Misplaced Pages

Talk:Influenza vaccine: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:58, 30 October 2006 editWAS 4.250 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,993 edits →Criticism on studies: The right thing to do with GARBAGE is throw it away.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:54, 10 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,766,467 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Viruses}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Pharmacology}}. 
(687 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{copied|from=Influenza vaccine|to=Universal flu vaccine}}
==Giant quote without paragraph marks==
{{Talk header}}
The quote in the section '''Flu vaccine virus selection''' is over a screen long without any paragraph indentations. It's unreadable! ] 17:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
{{COI editnotice}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=02:44, 4 September 2008
|action1link=Talk:Influenza vaccine/GA1
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=236008291
|currentstatus=FGAN
|topic=natsci
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Viruses|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid|translation=yes|translation-imp=high}}
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
Good point I'll modify it. Tell me if you like the modification. ] 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Influenza vaccine/Archive %(counter)d
}}


{{Connected contributor (paid)
==NPOV?==
| User1 = WanderingJosh | U1-employer = BiondVax Pharmaceuticals | U1-client = | U1-EH = yes | U1-banned = | U1-otherlinks = COI declared
Is this NPOV? Parts of this article, in particular, "Injected flu vaccine was grown in fertilized chicken eggs as is the new FluMist nasal spray vaccine produced by MedImmune. FluMist causes a more durable immune response and is therefore more effective than injected vaccine was. It is the recommended type of flu vaccination for all healthy people ages 5 to 49 and contraindicated for those with allergy to egg proteins." read like a press release. -Unknown
| User2 = | U2-employer = | U2-client = | U2-EH = | U2-banned = | U2-otherlinks =
:This passage is very poorly written. "vaccince was grown" "as is the new" "and is therefore" "injected vaccine was". Holy verb tense Batman! -Unknown
| User3 = | U3-employer = | U3-client = | U3-EH = | U3-banned = | U3-otherlinks =
| User4 = | U4-employer = | U4-client = | U4-EH = | U4-banned = | U4-otherlinks =
| User5 = | U5-employer = | U5-client = | U5-EH = | U5-banned = | U5-otherlinks =
| User6 = | U6-employer = | U6-client = | U6-EH = | U6-banned = | U6-otherlinks =
| User7 = | U7-employer = | U7-client = | U7-EH = | U7-banned = | U7-otherlinks =
| User8 = | U8-employer = | U8-client = | U8-EH = | U8-banned = | U8-otherlinks =
| User9 = | U9-employer = | U9-client = | U9-EH = | U9-banned = | U9-otherlinks =
| User10 = | U10-employer = | U10-client = | U10-EH = | U10-banned = | U10-otherlinks =
}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
==Risks==
] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ].
I'm not disputing whether there are risks or not, but there's no citation for "However, flu vaccine is not routinely administered to children under the age of 2". Where I live (BC, Canada), the flu vaccine is recommended and funded for all children between 6 months and two years. --] 21:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
:This page is biased towards vaccination, and does not inform of the proven link to Guillaine Barre syndrome, quiet apart from the many articles showing the total ineffectiveness of flu vaccination. ] 20:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
==Mercury content in flu shots?==
== Should include the strongly significant relationship between drop in healthcare worker vaccination and rise in nosocomial influenza-like illness in their elderly patients ==
I keep hearing this, but I fail to see any studies showing mercury content, or even if there is, that it's unnecessary for conveying the drug. I'm researching this for the ] article I'm expanding. ] 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


A 2014 study of 62,343 hospitalized patients found that their risk of infection with an influenza-like illness while in hospital rose over five-fold, from 1.1% to 5.7% (P < 0.001) as rates of influenza vaccination among their healthcare workers dropped by about 76%, from 13.2% to 3.1% (P < 0.001).
:I changed the see also reference to read "] is controversial mercury-containing organic compound used as an antiseptic and antifungal agent in ]s." ] 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
J Hosp Infect. 2014 Mar;86(3):182-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005. Epub 2014 Feb 6.


'''Can influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers influence the risk of nosocomial influenza-like illness in hospitalized patients?'''
==Efficacy of pre-pandemic H5N1 vaccines==
Actually the chances are that current H5N1 vaccines would give a fair bit of protection, all the experts say so, but governements have been exaggerating the potential for mutations to arise rendering the vaccines ineffective, as they do not want to pay for widespread vaccination if they can avoid it and they do not want the general public to panic and demand vaccinations that have not been fully developed yet. ], one of the UKs top experts was quoted on the ]'s Newsnight programme saying that although there was a chance that current vaccines wouldn't work on the pandemic flu, there was a good chance they would and that he would jump at the chance to have a pre-pandemic H5N1 vaccination. - unsigned


Amodio E1, Restivo V2, Firenze A2, Mammina C2, Tramuto F2, Vitale F2.
:A prepandemic vaccine is better than no vaccine, and that is why prepandemic vaccines are undergoing clinical trials as we speak. No one is exaggerating the potential for mutations to render vaccines ineffective; the fear is rational and based on facts covered in our articles. You might care to read ] and ]. ] 14:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


PMID: 24581755
I basically agree, I guess it depends on the way in which H5N1 mutates to infect humans, if it is through hybridisation there could be a dramatic change (though I guess one would hope that there might be some immunity left in the population to the human half) whereas if there are just a few changes in RNA, immunity arising from existing vaccines would have a much better chance of providing some degree of protection against pandemic H5N1. NB I slightly re-worded that sentence again, what do you think?--] 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005
::I have zero problem with your latest change. Thanks for helping out. It is a big burden to try to keep current and accurate for no pay. I welcome even more help (just be sure to provide sources). ] 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


==History== == reformulation ==
When I read this I was really hoping to hear about the history of the vaccine. When it first came around, who invented it, or what country first started using it. Also when it became standard to distribute and administer it in the various countries that have access to it. How long it took to become accepted and trusted. None of those questions are answered. It's as though it fell from the sky one day. Could someone with some knowledge create a section about the vaccine's history please? Thanks in advance. - ]


The reformulation section is getting a bit long, and should likely be moved to ].
:I'll add ''something''. ] 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Also the 2022 sourthern hemisphere formulation is here: https://surv.esr.cri.nz/PDF_surveillance/Virology/FluVac/FluVac2022.pdf

--] (]) 21:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
:Wow, that's great. Nice to have people like you around. ] 18 July 2006.


