Talk:Measles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

older entries

Should this article mention "measles parties"? They were mentioned recently in a UK soap, so they're presumably still an occurence.

It does have a mention of them now (not added by me), but this could use some cleaning up. It talks about a "recent" event without an actual associated date or even year. Thayvian 11:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Measles and History

I plan to add a section on historic measles plagues, including the Antonine Plague (including Plague of Cyprion) and the impact of measles on the Amerind population at European contact. Ideas for inclusion?? WBardwin 18:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Treatment and History

Related to the above issue of measles history, the treatment section is about as historically POV biased as one can get. Measles certainly was treated before 1963. Part of the POV bias here is to assume that minority opinions cannot even be mentioned unless they follow the mainstream methodology of testing. (Testing that FDA whistleblowers have claimed are skewed by industry bias.) Is anything really NPOV that refuses to even mention a widely held minority position?

This POV method is far beyond any neutrality, because all that is necessary for true neutrality is to mention that a majority opinion thinks the minority approach not only bad but dangerous. As is, the article tries to defend the mainstream POV by silencing the entire history of treatment prior to 1963. Those who are financially biased because of vaccines shouldn't have any fear of someone considering treatments that worked prior to or since 1963, should they? Carltonh 22:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Measles epidemic

This article in the Guardian[1] sums it all up. It also has Simon Murch on the record stating that there is likely to be a resurgence of measles due to poor vaccine uptake. 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Measles in the USA

MMWR and JAMA have this report[2] about the 37 cases of measles in the US. Most cases were imported, e.g. from Chinese orphanages. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has a worldview problem because it has a special section on the Americas but not on any other region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NHS and measles parties

The reporting about measles parties is from 2001. I could not find a resource for official NHS discouragement of this practice with Google. Anyone noticed it? JFW | T@lk 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And measles parties redirects to chicken pox, where there is absolutely nothing about measles parties. Ireneshusband 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I believe I have found a citation to back up the statement about the NHS being opposed to 'deliberate exposure' of the child by parents, i.e. homeopathy. I'll put it up. DarkIye 12:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Love to edit but impossible due to allopath suppression

Allopath suppressing just a link, so text would be a waste of time. User:Davidruben "rv - remove unscientific, trolling blog site (article has link already to vaccine controversy))" [3]. 'Unscientific' is an allopath pseudonym for non-allopathic thinking. john 08:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from not calling myself an "Allopath" (indeed in context term is used, is this meant as a demeaning belittling term ? If so not in spirit of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:Civility ?), I removed the link as it did not add to the discussion on measles itself (which this article is supposd to be about). I do agree though that it is not readily apparent where to read more about the associated vaccine (on MMR vaccine page) nor where to look for issues on the controversy on the vaccine (does/does not work or does/does not have association with autism/bowel disorders). The current in-text link to vaccine controversy is a general article, rather than being specifically related to the measles vaccine.

There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views, and I suggest therefore it is more a issue of directing the reader to the relevant pages rather than duplicate information or assertions. Hence I have added to the "See also" a link to MMR vaccine which sets out in some length the 'controversy' and again to vaccine controversy. David Ruben ^Talk 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Feeble justification. Allopath isn't meant as a put down, it is meant to flag you as biased, hence your deletion of my edit. If you can tell me where the homeopathic, naturopathic & nutritional medicine view of measles is on Wiki then please do so, otherwise restore my link. john 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. That link is to a site which is an admitted clone of the portion of Whale.to that relates to vaccination. Whale.to has been determined to be an unsuitable site to link to, and it is not becuase of the name. This is a transparent and continuing attempt to get links into WP in defiance of policy established by RFC and with the effect of adding credibility to your sites - and gaining click-throughs. Unscientific, meanwhile means unscientific. Midgley 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You allopaths took it upon yourselves to ban links to whale, which you call an 'approved RFC outcome'---I'd like to see the actual wording regarding that, so SHOW ME THE DIFF on that. Your only argument was ad hominem, which isn't an argument in case you hadn't noticed. You can't use that argument with Vaccination.org.uk as it doesn't have any conspiracy stuff on it. john 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I see from WP that this was an RFC, so although John may choose to accuse various users of various things (contrary to various WP policies including WP:CIVIL) this is not here as elsewhere the case. John has previously stated, in agreement with whoever first noted it, that vaccination.org.uk is a direct copy of the subset of material from whale.to , as he says, the anti-Jewish propoganda, the allegations of alien infiltration and a bunch of other conspiracy theory has not been copied across, but that doesn't alter the provenance of the site, nor its control. John, the WP Policy involved is very clearly WP:RS. I'd be obliged if you now accepted that you have been told this, even if you neither believe nor subscribe to it nor propose to act in accordance with it. Midgley 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

