Talk:RNA vaccine

Too COVID-19 centered?

There's a separate article for COVID-19 Vaccine. This article should be about mRNA vaccines, which don't always apply to COVID-19. It's a method that's been around for over 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuba Penguin (talk • contribs) 04:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The COVID-19 vaccine article covers multiple types of platforms (established and novel). Outside of the COVID mRNA vaccines, there are no other rna vaccines, so it is important to mention them as practical examples (as well as the theory). 109.255.90.188 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, obviously there is no problem mentioning the Covid-19 vaccines, but there are also several potential cancer vaccines currently in clinical trials, and for a while these were almost totally overlooked here. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Have always shied away from editing on candidates that are too experimental as it can be wasted. There is lots of stuff from Moderna especially, but much of it went nowhere, although there is at least one exception that could have promise. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like they've already removed some of the candidate cancer vaccine trials from their website. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Life time of of RNA vaccines in cell?

I think this page is missing an explanation that mRNA used for such vaccines are usually not self-replicated and became quickly inactivated in the cell, as described in Messenger_RNA#Degradation. Otherwise, they would produce viral protein to infinity. Was anything published about the life time of COVID-19 vaccines in human cells and what types of cells?My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It is a good point but the data from Moderna and BioNTech is pretty minimal at the moment (in fact, the article has commentary from Margaret Liu - one of the leaders in this field - wondering if the mRNA is really working and whether the 94% efficacy is really from the immune system moving to DEFCON #1 due to the injection of the vaccine. Why people who have just overcome the flu, are less likely to get serious COVID infections. If I see definitive refs on the mechanism of action of these vaccines, then will add. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope they will be forced to disclose all molecular details, such as the exact sequence of their RNA vaccines, the composition of lipid nanoparticles, and why exactly these two vaccines require so different temperatures for keeping. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if the FDA publish this - Moderna are very protective over their lipid system (Moderna’s Mysterious Coronavirus Vaccine Delivery System), but it is hard to see how they could approve a vaccine for such large distribution (and likely no peer review), without such disclosure. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have moved your edit to the body until we know what happens here - have been looking for refs on what happens to mRNA that was encapsulated in lipids and nothing so far. There doesn't seem to be any timeline/information on any interim peer review of the newest mRNA vaccines (which is not optimal given yesterday's EUA in the UK). It is hard to push the article much further until we have such data imho? 109.255.90.188 (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

[1] (edit summary) - I presume RNA is no longer coated within the cell - as the Figure on this page shows. It should not be coated to be able to translate. But of course we need some published data about it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Karolinska Institutet

• Various new editor accounts (could be the same person) keep pasting the following (in various versions) into the History section:

Use of RNA as a tool for vaccination was first published using mouse models by Berglund and Liljeström at Karolinska Institutet back in 1994 and 1998.

None of the references in the history section reference the Karolinska Institutet or Berglund and Liljeström? Even the Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development, just published last year in Nano Today? Perhaps the editor(s) in question could provide independent evidence on this from a non WP:PRIMARY source. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have moved this content to the talk page that was inserted by User:Pberglundvax:

Use of RNA as a vaccination tool for generation of antibody responses in vivo was first published by the Swedish scientists Berglund and Liljeström at Karolinska Institutet in 1994. NIH researchers Nicholas Restifo and Wolfgang Leitner in 1999 wrote about this work that "A single intramuscular injection of a self-replicating RNA elicited antigen-specific antibody and CD8+ T cell responses". This technology resulted in significant investments by pharmaceutical companies including Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, later acquired by GlaxoSmithKline, who under the leadership of Dr. Jeffrey Ulmer, one of the inventors of Plasmid DNA vaccines, spearheaded the industrial development of RNA vaccines based on self-amplifying mRNA.

I have read through the attached references (one is behind a paywall that I cannot access), and cannot find a reference to Berglund and Liljeström as being important in the history of mRNA vaccines, and in particular not in this important peer-reviewed 2019 article on the history of mRNA vaccines: Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development. You cannot use WP:PRIMARY references to make statements that Berglund and Liljeström are important in mRNA vaccines, you MUST have reliable, quality, independent secondary sources (ideally ones discussing the history of mRNA vaccines as used in the article) (per WP:42) that support your statements. Otherwise, they will be taken out. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• User 109.255.90.188 keeps removing any references to the seminal works on RNA vaccines that began in the early 90s, including the first study of the use for RNA as a vaccination too to induce antibody responses. This work was quoted in numerous early peer-reviewed review articles, including "Messenger RNA-based Vaccines" by Pascolo in 2004 (reference added). The paper from 1994 is indeed referenced in the 2019 article Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development, see the graphical history figure.

What you have now added is now more consistent with Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development, thanks. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing this in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pberglundvax (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks for responding to the requests for amendment. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Efficacy section not balanced

The "Efficacy" section reads as very skeptical and mostly consists of opinions expressing doubts about the COVID vaccines. I would think the section should start with known information about efficacy: successful trials of the COVID vaccines and whatever else is known about the efficacy of other RNA vaccines. Then to balance, add some positive quotes/opinions along with the skepticism that is currently represented. Sgtbilko99 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There was more text in this section but it seems to have been edited out and what remains is not that coherent. Ultimately, we have press statements from the companies, but we still await published data from the regulators (which is unusual but these are unusual times), and of course, the results have not been able to be peer-reviewed (which is what we really need, but I suspect something will happen here in the near-term given the scale of the distribution - even if it is just provisional). However, I will come back tomorrow to this to fix back. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The efficacy of 90-95% is not backed up. The New Scientist cite note only mentions the 90% figure, and even that is not referenced for a source. What is 90% of what, for example? Did they try to infect vaccinated people with actual COVID-19? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.80.20 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings from Belgium - as you know we were a region with a lot of infected people and it is a.o. in Belgium that a lot of the testing and production of the vaccines were done because we have a big pharma research sector here. So there was no need to infect people who participated in the trials on purpose with COVID-19 - part would have it, part would get infected during the trial. It is Prof. dr. Isabel Leroux-Roels who is one of the persons responsible for all these trial studies. Here you can listen to her on flemish TV - https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/06/11/honderden-kandidaten-om-proefpersoon-te-zijn-voor-coronavaccin-i/ , cheers, SvenAERTS (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Adverse Effects and Risks

This section had inline text

"References need to be added that discuss the unintended immune reactions and their frequencies. References need to be added that discuss all risks and adverse effects of RNA vaccines and their delivery systems."

(I'm about to replace that with an appropriate template, but the template needs a talk page section to refer to.) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I replaced the phrase "should be avoided" with "needs to be circumvented" wrt the evolved mechanism to prevent incorporation of foreign nucleic acids. Evolution cannot be avoided, but can be circumvented.

Elsewhere, "lipid nanoparticles" are the only mention of a means to get around the extreme lability of naked RNA molecules when introduced at the cellular level. This is the aspect of RNA vaccines that, as a molecular biologist, I have been asked about and can't explain properly. Smcewincarr

Much of this section references outdated secondary sources (i.e. old articles in Science magazine). For example, hepatotoxicity is mentioned, based on an article in Science magazine from 2017, which is itself based on older nanoparticle technology. This whole section is fairly speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmastc1 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mcmastc1: Agreed. I have raised this at WT:MED#Scary vaccines. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS

I'm very concerned about the addition of biomedical claims not supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, especially as this article is subject to general sanctions. For avoidance of doubt, I'm prepared to issue sanctions against any editor who is aware of the general sanctions and adds biomedical content that isn't supported by MEDRS sources. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that pre-clinical speculation about autoimmunity from a 2018 review article has resurfaced at the top of this section. This whole section is hand-picked speculation. Mcmastc1 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Mcmastc1. I'm trimmed the very worst. What specifically is bothering you in what remains? I don't like the look of that news (?) piece from Science either. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Article focus is skewed

The focus of this article is oddly skewed. The title says it's an article about RNA vaccines, but the actual article jumps directly to analysis of COVID-19 vaccines.

Either the article should be renamed (perhap "RNA Vaccines for COVID-19"), or else the general discussion of RNA vaccines (currently at the very end of the article, in the "history" section) should be at the front, not the end.

I moved one general section up to the beginning, so that there's some discussion of mRNA vaccines before the article jumps directly to COVID-19, but the article really should be refocussed. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is in bad shape still (discussed at WT:MED#Scary vaccines), but I think we do need an article on RNA vaccines so the solution is probably to add more material on that topic in general. Of course, it may turn out for the next few years the preponderance of sourcing for RNA vaccines is COVID-related anyway ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sloppy edit on 11 December 2020 that incorrectly summarized key point from cited source

I'm referring to this edit on 11 December 2020 by User:SandyGeorgia.

The previous text was mostly accurate in conveying the key point of the Stat article: that while still at Stanford, Dr. Rossi read Dr. Kariko's paper in 2005, recognized it was groundbreaking work, and looking back fifteen years later with the advantage of hindsight in 2020, said that it was worthy of a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Anyone with basic training in close reading can immediately discern that from the face of the Stat article (specifically, the clause "he now says"). User:SandyGeorgia completely mangled that by implying that Dr. Rossi presciently arrived at that second conclusion in 2005. Any objections before I clean up this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edit, but I object to your tone. Please asumme good faith and stop this personal attack. It's not a good look. Graham Beards (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You might also want to read WP:TPYES and WP:TPNO, and remove my name from the section heading. Yes, I object to you cleaning up what you call a "mess" and suggest that you leave that to another editor on this page-- there are plenty of them who understand what is and is not excess detail and off-topic for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's neither excessive detail nor off-topic to convey an accurate distinction between what Dr. Rossi thought in 2005 versus what he thought in 2020. In 2005, he recognized Dr. Kariko's work to be groundbreaking; in 2020, "he now says" (to quote from the cited article) that she deserves the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. As opposed to what you actually wrote on 11 December 2020, which implies he thought of both points in 2005 (in other words, your edit makes him sound incredibly pompous by being so prescient as to be able to foresee 15 years in advance that it was Nobel Prize-worthy work), and which is not what the Stat article says. It should be obvious at this point that I'm trying to do you a favor--before Dr. Rossi or someone close to him sees this article.

Look, if you didn't take the time to fully cross-check your edits against the contents of the cited sources when you edited this article, that's okay. You don't need to get so defensive about it. We all screw up sometimes. I've made my fair share of bad edits on WP. But if you really do not understand that you materially misstated the contents of the cited source, then that's a problem. Whenever you write about statements by living people, whether on WP or elsewhere, it's extremely important that you accurately summarize or restate what they actually said. It looks really bad to stuff words into their mouth. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The bigger question, on this particular article, is why we care what one individual's speculative opinion was about another individual. Other than that, when you approach a talk page with such a lack of AGF, I hope you understand that I am disinclined to engage further, but leave instead the sorting to someone uninvolved. Have you read WP:COI? Because this all seems rather related to the companies involved and more appropriate to those articles.

By the way, the article before I trimmed the off-topic content said: "In 2005, Harvard stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi read their paper, which he recognized as "groundbreaking", and for which he told Stat, Karikó and Weissman deserve the Nobel Prize in Chemistry." None of the distinction you say was there was actually there, when I trimmed the off-topic that looked like promotional content about the companies. You may find that approaching editing without impugning others will yield a faster result. Using the format: the article now says X, I would like for it to say Y is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Just figured this out. That sentence was inserted in this edit by anonymous editor 109.255.90.188 on 30 November 2020. Traceroute reveals that's an IP address on a Virgin Media network in Ireland.

To me, the distinction was implicit in that the sentence was citing a 2020 Stat article (and was thereby implying that Dr. Rossi was commenting to Stat in 2020), but I personally would have not worded the distinction in that fashion because it's so easy to miss it that way (as apparently occurred here). It looks like 109.255.90.188 may be a non-native English speaker. In hindsight, I was able to pick up the distinction only because I read very widely, and have seen other non-native English speakers actually make that same error of burying the thing distinguished against in a footnote citation (they do it in other WP articles all the time). As a native English speaker, I would simply state the distinction clearly without assuming that the reader will infer it from the attached footnote.

So that's why I got so irritated earlier and I apologize. I thought you had missed something really obvious and perhaps it wasn't so obvious. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology; appreciated and accepted. I make more stupid typos and editing errors than the average bear, and am happy to admit it, but just didn't quite see what had upset you so :) I am still concerned that we are giving undue weight to opinions in that whole section, which is why I only worked on trimming it, not even attempting to write it to a higher standard. Since I then posted to WT:MED for review, I actually expected someone to cut most of that. I would be happier cutting even more of the company-specific content or moving it to the company articles, but please do repair what is left there now as you see fit. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Add paragraph about host cells dying?

If I'm understanding it correctly, RNA vaccines inject mRNA, which then goes into human cells. The human cells then start producing antigen proteins and put these on their cell membrane. I imagine this causes the human's antibodies to target these vaccinated human cells and kill them. In other words, many human cells will be killed.

