Talk:Mumps/Archive 1

"PRINCIPAL POINT ON PREVENTION"

NOTE TO WHOEVER KEEPS EDITING THIS INFORMATION OUT AND RELEGATING IT:- It is fundamental and the most important information that as mumps is a mild illness in children in developed economies preventive measures are not necessary for them. It is further fundamental factual information that the British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain actively recommended against mumps vaccination based on clinical factors. They then changed that recommendation only when it went against government policy with the introduction of MMR in 1988 into Great Britain.

this is an assertion that events in 1988 caused events in 1987. Midgley 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

For the vast majority of children mumps vaccination is a clinically unnecessary invasive medical procedure.

Further, the mass vaccination programmes are driven by the World Health Organisation, which, although meant to be nominally part of the United Nations organisation is heavily influenced directly by the pharmaceutical industry. WHO's policies on disease eradication are not debated in any western democracy nor voted on. Further, the concept of disease eradication is a misnomer as scientific study of the extensive disease statistics demonstrate from countries like the UK, USA and Australia stretching back of the order of 200 years. In particular, the trends in mortality from numerous diseases was steadily dramatically and inexorably down without vaccination over the relevant periods. It was coincidental with improved quality of drinking water, nutrition and living conditions. Mortality fell from very high percentages of population over these periods to very low levels.

It is unscientific and factually incorrect to ascribe improved disease mortality to vaccination when disease mortality was falling dramatically of its own without vaccination and the figures demonstrate in numerous cases over 200 years that mortality continued to fall at the same rates after the introduction of vaccinations in many cases.

Further, this clear and incontrovertible evidence shows that the ravages of disease in less developed economies would similarly improve just as dramatically with improved quality of drinking water, nutrition and living conditions. Vaccination does nothing in that regard and can be shown to have serious consequences for the malnourished, sick and immunocompromised, which is frequently what children in very poor circumstances can be.

We in western developed nations use vaccination as a conscience improver to demonstrate how humanitarian we are in supposedly 'eradicating' disease when we are instead keeping the people concerned in poverty through our political and economic policies and those diseases were being eradicated by other means.

Accordingly, the following text has been restored:- "As mumps is a mild illness in children in developed economies preventive measures are not necessary for them. Some paediatricians recommend vaccination against mumps where such children have not contracted the disease naturally by the age of 9.

The British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain actively recommended against general mumps vaccination (see further below). They then changed that recommendation in 1987 when it became United Kingdom government policy in 1988 to introduce mass child mumps vaccination programmes with the MMR vaccine."

Further editing to restore the sense of the BMA recommendations have also been made. If anyone wishes to amend those changes, I expect to see that noted and justified so that others can follow the logic or otherwise of those making the changes.

Anon The Editor. 08:30 17 August 2005 GMT

"MMR immunization (vaccine) protects against measles, mumps and rubella and should be given to children 15 months old."

This paragraph should probably include a note about the MMR controversy so as not to appear medically POV. Lee M 01:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

What, the "controversy" where people fantasize without evidence that it's linked to autism? That's not a medical point of view.- Nunh-huh 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the fuss about it was here in the UK, but MMR is a wikilink to the MMR article, which has comprehensive information, so I think that should be sufficent for anyone interested in the topic. akaDruid 10:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for completeness, can someone confirm it can affect the thyroid too? When I had mumps, it affected both parotids (first one side then the other), and, then, it supposedly affected the thyroid (or so concluded the doctor, as I got a swollen neck much like goitre). It didn't leave any long-term effects on thyroid regulation, though. Qvantamon 08:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it can cause swelling in the thyroid, the pancreas, and other glandular tissue. - Nunh-huh 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Midgeley Vandalism ?

Is User Midgeley vandalising another user's contribution with the insertion by him in the above text of:-

"this is an assertion that events in 1988 caused events in 1987."

"signature redacted to reduce confusion (boy, it needs reducing)" (text deleted by and unsigned comment added by MidgleyRevision as of 22:52, 21 January 2006) 86.10.231.219 06:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No.--Midgley 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussions, proposals and planning for the 1988 introduction of MMR were known prior to 1988.

When? Reference pleae.Midgley 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know now, you did not know then? If you also say the assertion is wrong, then demonstrating that would be a full answer, so why not do that? Accordingly, a response other than "prove it" might be more helpful. If you prefer, we can treat this for the time being as a misunderstanding or a misplaced sense of fun or whatever. Perhaps you might prefer if we turn to some other editing of yours, commented on as set out here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Epidemiology#MMR_stuff

86.10.231.219 06:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Midgeley's comment is plainly false. Perhaps Dr Midgeley, BMA member might be kind enough to comment on why he made the comment? 86.10.231.219 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism before you accuse anyone of vandalism. Please also explain why membership of the BMA is relevant to the discussion. You appear to be splitting hairs. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is ....... the insertion of other wholly irrelevant content." User Midgeley's content is wholly irrelevant, has been planted in the middle of another editor's comments which he does not agree with (his POV) and as a medical doctor and BMA member he must be taken to know what his own organisation does and the comment added is so obviously wrong even if he were not. You also do not agree with those comments and you very quickly pop up to defend User Midgeley when his actions look like vandalism. He should have responded but you do instead. Please also do not accuse others of ignorance - the "before you accuse" comment is patronising and insulting. Is User Midgeley trying to be a bit more subtle than the average vandal? If that is the case, does that not make what he did any less vandalism? Why can't he reply and speak for himself? Why do you have to do it for him? What is going on here? 86.10.231.219 05:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fully at liberty to defend other users from your attacks. Stick to the issue at hand and avoid labeling others' actions like "vandalism", etc etc. Membership of the BMA is completely and utterly irrelevant here. The BMA is a trade union - so what? JFW | T@lk 14:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for User Midgeley to respond and explain. What's your issue? What has it got to do with you? You are entitled to your POV re BMA membership - the relevance is clear, has been set out, but you choose not to accept it. Nothing I can do about that. Sorry you feel you need to mischaracterise justified comment regarding User Midgeley's actions is an "attack". Would you say the same if a member of the public complained about spray painting graffitti by youth in a hoodie? Is that an "attack"? No and neither is asking User Midgeley to explain himself. I am not even saying it is vandalism but asking the question. You are welcome to a point of view but it really is for User Midgeley to explain. After all, he might have a perfectly reasonable explanation to explain why this completely irrelevant and obviously incorrect comment was slapped in the middle of someone else's contribution by a doctor and BMA member who is therefore more likely than others to know his comment is completely wrong. I wait to be enlightened. 86.10.231.219 15:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia administrator I play a certain role in mediating discussions and discouraging disruptive behaviour. I think you are crossing a line by saying that Midgley's response is "vandalism". I think your reactions are the ones that can be classified as "disruptive behaviour". You have not addressed any of the points I made; instead you direct your wrath to other users. Please contribute constructively. JFW | T@lk 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop mischaracterising other people if you would be so kind. You do not address the point that no one has said his behaviour is vandalism except you. I ask the question and ask him to answer. This is a discussion page. Instead of getting an answer from him what happens is that you attack me claiming I am saying things I am not. Kindly justify your remarks. Nowhere here have I said User Midgeley has committed vandalism. You are the one saying that. These attacks are so unnecessary and it would be more helpful if you made some attempt to justify your statements and engage in dialogue to explain yourself. Whilst I am sure it cannot really be the case, some might interpret this as trying to pick a fight to provoke a reaction so that you can accuse someone of breaking Wikipedia rules? Also, you do not deny User Midgeley's comment is wholly irrelevant and that it is obviously wrong and that a BMA member and doctor should be more likely to know that than someone else, so that is an admission and acknowledgement by you. That is also ample justification for ASKING THE QUESTION. Accordingly I should be most obliged if you would adopt a constructive tone and adjust the tone adopted to something appropriate to the standards Wikipedia expects. You do not justify your comments and keep on repeating them such as that User Midgeley being a doctor and a BMA member is irrelevant when it so obviously is relevant as has been demonstrated above. You must justify your remarks and engage in dialogue to explain yourself. Administrators surely must be expected to behave according to the standards Wikipedia sets for everyone else, should they not? 86.10.231.219 20:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact the Wikipedia policy key word is "deliberate". If User Midgeley confirms that

1) he had no idea that the introduction of the national vaccination campaign in question from initial proposals, through discussion and approval to agreement and implementation took more than a few months and that

2) typically these things can take two or more years to bring about and that

3) he thought it was all done in 1988 and

4) he believed the BMA did not and could not have known by the end of 1987 there were any proposals to introduce such a vaccination campaign, then there can be no element of "deliberation" and that would answer the question and clarify the matter.

