This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources:  Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 120 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

COVID-19 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine High‑importance This 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pharmacology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Page notices and readership

On 16 December 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Tozinameran to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The result of the discussion was moved. On 22 January 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The result of the discussion was not moved. Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Over 178 "yellow card" cases haven reported in the UK linking the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccination to a spike in Rheumatoid Arthritis, an autoimmune disease. There are people that have RA now even without family medical history. Rheumatoid Arthritis is an inflammatory disease, which means that your immune system attacks healthy cells in your body by mistake, causing inflammation (painful swelling) in the affected parts of the body. RA mainly attacks the joints, usually many joints at once. There is no cure at this time. 2001:569:6FF8:57DA:0:49:B08A:6E01 ( talk) 05:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Any reliable sources for this? Or is it antivax agitprop? Bon courage ( talk) 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@Bon courage Yes, it's real. It's an on going investigation right now. 2001:569:5686:D200:C9AA:4568:EB08:EF03 ( talk) 06:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@Bon courage https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9458755/ Jon.snow.knows298 ( talk) 06:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

If it appears in any WP:MEDRS then Wikipedia can mirror what those say. This is not reliable though. Bon courage ( talk) 08:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@Bon courage https://academic.oup.com/jleukbio/article/114/4/358/7227754 Jon.snow.knows298 ( talk) 04:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Primary research, so not reliable. Bon courage ( talk) 04:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply

It seems unreliable to rely on data about long-term complications from publications made within months of the advent of the vaccine itself. Philologick ( talk) 05:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Why? RS knows how to interpret the science surely. Bon courage ( talk) 08:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

It doesn't mean anything if you actually know grammar. 222.108.156.194 ( talk) 05:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the errant ref tag here:

For the vaccine to work it needed to deliver a stable accurate replica of the virus's spike protein so that the body's immune system could recognize and react to COVID{{nbhyph}}19 if they became infected.<ref name = "Miller_2021" />{{rp|72–75}} In developing a stable replica, the team was assisted by advice from [[Barney S. Graham]] who had been studying the MERS virus, which was approximately 54% identical to the uploaded COVID-19 genetic code.<ref name = "Miller_2021" />{{rp|74}}</ref>

. 76.14.122.5 ( talk) 18:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done – macaddct1984 ^{( talk | contribs)} 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply