Talk:Vaccine hesitancy

The article states that anti-vaccine literature argues diseases were already in decline before vaccines were introduced.

"There is anti-vaccine literature that argues that reductions in infectious disease result from improved sanitation and hygiene (rather than vaccination) or that these diseases were already in decline before the introduction of specific vaccines."

However, this sentence lacks a citation. Additionally, many vaccine-hesitant sources (for example ,) specifically refer to mortality rates declining, not incidence rates. Could the editors please clarify this or provide a reliable source? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC) Reply

Even not considering the vaccines, hygiene got better, and medicines got better. Therefore, more people survived than before. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC) Reply

That's exactly the point that anti-vaxxers are making. However, this article misquotes anti-vaxxers as saying that incidence/morbidity decreased, when their argument is actually about the decline in deaths/mortality. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

This page is predominantly about the topics of "anti-vaccination" and the general topic of "vaccination". Very little is actually about "Vaccine Hesitancy". Therefore, this page really needs a major review and link to the relevant pages. "Vaccine hesitancy" and "anti-vaccination" are not one and the same. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

The Wikipedia states what Vaccine Hesitancy is and how it's different from Anti-vaccination and provides sources. But then wanders off onto completely irrelevant anti-vaccine content. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

It seems to me the bulk of the page discusses why people are reluctant to take vaccines, and why this is foolish. Care to link to the sections you claim are overstated anti-vax? Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Reasons for Vaccine hesitancy should be discussed in the following light:

Confidence/trust in authorities, complacency, convenience, lack of information, fear of side effects, etc.

After the first 2 paragraphs, this wiki page devolves into a pro vs anti diatribe. Aside from the first 2 paragraphs, none of the article reflects how the literature and authorities discuss vaccine hesitancy. The Geographical distribution and Countermeasures sections are probably ok.

How to manage vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccination rates - Dr Jessica Kaufman - AIF 24.pptx

summary-of-sage-vaccinehesitancy-en.pdf ShadowAdvocate (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

We do, but what we will not do is ignore the science. So I am out of here with a "I do not see the problem you are seeing". Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Actually you ARE ignoring the science by incorrectly framing "vaccine hesitancy" as "anti-vaxx". ShadowAdvocate (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

You can provide reliable, 3rd party references explaining the difference in a way that is actionable on the article, yes? TechBear (he/him) | Talk | Contributions 15:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm a little perplexed, because the page actually distinguishes the two before descending into antivaxx. But here is a source that backs up this distinction:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21645515.2021.2008214 2400:A848:4087:0:D177:E033:DB63:EECA (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

That report just shows anti as more vehement than hesitancy. It's just a question of degree. Like Stalersteven "I do not see the problem you are seeing" - Walter Ego 16:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

It's not just the degree. The differences are extensively discussed in all literature.

Here's another example:

https://iddp.gwu.edu/vaccine-hesitant-vaccine-refusers-and-anti-vaxxers-theres-spectrum-and-differences-matter ShadowAdvocate (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

So again, I ask, what do we say that is incorrect about vaccine hesitancy? Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Vaccine hesitancy refers to a spectrum of people, including parents that vaccinate but are concerned and hestitant. For example, Julie Leask proposes 5 categories of vaccine hestitant: Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals - PubMed

Out of those that are "refusers" ie. anti-vaxxers, this is less than 2% of those that are vaccine hestitant. Therefore, this entire page is targetting a tiny minority of those that are actually vaccine hestitant.

Labels matter, and not only is this article incorrectly framing vaccine hesitancy, but it's also more likely to drive the "vaccine hesitant" towards being "anti-vaxx": Labels matter: Use and non-use of ‘anti-vax’ framing in Australian media discourse 2008–2018 - ScienceDirect

This wikipedia article is of a low standard for what should be expected here. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Lets try this another way, here tell us an example of a specific passage we should rewrite, then tell us what we shoudl change it to. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

The entire page is literred with anti-vaxx statements:

"There is anti-vaccine literature..."

"Another rallying cry of the anti-vaccine movement..."