These are your spurious reasons for deleting links----first it was ad hominem. Now it is WP:RS. Don't you wish you practiced a medicine that didn't require so much work in medical politics. john 12:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WP is somewhat more insistent on proper behaviour than the USENET fora where John has lambasted doctors for years while presenting his own advice or quotes stockpiled from many source to anyone who posts asking for advice. The above posting immediately upon return from a 24 hour ban for behaviour on WP suggests that such minor interventions are unlikely to be successful in moderating John's behaviour, or causing him to regard other editors of WP as anything other than obstacles to be got around where they cannot be ignored. Admins? Midgley 13:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins? I should think they are too busy with your antics [4]. You can get away with anything,it seems, whereas I have to suffer from your medical colleagues but even so have only been banned once, for the usual spurious reason. I wish I could ban you for calling me mentally insane.(John's writing is not very closely similar, one may have an idée fixée without being mad even in a lay sense)). One law for you one for me, that is the Wiki way on medical matters, as we can see with your medical colleague banning links he doesn't like. Don't you wish you practiced a medicine that didn't require so much work in medical politics? john 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And now it is WP:NPA. By the way, the quote is saying that John's writing is not very similar to a psychotic-appearing website, and reinforcing the message that his avocation might be had without being mad, even in a lay sense". He has repeated it several times. Midgley 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. john 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to block Midgley for NPA violations when I realised he was quoting. I object to the comments on John's person. Please stick to the facts on the merits of vaccination.org.uk and its [in]admissibility in the external links section. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)#

Midgley aside, I don't accept User:Davidruben justification for removing link There is plenty of information on wikipedia about the non-conventional views. He could prove his premise by showing me where these views are. There isn't a word on MMR [5] about alternative views on measles, and why a vaccine page for views on measles, when we have a measles page? john 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A condition (usually) warrants a separate page from a treatment article, especially if both are substantially discussed. Hence pharyngitis is a disease, brief mention is made of management/treatment (along with causes, symptoms, signs etc), yet the article does not go into length about what an antibiotic is nor the individual groups, e.g. penicillins vs tetracycline antibiotics etc, and even less about specific drugs (e.g. penicillin, oxytetracycline). Unless I'm misinterpreting your query re MMR page not listing alternative view points, what is the whole MMR vaccine#The MMR controversy and MMR vaccine#Recent studies sections that form the greater part of the whole article ? If the question is that MMR vaccine should mention alternative POV about measles itself, then by definition these alternative POVs are not about the vaccine itself, but are about the disease and would belong in the specific disease article. That said, I do not believe every infectious disease page in wikipedia needs duplicate alternate view points that disagree with the microbes-cause-infections concept (but perhaps appropriate under the overbridging topics of infection or microbes). David Ruben ^Talk 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The homeopathic view, the naturopathic view, the nutritional medicine view . They don't deny measles is infectious, but I'd like an explanation as to why you deny people those viewpoints on Wiki? john 20:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because their viewpoints aren't verifiable? Andrew73 23:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Try harder, the evidence is even on Wiki Fred R. Klenner, better on whale.to, which also makes Midgley's WP:RSclaim to be pure WP:POV. john 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is admirably laid out. Its comments on interest and independence and evaluationg secondary sources are relevant, and worth reading if only in order to demonstrate that whale.to does not fall foul of any of them. Alternatively, if WP:RS is a clearly wrong, incorrect, unfair policy, then it is the same as any page in WP and available to any editor to simply edit until it says what they know it should say. Midgley 23:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)#