==Bracket around the p==

]: On my computer I saw

<nowiki>1918, "hysicians tried</nowiki>

with an unnecessary set of square brackets around the p. What do you see? What browser do you use? I use Firefox. ] 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The says:
:"Physicians tried everything they knew, everything they had ever heard of, from the ancient art of bleeding patients, to administering oxygen, to developing new vaccines and sera (chiefly against what we now call Hemophilus influenzae—a name derived from the fact that it was originally considered the etiological agent—and several types of pneumococci). Only one therapeutic measure, transfusing blood from recovered patients to new victims, showed any hint of success."

Our paragraph says:
:"In the world wide ] pandemic of 1918, "hysicians tried everything they knew, everything they had ever heard of, from the ancient art of bleeding patients, to administering oxygen, to developing new vaccines and sera (chiefly against what we now call Hemophilus influenzae—a name derived from the fact that it was originally considered the etiological agent—and several types of pneumococci). Only one therapeutic measure, transfusing blood from recovered patients to new victims, showed any hint of success.""

The brackets denote something within the quote that is ''not'' quoted.

We could use:
:"In the world wide ] pandemic of 1918, physicians "tried everything they knew, everything they had ever heard of, from the ancient art of bleeding patients, to administering oxygen, to developing new vaccines and sera (chiefly against what we now call Hemophilus influenzae—a name derived from the fact that it was originally considered the etiological agent—and several types of pneumococci). Only one therapeutic measure, transfusing blood from recovered patients to new victims, showed any hint of success.""

or:
:"In the world wide ] pandemic of 1918, "Physicians tried everything they knew, everything they had ever heard of, from the ancient art of bleeding patients, to administering oxygen, to developing new vaccines and sera (chiefly against what we now call Hemophilus influenzae—a name derived from the fact that it was originally considered the etiological agent—and several types of pneumococci). Only one therapeutic measure, transfusing blood from recovered patients to new victims, showed any hint of success.""

Any choice that does not misrepresent the source is fine with me. ] 23:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood the purpose of the bracket. It looked like someone tried to wikify the letter p. I prefer "Physicians ...", so I left it that way. ] 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

==Criticism on studies==
I added, once again, the criticism on the flu vaccine studies. A user delted this with the comment "revert people saying OMG maybe you need to pay us to study how effective this stuff is"... if you have real arguments against this study published in the ], ] issue of the ] or arguments why this should not be stated here (remember, its a scientific study published in a famous medical journal and fitting to this subject, so I think it should be stated in this article) please post it here and let us all decide together... thx. ] 07:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:I reverted your unencyclopedic adition. Add a section on known limitations of flu vaccine if you wish, but adding "this report says it needs more study" is for a newspaper not an encyclopedia. Scientists want to study ''everything'' more. And to the extent vaccines match expectations depends on your expectations and the experts are well aware of the limitations of flu vaccines. The fact that most people are not recommended to get one and most people don't, indicates the limitations are well known. ] 17:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::I did not add "this report says it needs more study", I wrote "a study was published which challenges the conclusiveness of Flu vaccination studies"... this sounds very encyclopedian to me. Anyway... I'm very sorry you simply ignore the wikipedia rules and again change the article in this matter without further discussion... I'll try and setisfy you with a new version and hope you won't simply change it again or I'll be forced to inform an admin. ] 21:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Add a section on known limitations of flu vaccine if you wish. "A study was published which challenges the conclusiveness of Flu vaccination studies" is '''GARBAGE''' because it is a ] because no expert claims "conclusiveness" in the first place. The right thing to do with GARBAGE is throw it away. Which I did and will do again. ] 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:54, 10 January 2024

Text and/or other creative content from Influenza vaccine was copied or moved into Universal flu vaccine. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Influenza vaccine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.
Former good article nomineeInfluenza vaccine was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconViruses Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Translation Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconPharmacology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Influenza vaccine.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
  • WanderingJosh (talk · contribs) has been paid by BiondVax Pharmaceuticals. Their editing has included contributions to this article. COI declared here

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jogabonito314. Peer reviewers: Jogabonito314.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should include the strongly significant relationship between drop in healthcare worker vaccination and rise in nosocomial influenza-like illness in their elderly patients

A 2014 study of 62,343 hospitalized patients found that their risk of infection with an influenza-like illness while in hospital rose over five-fold, from 1.1% to 5.7% (P < 0.001) as rates of influenza vaccination among their healthcare workers dropped by about 76%, from 13.2% to 3.1% (P < 0.001).

J Hosp Infect. 2014 Mar;86(3):182-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005. Epub 2014 Feb 6.

Can influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers influence the risk of nosocomial influenza-like illness in hospitalized patients?

Amodio E1, Restivo V2, Firenze A2, Mammina C2, Tramuto F2, Vitale F2.

PMID: 24581755

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005

reformulation

The reformulation section is getting a bit long, and should likely be moved to Historical_annual_reformulations_of_the_influenza_vaccine. Also the 2022 sourthern hemisphere formulation is here: https://surv.esr.cri.nz/PDF_surveillance/Virology/FluVac/FluVac2022.pdf --Onco p53 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories: