Talk:Mumps vaccine

Cleanup

I agree with using the Mumps vaccine (disambiguation) article set up by mboverload (talk · contribs · count).

It would require a collection of short articles on eg Urabe strain, and presumably one on each tradename of it. I oppose that on the basis that it makes for massive duplication, and that anyone wanting to read about "mumps vaccines" would have to wade through them all. Midgley 09:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Midgley. Each of these strains is important in their own right, but I'm not sure if they could stand on their own as an individual article. On a separte note, the word "disambiguation" in the title sounds a little forced. Andrew73 11:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to start writing all those articles, feel free. I think the strains of mumps vaccine used outside of en-wiki land aren't that worth the time, and could instead be represent in boldface, as I have done here. Heathhunnicutt 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Midgley, I am not an anti-vaccinationist, as you have elsewhere implied and/or asserted. I re-organized your article today because apparently your trick of camping a topic with your version is behavior that's here to stay. So here is why I reorganized your article:

• The verbiage was hard to wade through, but bullet points get the points across.
• Clearly, the vaccines need to be listed in order of relevance, and Mumpsvax/MMR is the most widely used by far today in en-wiki land.
• The bit lifted straight from the WHO document needed footnotes. What is the name of the United States 1948 killed-virus vaccine, anyway? It isn't word-for-word lifting, but it isn't well referenced.
• The bit about UK controversy over MMR/Mumpsvax needs to come after the Mumpsvax/MMR substances are introduced as nouns. Otherwise, the reader is left to wonder, "What is MMR?"

Heathhunnicutt 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I remain perplexed by the continued tone of this discourse which clearly has no element of assumption of good faith about it. Thanks for adding to the article. There seems a certain amount of logic to me to placing the first vaccine at the beginning, rather than the end, and it no longer seems to convey why it was different and why it was supplanted. Is the brandname thing very American? I don't agree that the order of relevance is more logical than the order of introduction, the main difference introduced by these changes seems to be to put the Merck vaccine at the top rather than the first vaccine introduced. The Jeryl Lynn article needs further attention - it's style limps, and I'd not like to see the same happen here - the result of arguments going on over the order when actually only a proportion of the facts are present in the article. I don't see a need for multiple references to the same reference. It submerges teh content in the fabric of the article. Midgley 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that the UK controversy was not over MMR/Mumpsvax. That would be a significant factual error if it was introduced into the article. Midgley 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the fact straight over the monovalent MMR/Mumpsvax thing. That is going to need work, since in the US, people do have the choice of just plain old Mumpsvax. Heathhunnicutt 21:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, may I suggest that it is your article style which is just as lame as mine, oh Contentious Physician? Are you retired or something? If you introduce the term "monovalent", what does that mean to any reader? Define things, man. Heathhunnicutt 21:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

May I add that the Jeryl Lynn vaccine article truly has suffered since you began your recent actions toward it and linked articles. Yes, you are winning and soon it will be obscure what the vaccine ingredients and history are. Heathhunnicutt 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You may. Someone impersonated you a while back to leave this comment on my talk page, then. Let me add that the idea of winning is a fault in thought, in gneeral in WP, and very specifically with these articles. It leads to various things, none of them so far seen to be good. Midgley 23:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never felt like someone had created a "winning/losing" scenario with me on Wikipedia other than interacting with you, and I have met a lot of other people. On the other hand, I have also never had someone try to sic a PR department on one of my articles before, either. Heathhunnicutt 07:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still amazed by your view of that which I regard as completely inaccurate. Midgley 11:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd list. Five vaccines starting with the strain, one with a trademark. Mumpsvax is a member of the set of Jeryl Lynn strain vaccines, not jeryl Lynn a member of the stet of MumpsVaxes. It looks wrong to me, but I'll leave it to someone else - can I leave it to you to put the Sanofi-Pasteur jeryl-Lynn strain vaccine into place, please? Midgley 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The "one with the trademark" is also the highly effective one you can order from your physician over here in the civilized world. Heathhunnicutt 07:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A word on style and content.