It is absurd to say whale.to is all WP:RS. Bit like saying the same for the British Library. It has the largest collection of books on smallpox vaccination available on the internet [/vaccines/smallpox14.html]. So let's see you make out those 19cent books aren't a reliable source. WP:POV. john 08:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that (according to my understanding of WP:RS and empirically to others understanding of it) Whale is not a WP:RS. This is not a matter of what is in Whale, it is a matter of several things which are laid out - as headings with explanations - in the page WP:RS. ganfyd (in whcih I have an interest) is probably a reliable secondary or in places perhaps tertiary source by WP:RS. Meditating upon the differences between ganfyd and Whale which lead to this may be enlightening. I think this discussion is going round in circles as we write past each other, and I may simply stop responding to it, but I would be interested in which headings of the [page WP:RS john feels don't apply to WHale. Midgley 08:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing your WP:POV. Can you let User:Davidruben explain his reasons, he seems to be hiding behind you. john 10:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, I have never edited WP:RS and therefore whoever's POV it is, it is not mine. I do beleive it to be a good one, but the key point here is that it is Wikipedia's, and if you want to change it, go there to change it, not argue repeatedly on teh same grounds here. There is a WP dispute resolution procedure, and by all means make an RFC to assert that Whale is a Reliable Source and WP:RS must be edited to allow for it. Please don't carry on telling us individually about it, change (or at least confront and argue against) the policy of the community. Midgley 17:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not "hiding", just spreading my time amongst other topics on wikipedia (reading articles as well as contributing). Anyway do you care what I think, given that merely being a doctor makes you flag me "as biased" ? Whatever you might have intended by that, I perceived it as a personal attack & failing to assume good faith. So why should I wish to try debating with someone who seems so single-issue focused and runs a personal blog site - if its not a blog, then has the site a wiki community input team ? The site is trolling in as much that only one point of view is expressed (or expressed even-handedly in wikipedia's NPOV style). Finally it is unscientific in as much that it selectively decides which opinions/statements/article/books to cite and is highly selective of what is quoted. If i select just the last word of "reasonably certain" then I am portrayed as absolutist and can be rediculed for being fixed in my ideas - likewise selecting from published (specific scientific publications and others) distorts the overall balance of an argument. Unfortunately you may be correct that some of the material on your site are fair comments/quotes, but the very nature of the site is so conspiratorial & unscientific (as viewed by the majority of doctors, health departments and medical researchers) that your site is questionable to quote from at all. Also as the sole writer of the website, links to it in wikipedia seems like personal advertising to increase linkthrough traffic. Things progress (or regress from your viewpoint) and having a website that includes rejection of vaccination from a few doctors in the 1910's seems hardly relevant to current understanding of medicine as also being preventative and current selection of vaccines. Finally others have added comments which I mostly agree with (not entirely, and some more strongly/negatively phrased than I might) and the "debate" seemed to be going quite well without my immediately having to jump back in :-) David Ruben ^Talk 15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly a convincing argument. The reasons--that was smallpox vaccination, it had been around for over 100 years by then, and was demolished by these medical doctors, William Job Collins, Charles Creighton, Beddow Bayly, Edgar Crookshank and the scientist Alfred Wallace---you can see your fellow medical people trying to make them appear insubstantial by cutting texts, attempting to delete eg Charles Pearce [6], Robert Mendelsohn [7] etc, making Beddow Bayly appear an idiot [8], and so on. Now we have dozens of recent medical doctors, like Robert Mendelsohn, Beddow Bayly, Gerhard Buchwald, Lanctot, Yazbak, and so on. I prefer to go after the truth rather than sit on the fence. As for site traffic, the only decenet argument to put down an attempt to increase site traffic is---if it was selling something---for money. doctors, health departments and medical researchers all agree, no surprise there, they all belong to the same industry. As silly as saying all car makers agree that making new roads is a good idea. Just because you have the majority in numbers you think that is the only one that needs expressing, as that is the Wiki pages, with the odd pejorative one called Anti-vaccinationists. Basically you have expressed your POV. john 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeopaths support vaccination link