Is that what so concerns you? That User Midgeley should not be asked that question? And if not, why not? It is a fair question in the circumstances and reasonable to ask for an answer. 86.10.231.219 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My only concerns are (1) you accused Midgley of vandalism (see the header above this section), (2) you keep on mentioning BMA membership as a liability (I never mentioned anything about being a doctor - do not put words in my mouth please). I'm not interested in the remainder of your points. If you want to discuss this, you may have to send him an email. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Question mark added to header. Punctuation in titles is a matter of style and frowned on in some quarters, but it will address your first stated concern. As for the rest, see immediately below:- 86.10.231.219 06:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear what is being said here. I find this very confusing. Can you please explain what you mean? 86.10.231.219 21:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Are you the user to whose comments I made a comment, adjacent to the relevant portion? If not one wonders why you feel able to criticise JFDWolff for responding to you. I am disinclined to pay attention to an anonymous attack. Midgley 22:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a reason for not responding. The whole of Wikipedia is set up to be anonymous. Would it be better to use a name like Boojum or Nunh-huh or Qvantamon or akaDruid? It is your choice to answer or not as you choose. The question has been asked. 86.10.231.219 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has its benefits. You're at another disadvantage: like 81.111.172.198 your (fixed) IP resolves to NTL cable internet in Bromley. Having a username helps conceal these details. JFW | T@lk 08:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain please? I do not understand. 86.10.231.219 06:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Being logged in usually means you get taken more seriously. You happen to have a fixed IP, but many anons have dynamic IPs and come and go without warning. I pointed out that with a username, it is harder to pinpoint your location. With simple tools, an IP address can be traced back to provider and location (Bromley, in your case). Logged in users cannot be traced in that fashion. JFW | T@lk 08:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The IP address part is only an issue if you cannot use an anonymous IP address or be routed anonymously through another IP address. The particular part I did not quite understand is why you and Dr Midgeley would want to be trying to find out my location and who I am. Would this be to publish my personal details on Wikipedia like you did to another 'anonymous' editor notwithstanding the Wikipedia ethos on anonymity? Surely that can have nothing to do with this can it? If that were to be the case might that be considered somewhat inappropriate behaviour, particularly for an Admin? Whilst surely that is not the case here, might it also be interpreted by some as a sort of veiled threat in an attempt to bully another editor? Surely that cannot be your intention so it would be helpful to know the reason. Perhaps idle curiousity, but in the circumstances of at least one previous example, might some be inclined to think there could be the more than just the semblance of a case to answer? If you could clarify, that would be appreciated. 86.10.231.219 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about me publishing anonymous users' data. Someone else did. All I did was bring that comment to a page where this person's identity was part of the discussion. Of course you could interpret my posting of your location as bullying, and as you've got a poor track record in WP:AGF I expect this accusation to be made anytime soon. Your shared methods, behaviour and interests with 81.111.172.198 make me think we've met before. Finding that you are both in Bromley practically convinces me that we've met before. Your aggressive attitude vis a vis Midgley fully convinces me that you are not here to write an encyclopedia but to push a view on vaccines, epidemiology and your other pet peeves. Now will you please go mind your own business. JFW | T@lk 19:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am obliged to you for the clarification. 86.10.231.219 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Bursting Ovaries

This recent addition deleted:-

"Women are at risk of ovarian swelling and possibly bursting. Women with the mumps should have abdominal pain closely monitored because the ovaries are at risk of bursting."

Proper medical references are required generally for this page but this particular recent addition especially needs a proper reference. It refers to something that does not seem to be in the normal literature about risks of mumps - this is an alleged complication that appears to have no basis in reality, according to what seems to be accepted medical knowledge. It is highly unlikely that an ovary would 'burst'. Eggs from ovaries will commonly be described as 'bursting' from an ovary in the normal course of ovulation. --Anon The Editor 21:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Prevention

I noticed that there is no mention made of avoiding contact with an infected person's saliva (from coughing and sneezing). I think that might be worth noting.

CAUSES AND RISKS

As currently stated this is not accurate and POV. It fails to deal with the risks being minimal to non-existent and makes the symptoms sound worse than they are. There is no balance here. 81.111.172.198 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the article doing that, or being out of line with other sources. From the article: Mumps is generally a mild illness in children... and, Orchitis (swelling of the testes) occurs in 10-20% of infected males, but sterility only rarely ensues (And that's "rare" among an already small percentage of what itself isn't serious.) a viral meningitis occurs in about 5% of those infected Any of the things it says can happen, it does not list as common. Other sources on the subject make similar statements:

Medicinenet: [1]: Mumps can cause inflammation of tissues other than the salivary glands. Most frequently, the covering and substance of the central nervous system are inflamed causing meningoencephalitis. The pancreas is another target organ resulting in pancreatitis. Especially after adolescence, mumps tends to affect the ovary (oophoritis) and the testis (orchitis). The mature testis is particularly susceptible to damage from mumps which can lead to infertility.

Webmd [2]: In children, mumps is generally a mild illness, and complications are rare. When complications develop, they may include: (similar list of symptoms to wikipedia article). Adults infected with mumps often have more severe symptoms and are more likely to develop complications than children. However, long-lasting problems from complications are rare. Indium 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The edit of this section at 20:42 on 19 November 2005 by user Nunh-huh is unusual. An edit which added balance to an unbalanced POV section was deleted on a basis that is not valid (stating "a page really can't cite itself....").

Further, the section has now been edited in a manner which will give the casual and the lay reader an unbalanced understanding of the risks of mumps, which are rare. It is not clear why this section continues to be edited in this manner. It is not clear why the valid edit was deleted.

Perhaps User Nunh-huh would be so kind as to explain? 81.111.172.198 17:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What's unusual is beginning an article with a long quote. Your version says nothing different than what was already there, it just moves it up to the top. There's no imbalance here. - Nunh-huh 19:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

So what is the "causes" section now embellished with a {{sectNPOV}} tag?[3] I have rewritten the intro with original material which explains that adults are more at risk for complications than children, which is true. I have also mentioned infertility, because although rare this is understandably a major issue for most of our readers. I think it would be strange to tone down this article more than necessary. If there are figures available, why hide them? I think a publically acceptable number needed to treat to prevent a case of infertility is very high. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why make a mild illness appear serious when it is not? 81.111.172.198 22:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not an adequate description of my edit. I clearly stated that it is a mild illness with symptoms somewhat more severe in adolescents and grownups. Would you consider it a mild illness if you'd be unable to have children as a result? JFW | T@lk 00:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that you've sprinkled NPOV tags everywhere, could you state clearly which parts of the article you don't agree with? This will facilitate discussion, and enable us to reach consensus on how some things should be phrased. This does not mean that useful statistics will be removed because they sound uncomfortable to you. JFW | T@lk 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems certain Users (you, Nunh-huh, Geni and it will become clearer as time passes how many others) revert valid edits which accurately describe disease risks and make pages describing mild illnesses like mumps as if they are really serious illnesses. In such circumstances it would assist if you could please explain how you believe "consensus" could be achieved?