This article could use a paragraph specifying how many human cells are killed by a typical RNA vaccine, and whether this presents any danger to the human. Or if I am misunderstanding this completely, a sentence somewhere mentioning that this does not happen and it actually works X way would be helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. See Antigen presentation. Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I made a small edit to include this info. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards, are we 100% sure the vaccine doesn't cause the host cells to die? I found two pieces of information that may suggest it does.

From major histocompatibility complex wikipedia article: The presentation of pathogen-derived proteins results in the elimination of the infected cell by the immune system.

From an article I googled [2]: The finding that these vaccines cause their target cells to die by apoptosis is an added safety feature that also seems to increase efficacy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. 06:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You sound like you understand how it works. Feel free to share details, and then we can adjust the articles to make those details clear. Right now, the articles appear to contradict each other. (Example: that MHC article saying that the host cells die, but the RNA vaccine article saying they don't). –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There are dangers in oversimplification. I suggest you read Macrophage. Pus is full of spent (dead) leukocytes. Host cells, particularly those of the immune system, die all the time - vaccine or no vaccine. I think the direction your heading is tantamount to scaremongering. Graham Beards (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Iztwoz. Thanks for your edits today and for adding good info to the article that satisfied my clarify tag. You seem pretty knowledgeable about this topic, maybe you know the answer to the question I asked above. The question is, "what happens to human host cells that take up these mRNA molecules"? When the human host cells express these viral proteins, are they in any way attacked by the innate immune system, or later on by the adaptive immune system's antibodies? I feel this is a question that a layman article reader such as myself would have when reading the article, and that it is not really covered in the article yet. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Really, I know nothing. All I can do is read relevant material, try to understand it and relay it in hopefully a comprehensible way.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards and soupvector are the relevant topic experts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already answered the question. Graham Beards (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards, Sounds like you think cells targeted by RNA vaccines are not in any way harmed by either innate or adaptive immune system. But I still do not understand why. Do you know and would you be willing to elaborate a bit? I did read portions of the articles you linked, and this is still not clear to me. My layman, simple understanding of how this all works is that the immune system will attack cells that have an antigen, yet somehow these are not attacked? Again, the following quote from the MHC article seems to contradict the idea that host cells are not harmed. The presentation of pathogen-derived proteins results in the elimination of the infected cell by the immune system.

Also, I'm not sure what was up with your "scaremonger" comment. Asking good faith questions on a talk page does not seem like scaremongering to me. But that is why I didn't choose to follow up/ping you about this. But you're back, so I will try again to communicate and get understanding of this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Novem, I am sure that if Graham had a free moment to answer your question in greater depth, he would. (I understood his answer.) I hope you understand what it is to be pulled out of retirement and pressed to the front lines of this pandemic in the UK, as is Graham. Please be patient; I, for one, appreciate every word he finds the time to type here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I'm happy to conserve his time if you want to take a stab at answering. Or if this issue is too sensitive, we can just drop it completely. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't find it sensitive at all, but I cannot expand beyond what Graham has already stated (pus is full of spent (dead) leukocytes. Host cells, particularly those of the immune system, die all the time - vaccine or no vaccine). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Are you saying the mRNA only targets/goes into a certain kind of immune cell? I assumed it was all cells, or a non immune cell. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The vaccine is picked up by Dendritic cell which are macrophages. It doesn't "target" any cells. There is a good review article here. [3]. Graham Beards (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This is from CDC

"COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the immune cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them. Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19." (My bolding)

The DC cells eventually die probably by apoptosis, but these cells along with thousands of other cells of the immune system are dying everyday: vaccine or no vaccine. I think the problem we seem to have here is that the article, in an attempt to be layperson friendly, is just saying cells. Now, clearly we don't mean hair cells, skin, or cells that make toe nails, but perhaps we should be more specific. Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I think I get it now. I had a faulty assumption that the mRNA went into non-immune cells. Looks like the mRNA goes precisely into the exact immune cell that it needs to in order to start building adaptive immunity. Pretty clever, actually. Kudos to the developers of this technology platform.

The cell death part isn't even important now that my base assumption has been corrected, since DC's aren't "infected", per se. Rather, having and expressing antigens is normal for them, and nothing to be concerned about.

Some things to add to the article at this point might include "how does this technology platform target only dendritic cells?" Does this mRNA end up in all cells, but only dendritic cells express it on the cellular membrane? Does this mRNA only go into dendritic cells?