MMR the facts: MMR basics - What about homeopathic alternatives? [9] This gives the misleading impression homeopathy supports vaccination, but the Faculty of Homeopath is a minority, and all allopaths, so they would say that. "The Faculty of Homoeopathy speaks for a medically qualified minority. The more numerous medically unqualified homoeopaths belong to the Society of Homoeopaths, the Institute of Complementary Medicine, or the Homoeopathic Medical Association, totalling some 2000 practitioners. None of these bodies supports vaccination."--Peter Morrell john 09:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• These opinions (right or wrong) are about vaccination in general, rather than being specifically about measles. Hence they deserve to be more under the overall vaccination article, rather than a specific member of the group.
• I would totally agree that it is only this group of homeopaths who are generally strongly in favour of vaccination (interesting that they feel vaccines "prove" the homeopathic principle of a little of what causes a disease might be used to prevent/treat it - but that is another discussion) and the other groups are most clearly not. This divergence of opinion is I think confusing to the general public & doctors who are not aware of the different groups/traditions that homeopaths might belong to. John, is this a specifically UK division of opinion, or is a similar situation seen in other countries ? Should not this information be added to Homeopathy#Homeopathy and vaccination section ?
• I do not think that, in general, arguements against "all vaccinations" need be discussed in detail on each vaccination page (as duplication), but rather a short link to a single page that discusses the viewpoints seems a more sensible way or organising within wikipedia (afterall a single encyclopaedia). In particular links to problems with a treatment should be on the treatment article rather than a disease article (hence issues of antibiotics resulting in super-resistant bacteria belongs not under sore throat or otitis media, nor the specific antibiotics amoxicillin or flucloxacillin, but rather under antibiotics or the specific article: staphylococcus aureus). David Ruben ^Talk 14:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Davidruben is correct as above. Is this a description of the majority of homeopaths as anti-vaccination? Midgley 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The link is what I call 'lying with the truth' in that it is an attempt to give people the belief that homeopaths support vaccination, whereas the vast majority don't. Only allopathic ones, which tells a tale, although one homeopathic MD has written a book denouncing vaccination. john 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I note it is stated that (a subset of) homeopaths do not support vaccination. Are they neutral about it? Do they oppose it? Midgley 13:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nutritional vitamin C cure of measles left out

The Nutritional treatment of measles has been left out. I would put it in but I am sure allopath Davidruben would remove it. john 09:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a very curious reference. It is hard to identify what claim John is making. Children with viral illnesses were given Vitamin C and a few days later were better. Every week we have children with viral diseases who are not given VItamin C, and a few days later they are better. The chap with testicles the size of tennis balls was improved 36 hours later - well, yes, he would be. And if you take two chaps with 4 tennis balls, and inject one with Vitamin C and one with saline, they'll be better abou the same time. If you walk round them anticlockwise trailing a ball of incense and they are better in a few days it doesn't indicate that if you didn't they wouldn't have been. The thing that is missing is a critical sense. Midgley 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

German measles

Somebody please write more about the german kind of measels. It is left very unproffesional - anon contribution, 30 March 2007

Please see Rubella for a discussion of the "German measles". It is actually a distinct disease from the measles addressed here. Best wishes. WBardwin 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Outbreak

There is currently (May 2007) a measles outbreak at several colleges in Tokyo. Several have closed for a week but I dont have more information.