The view I have about vaccine articles - encyclopaedia articles in general - is that they contain some history - so they start with the first instance of something, probably something about etymology and so on, and then go on toward the current day. As time goes on successive generations can add to them, not have to recast them. But the history is a key thing. This still seems to me wholly weird - have a chat to someon else about it, please, and see if they can throw light on it. Monovalent seems an easy word, but it could go in a boxout with a definition - Midgley 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The view I have on articles is that they should not be full of jargon (e.g., your "monovalent"), that terms should be explained before being used (e.g., "MMR"), and that the order of sections should begin with some sort of introduction, which may be historical if the purpose of the article is to convey history. Heathhunnicutt 07:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No rush...adding an introduction to a very short article is not very useful - one just reads the article (although I suppose the first sentence may be introductory, the first para etc). In a longer article - once the article is longer - the introduction is probably best written after the rest of the article, as otherwise it has to be reworked each time another section or para is added, to include that. Monovalent is not a word I have any particular affinity for, and I agree it is a long one, but it seems very specific and neater than circumlocutions around mumps vaccine presented alone or singly, or a vaccine against only one disease. Whether Jeryl Lynn is monovalent is another matter - I'd tend to regard it as so as a first approximation at least,even if its spectral line is broadened or split, since the comparisons are with 22 strain Pneumococcus and MMR and DPT and so on. On the history thing - understanding how things are now is helped by seeing how they got this way.

WP policy on disambiguation - generic topic

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic_topic

I'm not sure this is written as well as it could be, but mumps vaccine is a generic topic, specific vaccines are specific topics related to that, and the components of several, or a single, mumps vaccine are further specific topics. Where a component is used in several or in other things as well I would suggest the briefest of mentions of it in the vaccine(s) article and a direction to a main page on it. It would be reasonable to have a page on components of vaccines, with a section on each, which could collect the adjuvants section of vaccines as one of them, and would conveniently gather together the detail on the components - other than the specific antigens.

It is at least possible that the specific antigens are as well dealt with under the main article on the diseases, along with other aspects of management of the disease.

The article mumps vaccine would actualy be better named as mumps vaccines, but this is not a WP style. Among other thngs it would point up that it is not and has never been an effort to "take over" from an article devoted to a single specific mumps vaccine brand or strain. Midgley 10:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ineffective imports - UK 2002

It isn't clear to me which the vaccine strain was. Martindale is the main reference, but I don't have access. It may be Jeryl Lynn. Came from Czech. Midgley 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

" a different monovalent..." That goes beynd anything I can substantiate. Consider, we know that the Russian vaccine is used in former Soviet countries (which includes Czecho) and we know that the vaccine involved came from Czech. I don't see documentation that the strain is different. Midgley 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons of vaccines

From the edit summary: "The Russian vaccine is not comparable to Mumpsvax..." I'm unconvinced by that. The Rusian vaccine was developed 17 years earlier, it and its derivatives cost around half as much in India, it appears to have been provided on easy terms to soviet countries, in a generally socialist fashion, thus allowing the Zagreb strain to be produced from it, whereas I think Merck have only made their Jeryl Lynn strain available to Aventis Pasteur, and probably not with a licence to make derivatives. That looks like a compairson to me. Is there a suggestion that one of them is a whole lot better? Midgley 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly useful references

I doubt that all should be dumped into it or it will be a poorly readable article.

CDC: USA policy on mumps virus includes official name, doesn't give brand of killed vaccine (or any other)

I've done a Google search for the brand of killed mumps virus vaccine. The closest approach is a lab reagent. It is likely that this is from the same source/strain. An appraoch to the company might well produce further information. I'll leave that to anyone interested. Midgley 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mumps vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050907050921/http://www.eurosurveillance.org:80/em/v03n12/0312-222.asp to http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v03n12/0312-222.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Mumps vaccine

So many problems. There are several Mumps vaccines, and historically, have been even more. Describing the properties of ONE of them (especially when it's not clear which) and ascribing those to ALL vaccines is obviously a sloppy error. Describing a vaccine as "safe" is an opinion and is - in an absolute sense - FALSE: there are various SUBSTANTIATED reasons when administration of the vaccine could CAUSE serious health effects. Side-effects (mild) are common, serious side-effects of the currently WHO approved vaccines are rare. The entire lede reads like a very pro-vaccine advertisement. The article fails to succinctly explain: what it is (live? dead? attenuated? partial? MR? MMR?) what it does (prevents viral infection), where it comes from (history? first used where? how many varieties?), and Who first created it (the first successful mumps immunization). Not well done, at all.Abitslow (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I look forward to seeing how you edit the article to improve upon your stated points, and I hope you expect vigorous user involvement to keep a Neutral, balanced, and evidence-based POV. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mumps vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423093835/http://www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/diseases/mumps_vaccine.shtml to http://www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/diseases/mumps_vaccine.shtml
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TVpufLRL21IJ:www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/hssmd33-02.pdf+single+mumps++ineffective&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3 with https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230423/http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/hssmd33-02.pdf on http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/hssmd33-02.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)