I'll read your Nature article and probably do a little more copy editing for clarity. Hopefully I can help polish away some of these layperson vs technical issues. Thanks for your time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Below is a link where Bali Pulendran at Stanford says the vaccine does enter non-immune cells, but less efficiently. I assume it is the same as the DC cells, and not killed. Would be nice if the article could clarify, when the immune system sees spike proteins, how does it distinguish between infected cells it needs to kill versus vaccinated cells that it leaves alone? https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/12/22/how-do-the-new-covid-19-vaccines-work 68.34.140.215 (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing names

Iztwoz I don't agree with obscuring the INN names here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to take the side of the general reader who will know them by their common names. Would it be acceptable to include each INN name in brackets?--Iztwoz (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS compliant

If there was ever a time to adhere to MEDRS compliancy this is it! There is so much conspiracy theory circulating seems we should be including only content that adheres in the strictest way possible to our own protections against such stuff. Just sayin'. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Separation of Vaccine Hesitancy and Misinformation

Hello, I would like to request that the topic of vaccine hesitancy and misinformation be separated. They are not one and the same, and by associating the hesitancy with misinformation you are attaching a negative connotation to it. I am vaccine hesitant in regards to mRNA vaccines, as are many others as there is very limited data on this new type of vaccine. I am NOT an anti-vaxxer as my child and myself have had all our required shots from traditional methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny1111 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. They are separate. The links at the top of that section are to two different articles. Having them there is not meant to infer a connection between them. Graham Beards (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi,ok, I understand that its not meant to infer a connection, however it does. I think that they warrant being separate titles. There is a very large part of the population that IS hesitant regarding this new type of vaccine, and for good reason, but everyone wants to lump them together with anti-vaxxers, which, just is not always the case. The fact is, this type of vaccine has never been used before on humans so we should not be trying to downplay this very significant and truthful fact. I always thought WP was neutral however my very limited experience with it so far is proving that its very biased. Can other admins or contributors please comment as to if you will allow the two topics to be separate and have their own heading? Kind Rgs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny1111 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

for good reason Which good reason is that?

has never been used before on humans you mean, it had never been used on humans before it was used on humans this year when the vaccine was tested? As truthful facts go, this one seems to lack a bit in truthfulness as well as in facticity... --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Please excuse my poor grammar, I never completed higher levels of education. However I think you understand what point I was trying to make, correct? My opinion is that under the section title of "Culture and society", each of the topics warrant their own section. There is significant vaccine hesitancy with medical doctors addressing the reasons why. This should not be lumped together with misinformation in my opinion. Once again, I feel that there is a heavy bias on WP that I was not aware of. There is a way to add both topics as sub topics to allow content to be added without the negative connotations I believe. I will leave it at that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny1111 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Donny1111: I'm not sure what you mean. The section title is "Culture and society", which is one of the usual titles per MOS:MED. This is an appropriate section to cover both misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. How related these two topics are is not considered by the article currently. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, the below is listed twice, please delete one of them as there is no need for duplicate info.

"The use of RNA in a vaccine has been the basis of substantial misinformation circulated via social media, wrongly claiming that the use of RNA somehow alters a person's DNA, or emphasizing the technology's previously unknown safety record, while ignoring the more recent accumulation of evidence from trials involving tens of thousands of people.[12]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny1111 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a need. We prefer information that is in the Lead (summary) section of our articles to be repeated in the body of the article. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. So by placing that info in the Lead you are giving it more importance than vaccine hesitancy. Why? For myself and many others, the topic of vaccine hesitancy is of more substance and importance. Why? Because any adult with some intelligence should be hesitant to try a new type of vaccine that does not YET have the long term data. This is more important to me, personally, than the misinformation that's being spread. Before I gave the doctor consent to give my child vaccinations I asked what are the risks of not getting them, and what are the risks and side effects OF getting them. To which the doctor explained the history of the vaccine, the previous side effects of past iterations, and the current side effects of the vaccine. From there, I made my choice. Having a topic for Vaccine Hesitancy will do one of two things. As the long term data comes out, it will confirm the reasons for the hesitancy, and I would imagine from there it would be addressed, or, it will confirm that there was no significant reason for the hesitancy. This, is what the majority of people visiting the page will be looking for. To play down this topic does not make it go away. It IS the main topic on a majority of the population that are faced with the decision of to vaccinate or not to vaccinate with the new mRNA vaccine. I think by not addressing it, and showing a bias, people can actually see through this, and that only adds to their concerns. This, is just my opinion. I hope that as professionals you can allow information to be presented as objectively as possible, even if its against your professional training or your personal opinions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny1111 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