In your particular case you have deleted text proposed not by me but by a different user and that is text which came from a medical source, with a reference and which accurately describes in a neat convenient manner the main point most people, including parents like me, want and need to know about mumps. You deleted the text and replaced it with text which is just plain wrong, without a reference, which is your own wording and you did it because, as you admit yourself in your personal point of view you believe it was "better than external quote".

I note that Nunh-huh added an edit to "Prevention" that claims "Anti-vaccine activists disagree." (Revision as of 21:54, 31 August 2005) which explains where you folks are coming from. Why do none of you want ordinary people to have accurate information about childhood diseases? What is your motivation? It needs to be explained because you are claiming to seek consensus but you and the others indicate that is not what is really wanted. 81.111.172.198 07:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I asked you which sections you disagree with on a factual basis. Why are you referring to User:Geni? This user has not edited this page for a long time. Or are you simply seeking out people who have disagreed with you on your anti-vaccine quest (your contibutions are generally in that vein). Again, you are obviously trying to downplay mumps to justify an anti-vaccine stance. Unless you can state specifically what parts you disagree with we are no closer to finding a good format for this article.

The quote I removed was (1) in the intro, (2) cherry-picked by yourself. JFW | T@lk 08:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

For details of my responses please see

[Outside view by Nunh-huh [4]]

81.111.172.198 18:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Which may be summarized as "81.111.172.198 will cite no sources". - Nunh-huh 00:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Kindly ignore this vandalism and for details of my responses please see:-

[Outside view by Nunh-huh [5]]

81.111.172.198 07:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Which may be summarized as "81.111.172.198 will cite no sources". - Nunh-huh 00:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Kindly ignore this vandalism and for details of my responses please see:-

[Outside view by Nunh-huh [6]]

81.111.172.198 07:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Or not. - Nunh-huh 08:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with 198 that mumps has been made more serious by the vaccine sellers, this is just good marketing, the same happens with measles, smallpox (considered less dangerous than measles in late 1800's), and the rest, chickenpox being the latest. The mumps vaccine isn't safe or effective as proven when the last MMR vaccine was withdrawn due to the mumps portion, Urabe[ which is still being sold, and they admitted the Rubini strain was completely useless, and they used that for years. Then there are plenty of studies and opinions from non-vaccinator medical doctors and other doctors that mumps is beneficial and safe when handled properly, eg with vitamin C. [ 86.128.92.75 19:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

UK and BMA

I'm a UK doctor and a BMA member and I will enquire what the progression of opinion was, and why. It is worth pointing out that all the doctors involved in making UK immunisation policy were BMA members, and that the Association does change its views on what should be done according to factors such as whether GPs have time to do it, and whether the thing proposed is more or less importnat than other things proposed. Clever though we are, we don't react to next years events until we get there. Alas.

I've recently been treating people with Mumps. Quite what "mild ... painful swelling of the testicles" and salivary glands would be is unclear to me, apart from an argument going on...

The last chap but one I saw with Mumps looked like a hamster and walked like John Wayne, he made it home but then was admitted to hospital for several days by a colleague. The last one was just able to stand unassisted, another non-trivial infection.

I've edited a bit, heading toward a more NPV in some things and adjusting temporal flow in causation (see above). THis is spare

(“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”. [14.4.7: British National Formulary 'BNF' – No 11 1986]). By 1987/8 just prior to the introduction to the United Kingdom of the MMR vaccine on 1st October 1988 this recommendation had been altered to "Mumps vaccine is not at present recommended for routine use in the UK" [14.4: 1987 BNF 394 No 13 & 1988 BNF 407 No 15]. By 1989 the recommendation had been dropped and not replaced. It instead stated "See under MMR vaccine ..." and makes no recommendation of its own, stating in line with the then new general health policy "Health authorities will have an obligation to ensure that every child has received MMR vaccine by the time of entry to primary school, unless there is a valid contra-Indication, parental refusal, or laboratory evidence of previous infection. Vaccination records should be checked; where there is no record of MMR vaccination or where the child has received single-antigen measles vaccine, parents will be advised that their children should receive MMR vaccine." [14.4: 1989 (March) BNF 416]). Midgley (talk · contribs)

Thanks Adrian, I can quite agree with that. JFW | T@lk 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a surprise. Dr Midgley was a vocal proponent of vaccination on the BMJ website, so I believe. Vaccinators always have vaccine disease stories, what they don't tell you is the fact they had probably been vaccinated (most would have had MMR)--try and get vaccine status from them and you will find they never look into that, which tells a story---even they admitted one mumps vaccine was completely useless, even though used for years, probably for decades. One study in Switzerland found 75% of mumps cases had been vaccinated! Also they 'forget' about all of the vaccine damaged children from mumps vaccine, the last MMR vaccine was withdrawn when the mumps component, Urabe, was found to be causing meningitis. Have a look at this story and see which you prefer, mumps or meningitis [ bearing in mind the vaccine wouldn't have prevented mumps, and bearing in mind there is a large body of opinion that mumps is a BENEFICIAL disease. If you think they are putting kids before profit, ask them why they are still selling that unsafe Urabe vaccine to third world countries 15 years after it was withdrawn here? Perhaps Dr Midgley would explain that, third world children are even less immune to vaccines, most being malnourished and consequently immune deficient? 86.128.169.252 08:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

alas, I can't work out what if anything is being said here. Or by whom. Midgley 00:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's quite simple really, the vaccine is unsafe and ineffective, and the disease is safe and beneficial if handled properly. I have put it here for anyone interested [ If you can show me how to get a login name then lets go for that if it makes you happy. 86.128.169.252 11:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, if User Midgley let kids catch mumps then he would not have adults in his surgery walking like John Wayne with faces like hamsters or needing hospitalisation. Kids would just have mild cases of mumps (at least 30 percent will have no symptoms whatsoever) and develop lifetime immunity. But as a strident proponent of mumps vaccination he chose to remove the quote “Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”. [14.4.7: British National Formulary 'BNF' – No 11 1986]). So much claims to NPOV contributions - looks like he chooses to remove some attempt at balance and make the page POV. So why do all these geniuses want to use Wikipedia to provide inaccurate information to the world? 81.111.172.198 05:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is 2006. What does the 2006 BNF say? Midgley 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks, 81.111.172.198, such as referring to people as "vaccinators" (which coming from you is a personal attack). Deal with the issues. I have no problem with citing BNF #11. Please tell me why known complications of mumps should not be mentioned in the intro. We can work on this article in a collaborative fashion if you calmly and without further name-calling list the points you have problems with. We can do another RFC if you so desire. Say, why can't you get a login name? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Referring to people as 'vaccinators' isn't a personal attack, unlike 'anti-vaccinator' which has a slide attached to it as per Word Game, in that you are meant to go down the preset thinking to believe 'anti-vaccinators' are paranoid, conspiracy nuts, or worse--Barbara Loe Fisher points out this ploy [ Labelling you as a 'vaccinator' is to remove your attempt to make out you are unbiased over vaccination, as the Chinese Proverb says: "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by the right names." I am just removing your cloak of impartiality, which you find annoying. Your attempt to deflect this fact into "personal attack" was to be expected. You may even be fooling yourself into thinking you aren't a 'vaccinator'. You would have to search far and wide to find a medical doctor who wasn't a vaccinator, unless you went to whale.to. 86.128.169.252 11:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim being impartial. You're playing the word game just as bad. Calling people "vaccinators" is a word game. Just because I am licenced to prescribe vaccines and would if was professionally required does not make me a vaccinator. That's a plain strawman and it obscures the issues. But I asked 81.111.172.198 for a list of objections, and I agreed to collaborate nicely. Your attempts to polarise are actually just annoying. (Cue to another conspiracy theory and name-calling by John.) JFW | T@lk 13:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is not neutral. User Jfdwolff keeps on reverting correctly made edits. Irrespective of what others do to ensure the page is correct. She and her collaborators simply revert text which sets the record straight.