There is a link now on the main article (under "Public Health") to a web page which discusses the Japanese outbreak at length; nobody please move it back to "MMR Eradication". That paragraph talks about outbreaks in the Americas (where the disease has already been eradicated) that are being caused by viruses imported from other world regions. In the Western Pacific Region (which includes Japan) measles is still endemic, and the current outbreak is not import-related, but rather a continuation of local transmission in that country.

--I apologize if this appears somewhat pedantic on my part, but the Japanese outbreak information keeps being moved back to "MMR Eradication", and there is no way that I could fit this entire explanation on an update summary. :P -- Pine 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Outbreak in San Diego, CA

This article ought to be updated to include the recent outbreak of measles in the San Diego, CA area. San Diego, CA outbreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.90.99 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy in Public Health and Eradication sections

Both sections site the outbreak of measles in Indiana in 2005. I believe it just needs to be in one of these sections. I can't decide which though. Someone help. Saritamackita (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for section Worldwide MMR Eradication

While it looks like there is some good information here on recent outbreaks, there is also some information that is distinctly not about Measles or even specifically the MMR vaccine. This information should probably be moved to another article, possibly on the MMR Vaccine itself. It would be preferable to mention MMR vaccine only as it specifically relates to Measles in this artical on Measles. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) "Worldwide MMR Eradication (Not to be confused with the World Health Organization's Measles Initiative)... There are also plans underway to eliminate rubella from the region by 2010.[12] As of 2006, endemic cases were still being reported in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela, they are currently vaccinating Dominican Republic.[citation needed] While some have proposed eradication,[15] none is likely to take place until, at least, after the worldwide eradication of Poliomyelitis."

Endemic in the UK?

The article says Measles is endemic in the UK. I dont think it is (I live in the uk and I dont think I know anyone wih it). Maybe I have misunderstood what endemic means? Otherwise I think we need a reference for this. (UK vaccination rate is about 85% just in case anyone wondered [[10]])

Thanks

John CaptinJohn (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Measles is once again endemic in the UK, thanks primarily to its low vaccination rate. See MEASLES ONCE AGAIN ENDEMIC IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My child has just been diagnosed with Measles even though he had the MMR. His doctor said it must be a non-UK strain not covered by the vaccine. It seems MMR doesn't always prevent infection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.251 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Complications: "relatively common" = "not so high"?

The article states "Complications with measles are relatively common [...]", but shortly after "while the rate of complications is not high". Perhaps because I'm not a native speaker of English, it seems bit dubious. While "not so high" is, well, "not so high", and yet high, somewhat, to me it sounds like less than "relatively common", which would be more like "high", to me. Certainly it would be all much clear with real numbers, I'll see if I can find them. --Extremophile (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-human hosts

Currently the article reads:

Humans are the only known natural hosts of measles, although the virus can infect some non-human primate species.

Doesn't the second half of the sentence contradict the first?

Ordinary Person (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

GA

This article requires some expansion and further references to fulfill GA. Both the treatment and diagnosis section are limited in scope.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Herbal/Botanical remedies

The following good faith entry by an anon editor was oddly placed in the article. Moved here for discussion. WBardwin (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Botanical immune enhancement (with echinacea, for example) can assist the body in working through this viral infection. Homeopathic support also can be effective throughout the course of the illness. Some specific alternative treatments to soothe patients with measles include the Chinese herbs bupleurum (Bupleurum chinense) and peppermint (Mentha piperita), as well as a preparation made from empty cicada (Cryptotympana atrata) shells. The itchiness of the rash can be relieved with witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), chickweed (Stellaria media), or oatmeal baths. The eyes can be soothed with an eyewash made from the herb eyebright (Euphrasia officinalis). Practitioners of ayurvedic medicine recommend ginger or clove tea.