"While some anti-vaccinationists..."

"Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination..."

"Historically, chiropractic stronglyopposed vaccination..."

The following topics are about vaccines, not vaccine hesitancy: Effectiveness, Population Health, Cost Effectiveness, Necessity, History. These topics should be deleted and referred to in a "vaccine" article instead.

Topics that begin to correctly talk about vaccine hesitancy far down the text, these topics should be kept:

- Geographical distribution, Countermeasures, Policy Implications

Vaccine hesitancy should talk about: monitoring vaccine hesitancy, socioeconimic disadvantage, barriers to vaccination, parental concerns, solutions, vaccine communication, public trust in vaccination, backfire effect etc. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals | BMC Pediatrics | Full Text ShadowAdvocate (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

So you weant to re,ove all mention of anti-vax? Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

"Anti-vaxx" is not synonymous with "vaccine hesitancy", so yes, anti-vaxx should only be discussed on this page in context with it's prevalence, which is estimated to be less than 2% out of the vaccine hesitant. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22998654/ ShadowAdvocate (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yet surely opposition to vaccines is, as it is part of vaccine hesitancy? And this is a large article, that is about 5 lines, less than 10%. 15:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

• There's definitely an argument to be had that significant portions of the article should simply be removed. For example, the population health subsection doesn't even pretend to be about the subject of the article. The history section especially needs absolutely hacked down. A pastor in Boston in 1721 doesn't have anything to do with the subject. And it continues like this as if someone was trying to write a book on vaccines, but gave up and stuck what they had on Wikipedia. GMG ^talk 14:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

  Thank you. So how do we make this happen? I'm pretty new to wikipedia editing so I don't know how to facilitate a major change like this without getting jumped on? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

  The short answer is WP:BEBOLD. When I get a bit more time, I'm probably just going to start ripping out paragraphs and sections and see what we're left with that's actually about the subject of the article. GMG ^talk 16:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

• Well I've cut about 15k worth of bloat so far. I'll need to start getting more granular. And for the record, anti-vax was spun off into its own article two years ago, so no idea why there is some argument about keeping a bunch of that content here. GMG ^talk 17:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have started a thread here:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CDC_revises_stance_on_vaccines_and_autism

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Under the thiomersal section. I'm not sure how to better word this, but it's just clunky phrasing and I hates it. GMG ^talk 22:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

The author of the reference also has stated conflicts of interest. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Who is the "author of the reference", and what reference are you talking about? Our WP:COI guideline is about editors here, not the authors of sources/references. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I was replying to the person above, who was commenting on the wording "This is considered disproven". This statement includes a reference to the paper "Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses" which states in it's conflicts of interest section that Paul Offit "is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific advisory board to Merck." I wasn't suggesting that this violates WP:COI, however I'm questioning whether this is a quality reference, especially given that a court has now ordered the CDC to publish that "the statement "Vaccines do not cause autism" is not an evidence-based claim." ShadowAdvocate (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I am having a bit of difficulty understanding you, but I'll attempt a reply. Offit is an excellent authority and the source is good. The court ruling (where is that?) would boost and support the use of Offit et al as sources as such a ruling backs them and their scientific findings. Your last sentence uses accurate quotes that form an interesting double-negative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Noted that Offit is indeed considered a leading authority on vaccines, but paradoxically, it is because experts like Offit and his financial ties to industry that fuels vaccine hesitancy. His financial stake in vaccine development means he benefits from widespread vaccine use and while that does not invalidate the data, WP:RS and WP:COI guidelines emphasize that quality sources should be evaluated not only for accuracy but also for independence. Ignoring Offit's COI risks reinforcing the very skepticism Wikipedia aims to counter. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Our duty is towards ensuring the reliability of sources, not towards avoiding raising red flags for those who are paranoid. I.e., according to WP:MNA, we assume the public knows that Wikipedia loves mainstream science and mainstream medicine. And Offit has nothing whatsoever to do with the WP:COI guideline. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Mainstream science recognises that Offit has a conflict of interest. Therefore there should be other sources that also back up his claims. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