We are straying off-topic now and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. I think the current text is in accord with Wikipedia's policies. There's not much more to say about vaccine hesitancy which is specific to RNA vaccines without more sources, but it's likely the Vaccine hesitancy article can be expanded in time with more about how it applies specifically to COVID-19 vaccines, using such sources, maybe as this one. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you just outlined my main concern by providing Vaccine hesitancy as that is part of my point. I am NOT an anti-vaxxer but it seams that now I am hesitant for to take or give my child a totally new type of vaccine without long terms studies, society has labeled me an anti-vaxxer. This, is wrong as its just normal to be cautious of anything new, especially medical treatments. Sigh... I will leave it for now but I still stand by my opinion that the page is biased and is not addressing the concerns the majority of people have that visit the site. I will also read up on the correct use of WP and its polices. Best....Donny1111 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Donny1111 please sign your posts by entering four tildes after them ( ~~~~ ). Wikipedia has policies and guidelines you should become familiar with. In this case, WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS, WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM. The content is all where it should be according to guideline, and both vaccine hesitancy and the social media issue belong in Culture and society. Personal anecdote does not trump reliable sources. The linkage between misinformation, social media and vaccine hesitancy have been well understood long before COVID.[4] [5] We can do much better than using the BBC or the Washington Post, but your points are not policy-based or guideline-based, and it is very hard to keep laypress out of medical articles when topics are In the News. Please read the reliable sources and base your posts here on talk on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources which say that RNA vaccine hesitancy is "reasonable". If it were, nobody reasonable would even try the vaccine, and your wish for well-tested vaccines would never come true. The decision on whether to vaccinate should take into account the known facts, not vague fears. And yes, people who try to convince others, based on nothing substantial, that a vaccine is not safe, are anti-vaxxers. Those fears are personal and have no place in Wikipedia. We will not bend the rules for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You're just imprinting your opinion on others, which has no place on an objective place like Wikipedia. You're logic is also poor: reasonable people sometimes disagree on things, there is a reason the world is not the exact same everywhere! But anyways, we have not found out the long term effects of the RNA vaccine, which justifies vaccine hesitancy given certain circumstances. For example, a 75-year-old in a nursing home with only 1 kidney, it would most likely be the right thing to do because they are at a much higher risk from severe complications/death from COVID-19. However, a healthy 25-year-old in excellent physical condition would have a good reason not to take the vaccine until the long-term side effects have been decided because they have an incredibly low risk of dying from COVID-19. I'm not saying there will necessarily saying there will be any serious long-term side effects, but we don't know: the vaccines haven't been around for a year yet (as of 4/29/21). Also, I'm pretty sure the companies skipped the animal trials, which is where the SARS-CoV-1 RNA vaccine trials got hung up. But anyways, I agree: there should be separate sections for vaccine hesitancy as opposed to misinformation because there might be some overlap, but there are too many key differences between the two. Many people have a bad habit of calling anything they disagree with misinformation now. There might not be substantial evidence the long term side effects are really bad, but the lack of knowledge is what justifies it, while at this point, we generally know what will happen when someone contracts COVID-19. Anyways, vaccine hesitancy and misinformation should be different sections because people who are hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine aren't all anti-vaxxers (calling all of them anti-vaxxers is an overgeneralization, which is a type of logical fallacy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C079:1710:102B:9E30:F74B:59ED (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You're just imprinting your opinion on others Bullshit. I am (or actually, mostly other Wikipedians are) "imprinting" what reliable sources say on Wikipedia pages. "Others" can still think whatever they want.

You confirm exactly what I said (what you call "you're logic"): the categorical imperative refutes you. You want many, many others to test the vaccine for you first, but if everybody thinks like you, that will not happen. You also use the neoliberal position that everybody should be a sociopath and only think of their own good - if you infect someone because you are not vaccinated, so what, not your problem, as long as the disease does not hurt you. And of course you assume there is a notable risk in vaccination, but no notable risk in the disease, which is also bullshit.