there is no evidence of echinacea's effectiveness in any illness,nor is there conclusive evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for measles or any other illness. the anecdotal reports of improvement from homeopathy can be ascribed to the placebo effect.to whoever the anon editor is:please do not put this information again on Wikipedia.It is unverifed and inaccurate,and should you put it back on to wikipedia,unless their is a credible source for the information,it will be removed.you are welcome to put scientific, verifiable information on Wikipedia.best wishes.Immunize (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

please provide historical charts

The two charts imply that the downturn in measles diagnoses was caused by the introduction of a national measles vaccination campaign. This is not proven by the data, since there was already a clear trend downward in cases BEFORE the vaccine campaign, which had to have ramped up slowly at first. This is a Freakonomical way of using a graph to show something that is not correlated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.78.248 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

please provide historical charts that provide data from 1900 to present for intellectual honesty.

there are plenty charts out there that show the historical data. I have found NONE that are under express copyright.

I can neither see that the historic fact displayed as a diagram CAN be copyrighted since it is part of publicly available data, created through the means of public funding.

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/0707275measleslog.jpg

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uk-deaths-1901-1965.gif

Please provide any of the widely and abundantly available charts that show the historic levels of measles since the beginning of 1900's. Do NOT pretend they are all under copyright. This is public information. In under less than a year the entire pharmaceutical industry will be toppled. We have doctors all over the place coming forth in every country and the lack of safety studies has reached avalanche proportions. Millions of people will begin to sue all over the world. I'd suggest that admins that still suppress information here on wikipedia start hiding their IP addresses because there is going to be quite a few VERY angry people around when it gets out how much children have been hurt by mmr vaccines. This is a fair warning.

ANYone with half a brain can watch and make the rational conclusion from the available historic data of dozens of studies that the main cause of the drop in disease world wide since 1900 is access to enough and varied healthy food, clean water and better hygiene.

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-uk-diphtheria-1901-1965.gif

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uk-deaths-1901-1965.gif

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

http://www.docmeade.com/historic-data-shows-vaccines-not-key-in-declines-in-death-from-disease/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxP5LEYg4LQ

Again, if you have any doubts you should take a look around in the "blogsphere". If you do not think people are protective of their children.. you've got another thing coming. The snowball stage is long since left. Were the people who argued for car safety anti-car ? Do you want to go back to a car without safety belt and a non-collapse-able steering wheel? Do we believe the pretence that current medical practice is the be all - end all of medical practice and knowledge? Will they not laugh at us a hundred years from now? Then it's time to start looking for rational and logical better practice. And listening to it.

One in four in the UK alone have already acquired the information, background and studies and have found the lack of safety studies, have found and seen the studies that showed that too much vaccines on children and mmr vaccines in particular had detectable negative effects on children. This is without ANY of the doctors who studied and found this to be the case even _publishing_ their findings in the media. In other words, not a single dollar has been spent to get this information out to large numbers of people. Another point: studies show that the people who currently oppose the mmr vaccines and the overuse of vaccines on too young children, overwhelmingly are people of education, people who talk to others, people who write and read, in other words the social leaders, the educated, the successful strata of society. Do not try to insult this group further. You will loose. And your credibility will go down the drain _rapidly_ with it, and it will stay in the drain. This is not an issue people will easily forget any time soon or take lightly.

Additional note: Medical doctors and their families have and take the least amounts of vaccines. Doctors I have spoken to sent their own children (in their twenties) on study trips to both India and Africa for several months without having them taking any vaccines. They advised their children to follow normal safety precautions, hygiene and be careful with what and how to eat. They all came back without any infectious disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly sceptical of the sources of your charts. Mercola, for instance, is not a trustworthy source. The rest of your data is either anecdotal or plain incorrect (1 in 4 people antivax in the UK? How come then that 90% of kids still get MMR despite all this scaremongering?)Procrastinator supreme (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to see historical charts of measles mortality ("cases" is a much easier manipulated statistic, and less relevant when making the case that measles are dangerous) for different countries that cover from at least 1900 and with markings that show when vaccination began to have a significant coverage. The only ones I have been able to find have been on sites that are vaccine-critical. Jeff forssell (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Autism under related links?