You are not mainstream science. Yup, in scientific papers COI has to get declared. He is in no way banned from publishing scientific papers about vaccines. Which would have happened if he failed to disclose COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

You are being silly. This is going beyond mainstream POV. One does not get banned simply for having a COI. However, if a person does have a COI, then his statements should be verifiable by other sources. This article should therefore be able to back up this statement by providing other references. So where are they? If what you say is true, it should be a trivial task to provide additional references. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

One does not get banned simply for having a COI—true, but inessential. One gets banned for not disclosing a COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my concern that this needs to be adequately referenced by another source, especially considering that the CDC, an authoritative body, states that the claim that "vaccines don't cause autism" is not evidence based . ShadowAdvocate (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

CDC under RFK Jr. is not a reliable source about the safety of vaccines. At least in respect to autism. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm still getting familiar with wikipedia policies, so please bear with me here. But wouldn't the correct approach be to acknowledge the controversy? On the one hand we've got the CDC saying one thing (which you claim is unreliable), and on the other hand we've got a vaccine developer saying another (Offit), so surely we need references from other sources? Just because it's a mainstream belief that vaccines don't cause autism doesn't mean that we should accept lower standards of evidence. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia does not teach the controversy. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

The idea that anyone who works in vaccines has a conflict of interest is a tired antivax trope. You know who does have a conflict of interest? Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who has made a fortune out of lying about vaccines. And Mark Blaxill. And David Geier. And Jay Bhattacharya. And all the other ANYIVA grifters who Kennedy has appointed. They don’t just have a dog in the fight, they are the dog. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

This is a topic about Vaccine Hesitancy, not anti-vaccination. One of the issues that fuels vaccine hesitancy is the lack of transparency and conflicts of interest. I'm not disputing your point of view, but rather I'm highlighting that not acknowledging the conflicts of interest is feeding the dog (ie. you are fueling vaccine hesitancy). But I'm happy to let this lie as per other discussion below, but I'm just highlight its relevance on a vaccine hesitancy page. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

No. This happens to be our main article about anti-vax topics. You are defending one of the mistaken motivations for anti-vax activism and beliefs. That is forbidden advocacy of a fringe POV. Editors are supposed to be against that, not for it. Don't think that only bad editing can get one in trouble here. Forbidden advocacy on talk pages and your own userpage can also do it. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia . If you can't support that mission, then try Fringeopedia, Conservapedia, or Justapedia. There unreliable sources and fringe positions are welcome. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Vaccine Hesitancy and antivaxx are not synonymous. There is a seperate antivaxx page here on Wikipedia.

Vaccine hesitancy refers to a spectrum of people, including parents that vaccinate but are concerned and hestitant. For example, Julie Leask proposes 5 categories of vaccine hestitant: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22998654/

Out of those that are "refusers" ie. anti-vaxxers, this is less than 2% of those that are vaccine hestitant. Forgive me as a new editor, but I do not believe that making "vaccine hesitancy" all about "anti-Vaxx" is not proportionate. I think it's a bit unfair to threaten and frame me as antivaxx for pointing this out. See another thread above where someone advised me to WP:BEBOLD. I believe I have only made evidence based edits. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

You are correct that there is a wide spectrum from some skepticism to full anti-vaccine activism. Like it or not, this is our main article for the subject, and it covers the spectrum. Since most "I am not fully against vaccines, I'm just for safer vaccines" is nearly always a deceptive smokescreen, we tend to ignore the difference in common parlance. Your 2% figure, as expressed above, seems bogus. Maybe that figure means something slightly different? Do you have a citation?

You write: "There is a seperate antivaxx page here on Wikipedia." Where is that article? Maybe I'm just too tired to remember right now. We do have many other articles about anti-vax organizations and individuals, and we have Anti-vaccine activism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Anti-vaccine activism - Wikipedia is the page I was referring to.

