![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How does one come to the conclusion that a source is unreliable through broad assertions without checking the source material? I was sure that editors of Wikipedia vetted and checked sources but apparently this is inaccurate? An example would be the reversions done by RandomCanadian, insisting a particular source was not acceptable without first checking the source nor the claims made in said source (as one can note, the publisher did not actually make any claims whatsoever). Some clarification on sourcing would be appreciated. Rowan Cooma54 ( talk) 15:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
A related debunked theory, out of India, claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were lowering people's ability to withstand new variants instead of boosting immunity.[4], the cited source is Reuteurs). Project Veritas is not a reliable source, as established by previous community consensus (as documented at WP:RSP). Same for the Washington Times, which is dubious for politics and science (arguing about MEDRS or not, this is clearly a topic which is both politics and science). You cannot use either as a source, even if it claims to be giving information from Pfizer or from anyone else. If this information is encyclopedically noteworthy, then you must be able to find better sources. It's the same reason we don't use the Daily Fail as a source: yes, occasionally, they might be right (the same way even the dumbest sources might occasionally say something unsurprisingly true like "the sky is blue"), but on those cases, then there are also more competent sources on the matter. Re. no. 4: Yes, exactly (if you change your metaphor from random third parties to reliable sources), see WP:VNT. Re. 5: obvious irony. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
In the Medical section on Deaths "This claim have" should be "These claims have". Thank you. 2600:1014:B06D:CEAB:5F28:A286:FA3A:B585 ( talk) 09:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
How are attempts to get people to get vaccinated Misinformation? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
A January 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis said that "placebo arms (“ nocebo responses”) accounted for 76% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and 52% after the second dose." - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2788172 . -- Bawanio ( talk) 04:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
We often hear that in france. The list of ingredients is open of course: often it is not more than 10 molecules as explained here: https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/Covid-19-Knowledge-Base/Vaccine-Ingredients The confusion seems to arise from the fact that it takes easily 500 steps to get to the molecules and at the origine hundreds of molecules need to react, but in the end there are only about 10 molecules in the dosis. I don't have more time, thy for expanding and transferring the paragraph in the article. SvenAERTS ( talk) 20:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Michael Yeadon was formerly V.P. of Pfizer. The present version of the article refers to him simply as "British researcher". Wouldn't it be important for readers to know he was V.P. of Pfizer? Why or why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solid Research ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Vaccines have recently been falsely (all the cases are in children too young to be vaccinated) linked to spate of unexplained child hepatitis cases [1]. Worth adding or too insignificant? Nil Einne ( talk) 21:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
In the United States, all the major medical expert groups that treat pregnant people and people attempting become pregnant support the safety and importance of COVID-19 vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), the two leading organizations representing specialists in obstetric care, recommend that all pregnant individuals be vaccinated against COVID-19 [2]. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the leading organization representing specialists in fertility and infertility care, recommend that all people who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant be vaccinated against COVID-19 [3]. ASRM states there are no fertility-related exemptions to vaccination. These groups recommend vaccination in part because COVID-19 infection itself increases the risk of pregnancy complications such as maternal mortality, preeclampsia, and preterm birth [4]. MDinQueens ( talk) 15:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
New information suggests ADE can in fact occur with SARS-cov2 depending on antibody levels and more so with variants such as omicron (pre-booster) See Nature article from September 2022
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19993-w
Newer omicron variants in last few months( autumn 2022) have more immune escape and are not well-covered by the recent booster , which theoretically could make ADE more of a problem.
For reference, i am a Harvard and Yale trained MD, and i am vaccinated x3 but chose not to get the recent booster as this new information came out. I have never stopped masking with N95. I am not anti-vax or COVID-denier. I am interested in the full truth, which I believe to be that the vaccine has been important but is not enough, and our reliance on it and abandonment of NPIs such as masks will be our downfall.