On simple numbers, WHO is mentioned more often and is more relevant to the article. This is an article about the disease with a small section on the controversy, surely autism should be a related link for MMR controversy, given that there is no mention of a link between measles itself and autism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wootcannon (talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced Autism with MMR vaccine controversy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad writing -- reference to "Wakefield"

Under section "prevention", reference is made to "Wakefield had manipulated patient data" without prior reference to the Wakefield study, or a link to it. Since this is controversial (see previous talks re: allopathic subjectivity), the facts need to be laid out completely. Neoplop (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section. [11] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

correction for signs and symptoms

In the first line beside coryza there is runny nose in parenthesis. The contents of the parenthesis should be corrected or removed as the term for runny nose is rhinorrhea. I know this is a light technical error but nevertheless it should be corrected.

AriaNo11 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this should say "nasal congestion" instead of "runny nose". Will fix as soon as Wiki database lets me. Procrastinator supreme (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sign/Symptoms -> Diagnosis, WHO standard case definition.

The section on signs and symptoms does not include a standard case definition. While rash is included, it appears at the end. WHO's recommendation clinical case definition:

Recommended case definition

Clinical case definition

Any person in whom a clinician suspects measles infection, or Any person with fever and maculopapular rash (i.e. non-vesicular) and cough, coryza (i.e. runny nose) or conjunctivitis (i.e. red eyes)

James (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sign/Symptoms -> Diagnosis, WHO standard case definition.

The section on signs and symptoms does not include a standard case definition. While rash is included, it appears at the end. WHO's recommendation clinical case definition:

Recommended case definition

Clinical case definition

Any person in whom a clinician suspects measles infection, or Any person with fever and maculopapular rash (i.e. non-vesicular) and cough, coryza (i.e. runny nose) or conjunctivitis (i.e. red eyes)

James (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Measles vs. Rubeola vs. Rujeola vs. Rubella (German-measles)

I am very confused. I found on Wikipedia and other enciclopedic-sites, articles in different languages (EN, FR, RO), about measles and rubella, and the name "Rubeola" is associate with Measles (on English sites) or with Rubella (on other sites, like French wiki article). Who is right? Rubeola is Measles (rujeola [RO], rougeole [FR]) or Rubella (rubeola[RO], rubeole [FR], German-measles [EN])? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liviuandro (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

They are all right because just as other languages have different words for cats and dogs they have different words for diseases. In English, measles is also called rubeola. German measles, or rubella is a different disease. Graham Colm (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Evolution: may I doubt

The interpretation of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838858/?tool=pmcentrez is quite liberal, as this is a hypotesis, without definitive evidence. Please read that article again. Citing from the abstract:" MeV may have originated from virus of non-human species and caused emerging infectious diseases around the 11th to 12th centuries."

It is also rather unlikely as there have been very good written reports about measles from the 10th century, especially the writings of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi, as referred to in http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf. Mamarok (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

decimated

"The disease killed as many as one-third of the population in some areas, and decimated the Roman army."

I'm a little uncomfortable with this. It's taken mostly unaltered from the source, and the use of "decimated" conforms neither to the popular definition nor the technical.

source: http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1996-7/Smith.html

dictionary: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/decimate

technical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_%28Roman_army%29

Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Epidemics resulting from the Columbian Exchange

I was a little surprised that there's no mention that Measles was one of the three main eruptive fevers of the Columbian Exchange (along with smallpox and typhus), being majorly responsible for the decimation of the Native American population (from c. 100–120 million before Columbus to c. 20 million by 1600).

I don't know a lot about the subject (I know some, but don't have references to hand and need to study on my Coursera course at the moment), but I can try to flesh this out once I have time to spare. If anyone knows more (or fancies researching and compiling information; I can recommend starting with a copy of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel), then that would probably be better (and quicker) than anything I could add in. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)