Talk:Immunization: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 209.177.52.22 - "→Merger proposal: " |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:Hmm. But the current immunization article doesn't make that distinction.--''[[User:SportWagon|SportWagon]] 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)'' |
:Hmm. But the current immunization article doesn't make that distinction.--''[[User:SportWagon|SportWagon]] 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)'' |
||
:And we mustn't lose direction to [[Immunization (finance)]] in the event of a merger. So instead, we should have an [[Immunization]] disambiguation page, which might direct people to [[Vaccination]] for one case.--''[[User:SportWagon|SportWagon]] 16:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)'' |
:And we mustn't lose direction to [[Immunization (finance)]] in the event of a merger. So instead, we should have an [[Immunization]] disambiguation page, which might direct people to [[Vaccination]] for one case.--''[[User:SportWagon|SportWagon]] 16:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)'' |
||
There is a vital difference! see http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/611. A link would be useful, but a distinction must be drawn between the two. |
There is a vital difference! see http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/611. A link would be useful, but a distinction must be drawn between the two. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.177.52.22|209.177.52.22]] ([[User talk:209.177.52.22|talk]]) 17:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 17:31, 4 November 2007
 | Medicine Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
My View on Immunisation By Emily Saville
My View on immunisation varies becasue of the side effects in which it is associated with on various occasions. I also don't think that immunisation of children as young as three months should be compulsory. Immunisation works on a basis that a small amount of a disease is injected into a human and the human then becomes 'immune' to that disease. My issue is the persons immune system, if it is a weak immune system then isn't the person who is getting the immunisation at risk of getting that disease
immunization as homeopathy?
I am no doctor, but this thought occured to me... and was recently verified by another independent person... neither of us are related to homeopathy, but it seems that immunization might bare some relation to 'treating like with like'. At least a link might be justified...? I bow to the expert perspective of those monitoring this page... - unsigned
- "Treating like with like" is usually less useful than "treating like with unlike" (eg: hot with cold). But when that does not work then you try what you haven't yet tried. Unless you aren't guessing, in which case you just do what you know works. We know vaccination works. and we know why. We know homeopathy is quackery and we know why. If you don't know why, either believe the scientists and thier objective studies or study up on the facts. WAS 4.250 06:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Merger proposal
The concept seems pretty much synonymous with Vaccination - is there any reason why Immunization wouldn't redirect to Vaccination and the info be merged into Vaccination? Jkpjkp 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't immunization be an intended goal, and vaccination one proposed technique?--SportWagon 15:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. But the current immunization article doesn't make that distinction.--SportWagon 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- And we mustn't lose direction to Immunization (finance) in the event of a merger. So instead, we should have an Immunization disambiguation page, which might direct people to Vaccination for one case.--SportWagon 16:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a vital difference! see http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/611. A link would be useful, but a distinction must be drawn between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.177.52.22 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)