Find reliable sources which agree that your anti-science and anti-vax position is "reasonable", then come back. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Fear of anti-vaxxers having some legitimate points is the only thing not welcome on Wikipedia! Wikipedia is NOT a place for telling the population how to think, it is a place for presenting ideas objectively. From an objective viewpoint the technology is not widely tested, and this leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of... well everyone! Everyone. Leave your bird box visit a pub and learn what information the public wants to see on Wikipedia. 124.169.149.140 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand Wikipedia: We add content based on reliable sources; in the case of biomedical/health related content we rely on WP:MEDRS. We do not add content based on what the public wants or someone's opinion. This is a encyclopedia not a blog or opinion- based collection of articles. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Fully concur with User:Littleolive oil's cogent analysis. Go review WP core policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and especially WP:NOT. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Another thing: Nobody has "fear of anti-vaxxers having some legitimate points". Anti-vaxxers simply do not have any legitimate points. If you think they do, give us reliable sources naming those legitimate points. Why should anybody be afraid of those?

We do know that vaccines save lives. The results we have show that. Anti-vaxxers effectively say, "let's not save those lives, because I am afraid of something I cannot name, or of something I can name but which has already turned out not to exist but I am still afraid of it because I want to believe that those results were fake." There is nothing legitimate in that, objectively.

Regarding your claim that Wikipedia should not be "telling the population how to think", that is wrong. I just clicked "Random Article" and found the article Charles Boileau, which tells the population to think that Charles Boileau was born in 1648. If the population does not want to think that, it is welcome to think something else, but 1648 is what Wikipedia tells it, and it will stay that way until reliable sources tell us something else.

Your reasoning is invalid. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The JnJ vaccine got pulled. Was the hesitancy towards that was invalid as well? Does anybody believe they are not still actively collecting and monitoring data on the health impacts of these vaccines? Just above, on this very talk page, they discuss how many details of the lifecycle of the proprietory vaccines are still unclear. Smearing people as dumb donkeys for having concerns hardly reflects well on WP.72.228.2.48 (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It got pulled to be on the safe side. It is probably not necessary, but better safe than sorry. From which you can see that the people responsible for that are extremely cautious. Laypeople like you do not need to be even more cautious and take imaginary dangers into account.

Independent of that, without reliable sources corroborating your position, there is no chance that it will end up in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the knowledge of humankind, not the unjustified fears of some individual members. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying the "mechanism" section

Thank you to everybody for putting up with my questions and my clarify tags. Couple of follow up questions.

• When a dendritic cell uses phagocytosis on, say, a random virus in the human, do its ribosomes start producing viral antigens? Trying to figure out if this is something special to RNA vaccines, or something that these cells always do when they consume something containing mRNA.

No. As the article says, the vaccine mRNA is modified to ensure it is translated. And, viruses are too small to be "randomly" phagocytosed; they have to be coated with antibody first. Also, only a few viruses have positive sense RNA in any case. Lastly, mRNA is transient and does not linger in cells.You need to read around this subject more. Start with mRNA. Graham Beards (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Somebody added an awesome diagram. In it, there is a fork, and the entire left side is a workflow for non-dendritic cells. Does the RNA vaccine affect more cells than just dendritic cells? edit: Oh, I think I get it now, I guess "any cell" includes dendritic cells.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of good sources on mRNA vaccines

See here

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf

Given all the anti-vaxx hysteria at the minute, this article needs to get sorted PDQ.

I came to wiki to find information because a family member has been told mRNA vaccines will lead to huge health problems in 2-3 yrs for those having it for Covid. There are numerous anti-mRNA videos on the web peddling horror stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:2682:3C00:FC6D:518E:D13F:9FF5 (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In general, that kind of stuff is found more at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, although the RNA vaccine misinformation is also dealt with here in the Society and Culture section. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Last paragraph of introduction is of low quality

The last paragraph of introduction is too biasing and tends to be subjective. The arguments are social-media level. It triggers doubts more than it answers. B.yanis (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation is a minor but important aspect of this vaccine, as covered by RS. A mention is WP:DUE. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alex but would be even stronger: Misinformation and identifying it per the research we have is a critical aspect of understanding this vaccine in the midst of a world wide pandemic. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The advantages ...

