be expected.[6]

Ombudsman, that is a partial and soapbox report of the material on the Lancet that has been covered elsewhere. It is known by the author to be an unacceptably poor entry in WP. Making a mess that other people have to clear up, or that slips through and produces an inaccurate and misleading encyclopaedia is not good behaviour in WP. The original assertion there was that legal aid had been granted ... with no mention that it had been withdrawn, nor on what grounds. This was not an attempt to inform people, or to help them reach an informed decision on what to do, it was another POV by Ombudsman. Midgley 10:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is predictable stuff, and this article is a POV fork. I've highlighted the Olmstedisms above. JFW | T@lk 10:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And what does WP do with POV forks? Midgley 12:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I notice there is no mention or link to the controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine. Why is that? Mimi ^(yack) 13:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as we know, no reliable sources have linked this controversy to the MMRV vaccine. Eubulides (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MMRV vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516105359/http://www.fda.gov/cber/approvltr/mmrvmer090605L.htm to http://www.fda.gov/cber/approvltr/mmrvmer090605L.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Measles incidence-cdc.gif

Hello,

the shown file:Measles incidence-cdc.gif is outdated. I suggest to use the current data of the source (CDC) as the German version has done it: file:Masern_in_den_USA,_1950_-_2016.png (see sources in the description). Thank you. --155.91.64.15 (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I replaced it with another image. Ruslik_Zero 20:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

ATM machine?

Is it redundant to refer to "MMRV" as "MMRV vaccine" in the same way that it's redundant to say "ATM machine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.3.227 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)