Meanwhile there is another error in the article: “when infected by a second closely-related virus, due to a unique and rare reaction with proteins on the surface of the second virus.[60][61] ADE has been observed in vitro and in animal studies with many different viruses that do not display ADE in humans.” This quote is misleading and makes it sound like there is no ADE in humans. On the contrary. ADE is not that rare, there are notable viruses that employ it (consider dengue). Just read the Wikipedia page on ADE, for example. Also a “second closely related virus” is misleading. Sometimes (as with dengue), it is the SAME virus, but with a mutation— in other words a variant. And COVID produces NUMEROUS variants. An antibody that fit the original variant well, but now, because of viral mutations, fits the newer variant less well, is a prime candidate to perform ADE.
So I am not taking a position on the vaccine being good Or bad. I would simply like to see the full updated truth here rather than the current post which implies the whole ADE discussion is an irrelevant non-issue. It’s not. KirbyJan ( talk) 22:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The recent edit by @ SomeNeatGiraffes leaves the sentence not making sense. ("While a study published to JAMA showed an increased risk for myocarditis within seven days of vaccination, the group with most recorded cases (males aged 16 to 17) only had 105.9 per million doses. Only minor symptoms were reported, and patients typically experienced symptomatic recovery after treatment.") It would be good to get some scrutiny so that the wording is improved. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 23:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:80:4301:2D0:55E7:4B96:81F1:345A ( talk) 05:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Please add that some people don’t want it just because they do not choose to participate. 2601:80:4301:2D0:55E7:4B96:81F1:345A ( talk) 05:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
If you have a look at the Gene therapy, most "gene therapies" including the first one approved, and the modern one's that deal with genetic disorders do not really change a cell's DNA (excepting the incidental rate genome integrations of AAV vectors). The whole "not a gene therapy" appears to be made up pro-vaccine propaganda by ill-informed health communication experts because "gene therapy" sounds scary. I'm very tempted to change the reference to gene therapy in the article to do "modify a cell's DNA" to get rid of this absurdity that is at odds with basically an entire body of academic research. Of course... this would be a bit of an editorial decisions to exclude a source based on its content.. which is a little sketchy. I guess I could add material saying "20% of gene therapy trials were run on treatments that used Ad vectors. Ad vectors do not modify the genome" directly next statement. I've contacted a few sources who appear to be selling this narrative... but it might be rather late for them to backtrack on a year and a half of lying to the public during a pandemic. Talpedia ( talk) 00:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
.But people in academia did not react to this anti-scientific information uniformly, as some insisted on the idea that mRNA vaccines are not considered gene therapy to avoid the spread of anti-vaxxers's disinformation, whereas others emphasised the idea that mRNA vaccines are considered gene therapy because they introduce genetic materials into cell
![]() | This
edit request to
COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the petty partisan vaccine hesitancy fueled by Democrat Party leaders. Here is Kamala Harris stating she would not take the vaccine, simply because of Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 116.255.1.118 ( talk) 00:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
New information suggests ADE can in fact occur with SARS-cov2 depending on antibody levels and more so with variants such as omicron (pre-booster) See Nature article from September 2022
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19993-w
Newer omicron variants in last few months( autumn 2022) have more immune escape and are not well-covered by the recent booster , which theoretically could make ADE more of a problem.
For reference, i am a Harvard and Yale trained MD, and i am vaccinated x3 but chose not to get the recent booster as this new information came out. I have never stopped masking with N95. I am not anti-vax or COVID-denier. I am interested in the full truth, which I believe to be that the vaccine has been important but is not enough, and our reliance on it and abandonment of NPIs such as masks will be our downfall.
Meanwhile there is another error in the article: “when infected by a second closely-related virus, due to a unique and rare reaction with proteins on the surface of the second virus.[60][61] ADE has been observed in vitro and in animal studies with many different viruses that do not display ADE in humans.” This quote is misleading and makes it sound like there is no ADE in humans. On the contrary. ADE is not that rare, there are notable viruses that employ it (consider dengue). Just read the Wikipedia page on ADE, for example. Also a “second closely related virus” is misleading. Sometimes (as with dengue), it is the SAME virus, but with a mutation— in other words a variant. And COVID produces NUMEROUS variants. An antibody that fit the original variant well, but now, because of viral mutations, fits the newer variant less well, is a prime candidate to perform ADE.
So I am not taking a position on the vaccine being good Or bad. I would simply like to see the full updated truth here rather than the current post which implies the whole ADE discussion is an irrelevant non-issue. It’s not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirbyJan ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)