Further, the amendments by User Midgeley to remove text that demonstrated the mildness of mumps and the lack of any need for medical intervention was embarrassing for User Midgeley and the British Medical Association of which he admits membership. This demonstrates partiality of the BMA to follow the British government line. This is despite medical interventions which they have previously admitted are unnecessary then being promoted by their members like User Midgeley.

Actually on a good day the BMA is involved in setting British Government policy, in th esame way as national medical associations and the equivalent of Royal COlleges are in other countries. You could call it a conspiracy if you wanted, or you could regard it as governments being sensible enough to look for people who actually have a clue what they are talking about when they want to decide what should be done or not done. As time goes on priorities change.

Midgley 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The BMA have been well rewarded with large pay rises for British doctors in the recent pay bargaining on behalf of their members. This even includes recommending Hepatitis B vaccination for babies when there is no threat to babies from Hepatitis B but there is a proven threat of multiple sclerosis, which has recently been demonstrated in the French vaccine damage litigation and published in a peer reviewed medical publication. 81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs)

Numerous personal attacks by 81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs) and 86.128.169.252 (talk · contribs) removed as per Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

81.111.172.198 has again not listed specific problems, despite my offer to work on a consensus version. I have removed numerous personal attacks involving myself by 81.111.172.198 and John. I think I'll go and do something nicer than fight over a nonsignificant self-limiting illness. So long, boys. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Text asserts. Not demonstrates. (and vocal, is if I recall my English correctly, of the voice, not in print or text - if we are to name things correctly.) This is the Mumps page, not the Hepatitis page. As times change, so do the best things to do, and so do recommendations of them. Someone is confusing the relationship between the BMA (the association of most British doctors including the public health ones) and the government. On rather a lot of matters, the government asks doctors for advice, and from time to time takes it. It doesn't seem strange or embarrassing that when we decide that immunisation against a particular disease is indicated the government follows and makes it public policy. Rather sensible. And yes, it is nice to be paid for work (actually the changes in the current contract seem likely to reduce immunisation target payments for many practices, the additional services bought from us are mainly around management of chronic diseases - but that again is really a matter for a different page altogether. Midgley 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The only mistake I ever made on this page was daring to suggest that (1) mumps, although a mild illness, may have complications, (2) the NPOV tag should not be placed without at least nominal discussion about the content. This has angered 81.111.172.198 and led to a wild goose chase around Wikipedia. I think it is rather ludicrous of 81.111.172.198 to try verify my credentials. Even if I was not a doctor I would be allowed to edit medical pages on Wikipedia. This actually amounts to harrasment, and 81.111.172.198 is now blocked for a few days. It's all getting a bit sad.

All we've been getting here from 81.111.172.198 has been aggression. When I asked for some points for discussion (11 Dec) there was some conspiracy theorising by John and another regurgitation from 81.111.172.198. Needless to say I don't expect there to be a change upon 81.111.172.198's return, but one can silently hope. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me....

Excuse me but the aggression you got from me was calling you a vaccinator, as I recall. That would be open to debate, I'd have thought. And saying 'conspiracy theory' is just reverting to ad hominem, logical fallacy etc. It is obvious to me that you allopaths/vaccinators are going to suppress information critical to vaccination, which in this case is the argument that you have made mumps more dangerous to 'sell' the mmr vaccine. There is plenty of evidence for this if you look in old textbooks before the vaccine came out. Same with measles & chickenpox. That is before we get into the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine (some were 100% ineffective, and in one study 75% of mumps cases had been vaccinated). But I can't waste too much time talking when it wont make any difference to the mumps page, as editing is in the hands of vaccinators. As to the 'agression' of 198, that is open to debate, you are being judge and jury, and banishing him to the cells when his opinion upsets you. I wish I could do that to the wife! john 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I never accused you of aggression John. The page already mentions that until 1987 several professional organisation did not recommend the vaccine. What else do you want? And the "domination by vaccinators" is your perception, yourself being judge and jury on this matter - just go ahead and make one NPOV edit and we'll see if there is domination here. JFW | T@lk 17:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Numerous personal attacks" is agression by any definition. Not sure what NPOV is but removing all whale.to links by 3 allopaths including yourself, is allopath domination, I would have thought. And removing the text supplied by 198 is another example. I haven't even bothered to supply text yet, for obvious reasons. john 17:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of declinking to links to whale.to is to keep the discussion focused on the issue at hand rather than be diverted by the other content on whale.to (as amplified previously on Talk:MMR vaccine. Andrew73 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, pretext springs to mind. Who is being diverted? Children? The only reason anyone would be diverted is because you keep mentioning the other subjects on whale.to! john 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove text by 198 - I replaced it with more accurate content. Why haven't you bothered to supply text? It is a better idea than slapping your URLs around. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove/replace is the same thing in my world. More accurate content would be debatable (a euphamism for allopath beliefs), if I recall the text in question. Text takes time to write, and I can't imagine any text would last long, so I would waste more time. And I have my opinions written up on whale.to, so linking would be a more sensible approach, maybe under 'the alternative view' for example, but that is too threatening to vaccinators. You can't take the alternative viewpoint. john 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to have WP:NPOV text in the end, rather than it be a collection of external links (unless you prefer to have Wikipedia segregated into pro-vaccinator, pro-allopath text and anti-vaccinator, anti-allopath external links)! Andrew73 22:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That maybe the point of Wikipedia in a perfect world, but that doesn't take into account the reality of medical politics, in that you allopaths control the text sections, so who wants to waste time writing text to have it rejected? So I would prefer to have external links and let people do their own thinking. I know that isn't traditional, to let people think for themselves, as they may reject vaccination---and studies show the better educated are the ones who reject vaccines. You could have subheadings termed something like 'the alternative viewpoint', with whale.to links under that. If what you say is true about external links and Wiki why do some pages have 20 or 30, and some are 1/1000 the size of whale, ie pretty trivial and just one document. Whale.to is the largest database of alternative view on vaccination and vaccine disease on the internet, so one link to whale would be all that is required. I admire you effort to find reasons to reject whale.to links but they don't sound convincing. The real reason is obvious. john 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that allopaths "control" the text sections (or would you also lump allopaths into mind control?). And yes, the text does get edited, but there are plenty of articles that include anti-vaccinator viewpionts. Just because some pages have 20-30 links (which probably is excessive) doesn't necessarily justify inclusion of whale.to. Andrew73 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Even a link to my medical conspiracy page on the conspiracy page [7] gets removed, and seeing as all conspiracies are deemed paranoid on Wiki I find that revealing. If allopaths don't control the medical pages how come just 2 allopaths---Jdwolff, InvictaHog (mainly) have edit control on those pages, and remove all of my links eg [8]? So I would go that far, from evidence, you wouldn't as you are an allopath. Don't use the link argument, as it doesn't really hold any water. I have the largest collection of smallpox books and articles on the internet. The largest collection of MMR and vaccination articles on the internet, as far as I am aware. john 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