I did include a citation above regarding vaccine hesitancy. I don't think this comment of yours is evidence based: "Since most "I am not fully against vaccines, I'm just for safer vaccines" is nearly always a deceptive smokescreen". There is quite a lot of literature on vaccine hesitancy and I don't think it supports your views. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Meeting the challenge of vaccine hesitancy | Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals - PubMed

Covid Vaccine resistance is a bit higher at 5.5%: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance: Correlates in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of the Australian population ShadowAdvocate (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Leask's work (and the estimate of antivaxx being <2%) has been referenced by the RACGP, a credible organisation in Australia.

A-positive-approach-to-parents-with-concerns-about.aspx ShadowAdvocate (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Nice sources! Feel free to develop content from those sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

A way to resolve this dilemma and be an asset here would be to find mainstream RS that discuss this particular misunderstanding, and then add that to the article in a manner that shows how it's a mistaken/bogus motivation. Edit like a mainstream editor.

WP:BOLD applies to the first try. When you meet resistance, it no longer applies. If you know a topic is controversial, it is best to not be BOLD. You risk just causing disruption and controversy, and WP:BOLD should not do that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes, that I understand and I have let it go with respect to my original query regarding the reference I was querying. But I think it is a bit unfair at how aggressive you have responded and the incorrect assumptions you have subsequently made. I can appreciate that Wikipedia gets bombarded with crazy anti-vaxxers, and I understand why I could have raised red flags. But I have been very careful to only edit with evidence based information and I would appreciate a little bit more breathing space. I understand that it will take some time to gain the trust of the community here. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

We do get a lot of rabid and inflexible pushers of fringe POV here, but you haven't been bad, so I apologize for the rough ride. I see you are sincerely trying, and I will AGF in your intentions and will give you more rope. I trust you'll continue to improve. That's what I'm seeing, so keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you! I've made my first small edit to the page. I hope it is acceptable. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

ShadowAdvocate, you are skating on VERY thin ice. (This is not a free speech zone.) You have received "Introduction to contentious topics" notifications on your talk page, so any administrator can, without warning, block or topic ban you if you appear to be pushing or defending anti-vax ideas, and that's what you are doing. For example, do not defend the current CDC under RFK Jr. That is not allowed here. We do not support fringe theories. We support mainstream science and evidence. Your own COI and background with anti-vax advocacy are interfering with your judgment here. You will have to abandon that thinking if you don't want to receive a topic ban from this topic area. Seriously.

WP:COI has zero to do with any researchers CEO "out there". It applies only to editors here. Only when a researcher's COI is proven to have affected their research negatively or corruptly would we consider it. There is no evidence that Offit's declared CEO is problematic. He is legitimately paid for his work and patents. All researchers are supposed to declare their CEOs, and that does not cause us to not use them. Neither would it mean we have to use other RS. If there were a serious disagreement between different authoritative sources about vaccines would we have to cover both sides of the dispute, but the science vs anti-vax dispute is not such a dispute. There is no disagreement. Only advocates of fringe ideas, the kind we block and ban here, disagree with the scientific consensus. The current CDC, under RFK Jr. is now corrupted and no longer a RS for several topic, especially vaccines. We can no longer trust them. Read Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention#CDC_revises_stance_on_autism_and_vaccines -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

ok, thank you for your advice. I do not wish to propagate "anti-vaxx" ideas as you put it. However, my concern is where standards of evidence are overlooked simply because everyone agrees it is the mainstream view. All I'm suggesting is that there be an additional reference that backs up the statement, which should be trivial to provide. I'm not sure why this is putting me on thin ice? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

In the Netherlands a judge who was member of a jurists association having the purpose of combating internet piracy was accused of having a COI during a trial concerning internet piracy, but the decision of the competent judicial panel was that a judge who strives for applying the law does not have a COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Your request unnecessarily wastes our time and is not required by our policies or common sense. Since there is no dispute among mainstream scientists about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, we do not need to add more sources to "back up" what Offit writes. What he writes is backed up by all other mainstream sources, so you are asking for us to waste our time. Don't do that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

ok thank you, noted. It'll take me a little bit of time to understand how editing on wikipedia works, but I'll know for next time that lower standards of evidence are required for the mainstream view on controversial topics. Please be patient with me while I learn and understand how the community works. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I wish you were being sarcastic, but I'll chalk this up to your newness here and to your background of questioning and attacking mainstream science with nothing more than conspiracy theories and bogus studies. (That's what anti-vaxers do.)