JFW and InvictaHOG are not the only editors who have been removing links to whale.to; this includes myself and other editors as well! Yes, your collection of vaccination articles is impressive (whether I agree with them or not), but why also include links to [ alien mind implant removers]? Do you feel these topics all have equal credence? Andrew73 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You also, that is 3 allopaths. That tells a story. I never put links to implant removers from Wiki. And most people think the implants are put in by the government, by the way, but top marks for implanting the word 'alien', that is a good buzzword. Have you done any research into aliens or implants, by the way? john 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your discretion in not including a link to alien implant removers in Wiki, but why is it implanted on whale.to (or did an alien (or aliens) implant it there to mind control humans?). As an allopath, I don't do research on aliens! Perhaps research on implants in the future, but I'm trying to stay out of the mind control variety. Andrew73 16:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So instead of attempting to write WP:NPOV you lament the fate of your URLs on talkpages, accusing your opponents of being vaccinators and allopaths? That makes a lot of sense, john. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, eg NPOV, no text from me will ever get accepted. Anyway, NPOV sounds great in theory but that is a bit like a page written on God by an agnostic. The only ones qualified to write on God are the mystics, shamans etc, as they experience God, but in an our atheist run world, the atheists show their great tolerance by letting the agnostics write pages for Wiki, if you can see the analogy, fingers crossed. 'Accusing' sounds like you still deny you are a vaccinator and allopath. The denial is quite something to break through for an allopath, I can understand that. I can lead an allopath to the water but I can't make them drink, Shaw put it well "As well consult a butcher on the value of vegetarianism as a doctor on the worth of vaccination." john 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rare, Mild etc

How about having figures, rather than the argument over whether they are rare or common? And listing the organs affected rather than the periodic assertiosn that they symptoms are "mild". THis was in an earlier version...

"Orchitis (swelling of the testes) occurs in 10-20% of infected males, but sterility only rarely ensues; a viral meningitis occurs in about 5% of those infected. In older people, other organs may become involved including the central nervous system, the pancreas, the prostate, the breasts, and other organs."

Can anyone produce a picture of the rash asserted as one of those mild effects BTW? I don't recall seeing one.Midgley 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This draws attention away from 1). the evidence the vaccine is ineffective, one study showed 75% of mumps cases had been vaccinated, and the Rubini strain was 100% ineffective. 2). That vitamin C would prevent all ill effects. 3). The vaccine side effects, shown with the last MMR vaccine when the mumps portion caused meningitis. 4). And this MMR causes autism--as numerous independent scientists assert like Dr Rimland, quite apart from thousands of parents. 5). If you have a problem in treating mumps then let the homeopaths, naturopaths and nutritional medical doctors show you how to. 6). That mumps is a beneficial disease, preventing more serious disease later in life. 7). Vaccination interferes with natural imminity causing mumps later in life where it is more serious. 8). Mumps has been made to appear a more serious disease, and when you look into this ploy, chickenpox being the most glaring, it makes one unlikely to trust what a vaccinator such as Midgley has to say, without looking at the evidence and doing your own thinking--looking at old pre-vaccine textbooks is very revealing. I leave Dr Mendelsohn MD to comment: "the chance of sterility from mumps is overrated since in practically every case of mumps orchitis (inflammation of the testes) only one testis is affected, and a man could repopulate the entire world with the other one." john 17:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

this is in no way a reply to the remark it is indented from. I suspect that describing me as a vaccinator is not, in the judgement or intention of the writer, complimentary or merely factual, and I object to it. This is not intedned to be informative - the effectiveness or otherwise of a vaccine is nit indicated by the proportion of people catching the disease who have been vaccinated - the statistics is more complicated than counting your change, but understanding the apparent paradox is at least a minimum requirement for being able to make snesible contributions about efficacy.

I recently reviewed the entire history of the article, and it is perfectly clear that at least one editor has consistently been trying to remove information from the article, and then having reduced its precision introduce statements that - as a doctor actually seeing and treating sick people - lack factual accuracy and are not encyclopedic.

It is peculiar to appeal to the ancient books over current ones - to do so argues that we learn nothing as time goes on - arguably true for some, but not for teh professions or the public as a whole - and I hope does not imply the arguments come from people who choose to fly in an aircraft designed without reference to anything since the Wright Brothers, live in a house constructed without calculations based on strength of modern materials, and access the Wikipedia using only vacuum tubes.

It is also unhelpful. The Wikipedia needs useful sanctions against both the malign and the mad, and for the last 150 years immunisation has atracted both. Midgley 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a dispute resolution process. This may help in real content disputes, but is inadequate where there's a clash of paradigms. Eventually, one of the parties tends to become abusive and is blocked. I've seen this dynamic time and time again, and led to the short-term block of 81.111.172.198. John's use of "vaccinator" is just plain silly, especially as he himself doesn't like the Name Game. Random quotes from individual medical graduates, while harmless, do become tedious and predictable. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No allopath is going to like being called a vaccinator, especially when he is pretending to be unbiased---silly is your euphemism for that, a new one for me. I can't make out exactly what Midgley is trying to say but he doesn't appear to answer any of my points except to make out a vaccine is still effective even if the victims had been vaccinated. A vaccinator even tried this one with me once over smallpox vaccine when well over 90% of the victims had been vaccinated, and had obviously, in this case, caught smallpox from the vaccine. I suspect he would have tried this argument with the Rubini mumps strain when it was in use, but even vaccinators now say it was 100% useless at preventing mumps. If I didn't study vaccination history I might have more confidence in vaccinators beliefs, which is why Dr Midgley is rather disdainful of old books, I would suggest, for if people really looked at the history books documenting the smallpox vaccine they would certainly never believe in any vaccine now, or the beliefs of vaccination. I like the one written by the Chief sanitation officer of Leicester, for example, who proved conclusively that sanitation was more effective than vaccination, buy some margin, and over 20 years [ He would be one of the 'mad', no doubt, of Dr Midgley. What I always find amusing, and scary, is the fact vaccinators claim vaccination was effective from day one, 200 or so years ago, from when Jenner started it, that must be a 100 or so years before preservatives! john 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind being called a "vaccinator" or an "allopath" for that matter. And I don't dispute that sanitation is helpful. But it seems that some editors here prefer a world with smallpox than without smallpox! Andrew73 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well good, see if you can get Jdwolff to do the same. You seem to be suggesting that this editor prefers a world with smallpox because I am anti-vaccine. Well, I can see your argument, but I have found the smallpox vaccine didn't prevent or eliminate smallpox, in fact, it spread and prolonged smallpox, which was why they had huge epidemics after the compulsory vaccination years, and repealed the compulsory vaccination laws. And your chief smallpox expert admitted recently that it would have died out without vaccination, so how can you say vaccination did the deed? In truth it was the decline in poverty, and we still have it around, now called monkey pox, and such like. john 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion of smallpox is beyond the scope of this discussion page on mumps! I'm not sure whom you're referring to specifically as the "chief smallpox expert," but perhaps the reason why smallpox would have died out without vaccination is the whole point...because of vaccination, there is no longer a reservoir for smallpox. Andrew73 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal vaccination."----Dr. Mack [ john 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You speak of epidemic smallpox and then use a quote which discusses endemic smallpox in a post-endemic society. And you quote a man who in the same speech about epidemic smallpox made the comment, "I would certainly want to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives." No one here disputes the role of sanitation and less crowded living conditions. InvictaHOG 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that pretty much demolishes John's argument. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like semantics to me. No epidemic without endemic. What vaccinators say is usually more down to politics, especially at a vaccinators meeting (ACIP), and the acid test is would he vaccinate his own children--it was officially killing 21 children a year in first world countries. How many medical doctors vaccinate themselves with hepatitis B (only 50% in one study)

just to interject an actual fact here the current Hep B immunisation rate among medical students and doctors in the UK is to a very close approximation 100%. That would be Hepatitis, this is Smallpox, and the page is Mumps. Midgley 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

and flu vaccines, would be an interesting statistic. You certainly wouldn't want to take it in its earlier years: "In 1926, 130 members of the Dallas (Tex.) Chamber of Commerce cancelled their trip to Mexico because vaccination was required as a precedent to entrance. Nearly a 100 medical men, at a conference in Dallas, went to Mexico, after they obtained permission to enter without being vaccinated." john 17:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Above discussion primarily on smallpox now moved over to Talk:Smallpox vaccine. Andrew73 18:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Breast feeding

My 19yr old daughter (vaccinated once with MMR) caught mumps off her 19yr old boyfriend (vaccinated MMR a year ago). Kids used to get mumps pre school, now it is teenagers, hardly an improvement, but either way it seems pointless to give kids autism in an attempt to prevent a mild disease. The only reason has to be money. john 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aargh, and did she develop autism after MMR? JFW | T@lk 22:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy. Just shows why it is better to get mumps pre school rather than vaccine mumps during Uni. No, she didn't develop autism luckily, not every one does, about 1 in 100 after vaccination, at a rough guess, she was lucky to have just one MMR. Another friend's kid developed mumps after MMR--she said it looks like they create mumps by giving everyone injections, be interesting to know the real stats. It helps if you breastfeed for at least a year (world average 4 years), but you allopaths don't do much to encourage that, it would help encourage you if you didn't take money from milk manufacturers. john 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

1/100? Don't be ridiculous.Midgley 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, really straying here. Apparently have never met the breast feeding Nazis that populate all the hospitals I work at. Anecdotal medicine at its finest. InvictaHOG 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to meet a qualified doctor who opposes breastfeeding. Stop projecting your theories on others, John. JFW | T@lk 13:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So have I but I was influenced by a Prof of Pediatrics Robert Mendelsohn, you can read his comemnts [ also if docs really believed in bottlefeeding, and didn't just offer lip service, then around 99% of mothers would be breasfeeding. And taking money from bottle feeding manufacturers isn't a good move if you want people to believe what you say. john 22:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Dr. Mendelsohn is out of date. The medical community as a whole, at least in the U.S., is in favor of breastfeeding, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. On their website, they describe themselves as a "staunch advocate" of breastfeeding. Andrew73 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they have to say that, but as they take money from milk manufacturers perhaps they aren't quite as committed as you appear to think they are? I don't think anyone would dispute that if the medical profession actually walked their talk then 98% of women would be breastfeeding for 1-4 years, not, at a guess 20-30% for 3 months on average. That is the killer statistic, as who gives parents their belief that cows milk is OK to feed your children? They don't tell them that the death rate is twice as high in bottlefed children, for example. You read the benefit of breast [ which the medical profession have know for decades. I like the quote by Hilary Butler, which says it all. john 09:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

John, end of strawmanning. This page is about mumps, not about breastfeeding. JFW | T@lk 13:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That was decided a long time ago---you allopaths are going to dictate the mumps page text around vaccination and allopathic beliefs, and keep out any alternative viewpoint (eg naturopathy, homeopathy, nutritional med) so ones mind does tend to wander. john 12:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can indicate which one of those viewpoints has any notability then of course this material may be included under the header "alternative medicine" or somesuch. And for heaven's sake drop your use of the word "allopath". JFW | T@lk 13:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Symptoms/Unreferenced material

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Wikipedia:Verifiability

"any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tearlach - accessed 28/1/2006

There is a great deal of dubious and POV information lacking balance on this page. It needs substantiation from reliable established accepted texts. Andrew73's reason for reversion [[9]]is inadequate:-

• this is highly technical information for the average reader;
• it directly affects the health of adults and children around the world and might be acted on by readers;
• if anything is "classic" then it will be easy to provide a reference;
• if the information has come from a reliable source, then the editor would have had the source before him at the time and could have provided the reference then - unless this information has come from the "top of his head" in which case it needs to be substantiated;
• it is not reasonable to expect one person's word to be taken for this kind of thing. It is a recipe for subtle vandalism with misleading information being intentionally placed on Wikipedia;
• readers and other editors may wish to go to sources and/or check them;

The statistics quoted are of unknown origin. They do not seem to be an accurate reflection of incidence and severity of symptoms. There is already contradiction and exaggeration on this page which the editor who provided this information needs to disassociate himself from. The medical field is notorious for the proliferation of dubious and unreliable information so Wikipedia needs to try to ensure it is providing reliable information and to ensure readers are not mislead. 86.10.231.219 08:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate 86.10.231.219 concern for accuracy. According to UpToDate, parotid gland swelling occurs in 95% of cases and is bilateral in 90% of cases. Orchitis occurs in nearly 20-40% of patients. I've put the references to this in the text. Andrew73 13:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference Andrew73. Please note following on mumps orchitis:-

"'The most common viral cause of orchitis is mumps. Approximately 30 % of patients who have mumps will develop orchitis during the course of the illness. It is most common in boys past puberty,' rare before the age of 10."

http://www.pennhealth.com/ency/article/001280.htm

http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001280.htm

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001280.htm

There is no reference in the page to gaining lifetime immunity from contracting wild mumps in childhood. An important omission as it is a method of prevention of orchitis in adulthood.

I assume that you're not advocating getting mumps as a child to prevent orchitis in adulthood...when this whole scenario could also be prevented through vaccination. Andrew73 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest it is not accurate to say orchitis is painful. That is rare. Mostly discomfort.

Suggest symptoms listed separately common and less common under usual name with no explanation and add explanation of symptoms later if needed eg. orchitis, parotitis. In less common category, pre 1980's orchitis was extremely rare as most mumps was in under 10's. Now most mumps are in young adults. 86.10.231.219 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But parotitis is very common...though I agree that readily accessible terminology should be used. Andrew73 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mumps is a common name for adisease called epidemic parotitis What was that question about whetehr Parotitis is substantiated as occurring in it again??Midgley 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Objective: I've never seen anyone with Mumps orchitis who was suffering "discomfort". The first one was rolling around unable to bear the weight of his scrotum if he tried to get up, or the pressure of a pair of y-fronts to support it. He needed opiate anlagesia. The most recent one was barely able to walk. He was admitted when seen by a colleague in a hospital.. Has anyone else actually of their onw observation seen a chap with Mumps whose balls were uncomfortable?

theoretical model: Assuming you have one or more of them handy, imagine it doubling in size rather promptly as a result of infection. "Uncomfortable"? Midgley 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like no references then, just anecdote. 86.10.231.219 23:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

if 86.10.231.219 is a doctor or other healthcare worker with experience of managing a number of people with mumps orchitis, then the unreferenced assertion about the level of pain being slight might carry more weight.

Those of us who are have been taking notes for a while...

Hippocrates,(460-375BC) I apologise for not producing the original Greek, but he has been dead these many years,

"IN THASUS, about the autumn equinox, and under the Pleiades, the rains were abundant, constant, and soft, with southerly winds; the winter southerly, the northerly winds faint, droughts; on the whole, the winter having the character of spring. The spring was southerly, cool, rains small in quantity. Summer, for the most part, cloudy, no rain, the Etesian winds, rare and small, blew in an irregular manner. The whole constitution of the season being thus inclined to the southerly, and with droughts early in the spring, from the preceding opposite and northerly state, ardent fevers occurred in a few instances, and these very mild, being rarely attended with hemorrhage, and never proving fatal. Swellings appeared about the ears, in many on either side, and in the greatest number on both sides, being unaccompanied by fever so as not to confine the patient to bed; in all cases they disappeared without giving trouble, neither did any of them come to suppuration, as is common in swellings from other causes. They were of a lax, large, diffused character, without inflammation or pain, and they went away without any critical sign. They seized children, adults, and mostly those who were engaged in the exercises of the palestra and gymnasium, but seldom attacked women. Many had dry coughs without expectoration, and accompanied with hoarseness of voice. In some instances earlier, and in others later, inflammations with pain seized sometimes one of the testicles, and sometimes both; some of these cases were accompanied with fever and some not; the greater part of these were attended with much suffering. In other respects they were free of disease, so as not to require medical assistance. "

So, most of them were bloody sore, a few were not too bad. As a doctor, that is the experience I have personally, and from colleagues of the disease currently.