The mainstream view is a much higher standard of evidence than the lack of evidence from RFK Jr's CDC. That's why all major medical organizations are now saying we cannot trust the CDC, and they are advising patients and parents to instead get their advice from their own physician.

In this case, the current anti-science CDC is making changes based on no evidence or bogus evidence, all of it contrary to massive amounts of existing high quality evidence. Offit's work is part of the latter evidence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I object to being told this -> "background of questioning and attacking mainstream science with nothing more than conspiracy theories and bogus studies."

I apologise if I came across this way, but I don't believe I have written anything that supports this. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

As an editor who came here representing (by the username "HEARTParty") an anti-vax and anti-science organization, I assumed that was your background, and your comments, including on your userpage, have tended toward defense of anti-vax tropes and support of anti-mainstream positions and evidence.

HEART Party lead:

Health, Environment, Accountability, Rights, Transparency (HEART) is a minor Australian political party registered federally and in New South Wales. The HEART Party advocated for policies related to health autonomy, alternative medicine, environmental sustainability, and government accountability and opposes mandatory vaccination and water fluoridation. While not a part of the party's official policies, many of the party's candidates have expressed anti-vaccination views, COVID-19 scepticism and climate change scepticism.

Nearly everything there is anathema to what RS say, scientific evidence, and the goal of Wikipedia to be a mainstream encyclopedia, not a fringe one. Don't try to turn Wikipedia in that direction. Any favorable treatment of those topics can get you topic banned.

I hope that your continued participation and editing here will tend to wash away that impression. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I believe I have only made evidence based edits. Can you give one example where I've mentioned conspiracy theories or used bogus studies? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

"The new statement on the site that says ""vaccines do not cause autism" is not an evidence-based claim" shows a lack of understanding of the term "evidence". " CDC’s New Autism Webpage Distorts Science and Rejects Decades of Evidence on Vaccine Safety, Autism Science Foundation -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

My edit was reverted. I tried to add:

Vaccine hesitancy includes, but should not be confused with, Anti-vaccination ^{[1] [2]} .

However, my edit was reverted stating that it is WP:EDITORIALIZING. I understand now that I should not use the words "should not be confused with", but is this all I did wrong? What about the following wording:

Researchers distinguish Vaccine Hesitancy as separate from Anti-vaccination and propose that only a small number of Vaccine Hesitant people are outright refusers^{[1] [2]} . ShadowAdvocate (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

That Australian research does present some form of distinguishing. It does not use the phrase "anti-vaccination". Instead it uses forms of the word "refusers". Hesitance/hesitant/hesitancy is used in connection with refusers ("hesitancy" is usually an umbrella term), but "Table 1" does mention both in separate sections where it discusses "A proposed classification of parental position on vaccination." There are also varied uses of terms, such as "An approach to hesitant parents and refusing parents is given in Table 2."

The low number recorded in Australia ("only 1.61% of parents register as vaccine refusers") may sound small, but it's alarming, as we need coverage of about 95% to provide good herd immunity that will protect those who cannot get vaccinated for various reasons. That 1.61% is the registered numbers. The real number is likely higher.

I suggest you create a new "Terminology and classification" section, and create a good paragraph. It would probably be best to do that here so it can be workshopped by several editors. The result will then be bulletproof. Try different words from the source, in quotation marks and with attribution, and that source as an inline citation. I haven't read the whole thing, but that research also mentions the USA, so it may have information relevant outside of Australia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Suggested addition to this article would be regarding "Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies", which purports to offer evidence that vaccines are not generally as safe and effective as claimed. RationalWiki provides an overview of the flaws in this source. Fabrickator (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC) Reply