A copy is at MIT: http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/epidemics.mb.txt

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.aspx?articleId=255&sectionId=6887 Describes it as "very painful" but does not give a reference for that. NHS DIrect is set up to answer calls from anyone in the UK who eg has severe pain in their testicles.

According to The Principles and Practice of Clincial Virology (4th Ed) "The description of Hippocrates in the fifth century BC of an epidemic disease with swelling near the ear and painful enlargement of the testis is usually cited as the first description of mumps. Outbreaks in military personnel have received special attention and mumps has been a considerable health problem for the armed forces until recently. In 1918, during the First World War the mortality rate among the US and French armies was as high as 75 per 1000 men, causing as serious a problem as the opposing army." Published Online: 26 Apr 2002 Editor(s): Arie J. Zuckerman, Jangu E. Banatvala, John R. Pattison Print ISBN: 0471973408 Online ISBN: 0470842474 Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

The American Urological Soc who know a thing or two about balls, say "Acute orchitis: During the acute phase of mumps orchitis, symptoms include pain of varying severity, tenderness and swelling. The parotiditis (swelling of facial glands) of mumps usually precedes orchitis by three to seven days." http://www.urologyhealth.org/adult/index.cfm?cat=11&topic=490

BJU International Volume 97 Page 138 - January 2006 doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05902.x Volume 97 Issue 1 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05902.x Mumps orchitis in the non-immune postpubertal male: a resurgent threat to male fertility? JOE PHILIP*, DAVID SELVAN* and ANTHONY D. DESMOND* Of 195 males presenting with an acute history of testicular pain and swelling, 25 gave a history of mumps parotitis 4–11 days earlier. Three had bilateral orchitis and two needed scrotal exploration to exclude torsion. Scrotal ultrasonography findings varied from increased vascularity to abnormal testicular echo texture. Treatment included analgesia ..."

They omit a linear analogue scale analysis of the degree of pain, however anyone who has seen or had a torsion will know that it is toward the upper end.

Midgley 03:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting deletion as unreferenced by an IP near here.

"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps, claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial. Disagreeing, the"

OK, everything should be referenced if it isn't comon experience so lets take it bit by bit...

"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps,"

It might be fair to say that all of them protest, and the clause is intneded to indicate they are a sub-fraction of the human species rather than that the opinion in that group is split, but to suggest that none of them do seems peculiar given the discussions here on this page. Indeed, I suspect the perso nwho removed it actually could have provided a large number of references to protests against mumps vaccination. Is there a WP policy on pretending not to know what you keep saying?

"Disagreeing, the" WHO asserts its policy.

The opposite to the WHO disagreeing would be th eWHO agreeing, it is safe to say and if necessary refer to WHO's policy, that they agree. Back in I think.

So can we make controversy outo f th egrounds?

" claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial."

Um... if there is really nobody here who can produce a reference to a claim being made that the attenuated mumps vaccine is harmful, then how short are their memories?

"A claim that the wild disease is bemeficial" If you'd look about an inch from here...

That edit on the grounds claimed does not look like an effort to improve the quality, or contribute to the material of WP.

~~

Epidemic

MMWR has it: the UK has an epidemic[10]. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

US News media is reporting outbreaks in

• Ohio

[11]

• Oklnhoma

[12]

• other states

User:AlMac|^(talk) 20:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The bit in MMWR makes me think the number of patients in UK must have been less than 100k+ as the article states.

Year	UK Cases from MMWR [13]
2003
2004	16,367
2005	56,390

Heathhunnicutt 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In this VOA article, the reporter seems to have spoken to the CDC when referencing the "100k" figure. Heathhunnicutt 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at that table above and extrapolating:

Year	Cases "notified" from MMWR report
2003	no data
2004	16,367
2005	56,390
April 2006 (Extrap.)	18,797
Total	91,554 (estimated)

I did change the article text to read "around" 100k cases in UK. Heathhunnicutt 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Sequenced?

Is the (USA) strain identified and compared to previous ones, yet? Midgley 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's genotype G. [14]. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Next year's article

When 2007 rolls around, is there a plan to move all the 2006 outbreak statistics to their own page (perhaps: Mumps (2006)), and continuing for each subsequent year? This would at least provide a historical trail of data. — Loadmaster 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

US Outbreaks

Is it required that the article contains such an extensive documentation of statewide outbreaks of the virus in the US? I find it strange that there is no refernce to Maurice Hilleman on the page. --_EGGman⁶⁴ 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Research (Treatments)

Single reports of possibly interesting lines of research are far more the stuff of Medline, Nature, Science and the Lancet than they are encyclopaedic. When they become regular treatments, complete a clinical trial with a clear outcome or otherwise become confirmed is the time to add them. WP is not Medline. Midgley 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why is there a list of all mumps outbreaks since 2006. What possible purpose could this serve.--Notker Balbulus 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been asked a number of times before, and I agree. Major outbreaks would be notable, but this is just listcruft coming well under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (#9 Long and sprawling lists of statistics). At the least, it should be retired to a separate article. Anyone else think so? Tearlach 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As I proposed above, either the list should stay but as a separate article of its own (e.g., "Mumps cases (2006)"), or it should be removed entirely (except for very large/notable epidemics). — Loadmaster 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest splitting this into a subarticle, like Mumps/outbreak2006 or something less silly/inflamatory. I noticed that the most recent edit today is someone updating the current/ongoing outbreak. Maybe by splitting this, it can move to [wikinews.org] or some similar site? Heathhunnicutt 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest moving all US related stuff into another article and just reference an American total for 2006 at least keep the article from looking so centric. The difference between heading sizes in my browser (IE 7) is not enough to make individual US state listings any less visually important than the actual other countries. Alternately, turf the whole thing other than major outbreaks. A major outbreak is news and possible encyclopaedic when it's passed. A minor outbreak is quickly contained. I doubt anyone will use a mumps outbreak from 2006 to decide where to attend university in 2007. Most of these will already contained.--216.16.239.66 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Example outbreak history table

Here is something like the "outbreak table" I had in mind to summarize the current and ongoing outbreak.

Date	Iowa	Wisconsin
20 March 2006	N.D.	1
14 April 2006	600+[15]	N.D.
19 April 2006		14
2 May 2006	1,487[16]

References

Heathhunnicutt 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning on removing the current info or just having the table alongside? The other information might be useful too. --Joshuagross 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The current info seems a little too verbose. I wonder if it merits its own page already. I am hoping someone else will take this idea and trim the section down to a table-based summary or perhaps a map or a graph. If I get more spare time, I will work on the genetics or the vaccine article. Heathhunnicutt 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't believe I forgot this for so long. If no one else wants to handle this, I will. Joshuagross (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology?

Does anyone know where the name comes from? What do you suppose a single "mump" would be?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mump is a now obsolete word, of which the pertinent meaning seems to be to grimace (and used as a substantive noun, the grimace so produced). The word could also mean "to mumble" and "to assume a demure or melancholy expression". The first use of the word mumps to mean the disease it now refers to was in 1598. The word mumps is today generally construed as singular. As for etymology of mump - it doesn't seem like anyone is too sure, but some think it may be imitative of the mumbling it describes. - Nunh-huh 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Other cases

A 40-something friend of mine in Dallas TX just got the mumps (2006-09-07) . His doctor said it's only the second adult case he's ever seen in his entire career. — Loadmaster 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The US average is about 250 cases per year and plenty of adults are in there. So although not in large cases, it occurs regularly, with episodic outbreaks (~6400 in 2006). I'm reading this article because we have 3 suspected cases (ages 2, 13, and 27) in my practice in the past month. So to echo other's statements, we don't need to be listing every small case in the main article.--192.77.126.50 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

List of cases

Why on earth is there a long list of cases? I'm contemplating removing it wholesale. WLU (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to list of modern mumps outbreaks, it's not a great title, but it's weird to have such a long section. What's the point, what's encyclopedic about a list of news stories? WLU (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally. And to User:GeertjePeertje, at the time, the news links were delayed and hadn't hit Google until a few hours later (I did look). More importantly, it was not NPOV and seemed inflammatory. WLU cleaned it up nicely - thank you. --MartinezMD (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Potential Sabatoge

First Line: "Mumps can be caught by sexual intercourse also vaginas can get infected"

Needs to be removed/edited. Zorglemeister 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was also a line "run its course before wanking". I changed it to receding. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.204.28 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reyes Syndrome risk

I have edited and corrected an assertion under the "Treatment" heading, because it only pointed to Aspirin conterindication for use in young children (!!!), for risk of Reye's Syndrome.

Anyone unfamiliar with the issue should read (should have read) the Wikipedia article on Reye's syndrome, where a specific counter indication for children and adults under 19 yers is mentioned (not just small kids).

Anyone unfemmiliar with medical terminology shold NOT edit treatment related articles.

Szjanos (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lancet retraction

The Lancet has retracted Wakefield's research regarding the MMR vaccine and autism. Someone better at editing than I should make the proper changes in Prevention text. retraction DOI reference: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.6.215 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mumps Comparison image before and after

The article currently contains this " before and after mumps" image. Is this a valid/useful pair of images? Picture on the left is smiling, person on the right is not and is also angling their face up. It almost looks like they are two completely different people - and it's not at all clear whether that's due to mumps or because they are different people!

Could we get an image that comes with some kind of source and whose settings are more controlled?

99.225.148.19 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

These images are misleading because of the extreme differences in light, lens distortion and camera angle. It creates an exaggerated effect, and questionable authenticity. I suggest removal. Richardsidler (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You would be hard pressed to find equal lighting and angles on a medical photograph in the acute disease phase. Also, mumps can be pretty impressive in some cases. We should use these until there are better ones available.--MartinezMD (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I, too, have difficulty seeing any difference between the before and after images. Sure, they differ strongly, but I can't see what mumps has to do with it. 78.42.178.246 (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

what is the point?

in one photo he is smiling, then he isn't. for a start they should be labelled before and during an infection of mumps, but no symptoms can be seen in the second pic.

the photos are useless and unhelfpful, delete them i say.

Doktordoris (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus with all of us, I removed the image. A better during and after photo would demonstrate the marked swelling that can occur. that is the point. MartinezMD (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical Reference

is it worth mentioning that in my youth, at least (i.e. the 1950's), pre-adolescent mumps infection in males was considered a good thing. this, of course because of the risk of orchitis and resultant sterility if the disease were contracted after puberty. parents held 'mumps parties', where all the male child's male friends were invited with the specific intention of their becoming infected.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Same is true for Varicella (Chicken Pox) in my youth. There were often parties held at the home of an infected child to contract the illness early in a child's life.--MartinezMD (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

When we were kids, my sister caught chickenpox. Our mother, who was a doctor, encouraged my sister and me to spend time together, so I would catch the disease and get it over with. I didn't catch it (and still have never had it), but my mother got it, and suffered from shingles for weeks afterwards. Serve her right! DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Aspirin / ASA

People in many countries may not be aware that there are places, Canada, for example (where I live), where the word "Aspirin" is a commercial trademark, owned by the Bayer company. Using this word as if it were a generic name for the drug can lead, and has led, to legal procedings. In Canadian drugstores, "Aspirin" is sold, but is always made by Bayer. The same compound made by other manufacturers is also sold, but the packages are labelled "ASA", which is short for "acetylsalicylic acid", the chemical name of the compound. Canadians are used to this situation, and normally talk about "ASA", rather than "Aspirin".

Wikipedia tries to avoid misusing trademarks, so I have edited this article to replace "Aspirin" with "ASA". I've linked this to "Acetylsalicylic acid", but this gets redirected to the page called "Aspirin"! More work is obviously needed to get rid of this trademark.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not looking to start an edit war, but the official Wikipedia article is titled Aspirin. MartinezMD (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

But should it be? DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:COMMONNAME Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

WP doesn't rule the world. "Aspirin" is still a registered trademark, and misuse of it can have legal consequences. DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it cannot when it is used here. Please don't pontificate about stuff you clearly have no idea about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you an expert on Canadian law? DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't have to be. WP's servers are in the US, and US law is controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for update

I've had a quick look at the most recent sources, because some of the sources have become very stale.

• doi:10.1086/652770 (CID) provides guidance on isolation practices
• doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09148.x (BJU) mumps orchitis
• doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e31824df256 (Clin Obst Gynecol) obstetric considerations
• Senanayake (2008) is only quoted in one section, but might be of broader interest.
• Cochrane on MMR doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3
• Green Book (Public Health England)

Will add if I find anything else. JFW | T@lk 14:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this as well -- https://books.google.com/books?id=lTV3BQAAQBAJ "Mumps:Global Status" (2014) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing this for a course

Hi, I will be editing this article over the next 2 or so months for a course in medical school. I'm a bit new at this but I will be adding much as I can, my goal is to bring this article to at least B-class. Mjbailey (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks great! I like you addition regarding Reye's syndrome. You could also expand the epidemiology section. Lime0life (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Benefits of wild childhood mumps

Under Prevention, the article states:"Some anti-vaccine activists protest against the administration of a vaccine against mumps, claiming that the attenuated vaccine strain is harmful, and/or that the wild disease is beneficial. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the wild disease is beneficial, or that the MMR vaccine is harmful." There is in fact evidence that the wild form of the disease may be beneficial in the prevention of ovarian cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.220.214 (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory information?

First paragraph states that the complication of ovarian swelling does not affect fertility. "Signs and Symptoms: Complications" states that half of the 5% suffering ovarian swelling as a complication will have fertility issues. I don't know which is true, but one of them needs to be corrected! Thanks 92.4.1.26 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The second source made no mention of fertility problems so I removed it.MartinezMD (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mumps. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060415205123/http://www.who.int:80/vaccines/en/mumps.shtml to http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/mumps.shtml#summary
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081207003042/http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca:80/mumps-oreillons/prof-eng.php to http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/mumps-oreillons/prof-eng.php#t2
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070425223203/http://www.microbiologybytes.com:80/virology/Paramyxoviruses.html to http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/Paramyxoviruses.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 10:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

History of mumps

I came here looking for information on whether mumps was recognized as a separate disease in ancient times or whether it has only more recently been recognized as such (like, for example, typhus, which was only recognized as a separate disease in the 15th century). I don't have access to databases or sources that might have this information, but surely someone here does; it would be useful for history students (and writers), at the very least. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Easier to understand language

Malaise more or less means "feeling tired". "feeling generally unwell". IMO it is perfectly reasonable to use easier to understand language. Also supported by WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make the edit, but I'm pretty sure malaise means ill feeling rather than tiredness. Feeling tired I would say is fatigue. MartinezMD (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:MartinezMD :-) Yes I got the two mixed up. Have changed to "feeling generally unwell". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that works fine. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)