Quote from article: "The advantages of RNA vaccines over traditional protein vaccines are superior design and production speed, lower cost of production, and the induction of both cellular as well as humoral immunity." Great. Then why wasn't it produced before the Corona-era? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The "History" section should answer that question but does not. It mentions "poor results" up until 2020 and "serious side-effects". It should also mention the much better results in 2020. Tozinameran, for example, says, Trials began in April 2020; by November, the vaccine had been tested on more than 40,000 people.[21] An interim analysis of study data showed a potential efficacy of over 90% in preventing infection within seven days of a second dose.[17][18] The most common side effects include mild to moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache.[22][23] As of December 2020, reports of serious side effects, such as allergic reactions, have been very rare,[a] and no long-term complications have been reported.[25] mRNA-1273 does not have a summary of test results, but should have.

Also, I doubt that Operation Warp Speed had even "indirectly" funded the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The source given does not mention that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the article claiming RNA and mRNA vaccines are the same

RNA vaccine is not the same as mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccine as not all RNA is messenger RNA although the current vaccines use mRNA but its not the same as RNA and there is a difference in effectiveness as mRNA is more effective then RNA and that is why the first vaccines use mRNA not regular RNA and why the regular RNA vaccines failed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.166.208 (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They are the same. See this Nature Research article. Graham Beards (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Before the COVID-19 pandemic, no mRNA drug or vaccine was licensed for use in humans." ?!

This is a quote from the article. Can anybody help check that as it is a big reason here in the dutch speaking region why people do not want to get vaccinated. Enfin, here the claim circulates that mRNA vaccines are still experimental and new, whereas "The use of RNA vaccines goes back to the early 1990s." Thy and greetings from Brussels :), SvenAERTS (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Go read the Stat article already cited in the article as the basis for that statement (the footnote is attached to the sentence after the one you just quoted). The article specifically says: "Although relatively easy and quick to produce compared to traditional vaccine-making, no mRNA vaccine or drug has ever won approval." That article explains most of the difficulties encountered in bringing mRNA vaccines and drugs to market. Quartz has published its own article which explains the other major difficulty involved: developing an adequate delivery system for mRNA. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Derek Lowe at Science Translational Medicine has just published a blog post which explains at length and in plain English why it is so hard to scale up the manufacturing of mRNA vaccines. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"traditional protein vaccines"

Is this referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subunit_vaccine ? Shouldn't "traditional" be either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inactivated_vaccine as these have been around the longest? I would add a link but not sure which one is being referenced (maybe all of the above?) --Melarish (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

History

In 1987, while a graduate student at UC San Diego and the Salk Institute, Robert W Malone discovered that mRNA could transfect mRNA into a variety of eukaryotic cells and embryos , , , ). Robert W Malone developed mRNA delivery, in collaboration with Philip Felgner at Syntex, who had pioneered the use of artificially-created cationic lipids (positively-charged lipids) to bind lipids to nucleic acids in order to transfect the latter into cells in the mid 1980s. Phil Felgner was then recruited to help launch a new biotech startup in San Diego called Vical.[15]. While at the Salk Institute, Robert W Malone developed the theory of DNA and RNA vaccination and described a variety of potential applications for use of synthetic RNA as a drug. This work was reduced to practice, patent disclosures and an application filed in March 1989 through the Salk Institute (). These studies were the first evidence that in vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA could deliver genetic information to produce proteins within living cell tissue.

Robert Malone shortly thereafter went to work for Vical, bringing his discoveries and reagents with him. He established the molecular biology laboratory at Vical, designed the original DNA and RNA delivery studies at Vical (with and without cationic lipids) and also synthesized the DNA and RNA that was shipped to the University of Wisconsin where the in-vivo work was performed, as Vical did not have animal facilities at the time. These experiments had positive results where "naked" (or unprotected) mRNA was injected into the muscle of mice and is the first demonstration of this delivery strategy. The patent disclosures for this initial discovery included detailed discussions of mRNA and DNA vaccine applications and

In vitro mRNA vaccination in animals was first published in a peer reviewed journal in 1990 by the Merck team, which had bought the Vical intellectual property rights. In 1993, Martinon demonstrated that liposome-encapsulated RNA could stimulate T-cells in vivo, and in 1994, Zhou & Berglund published the first evidence that RNA could be used as a vaccine to elicit both humoral and cellular immune response against a pathogen.[3][22][23]

In 1996, RNA vaccination into mammals was further developed when Jill and Robert W Malone demonstrated that production of a mucosal immune response in a host by administration of an antigen-encoding polynucleotide preparation, comprising DNA or RNA encoding an antigenic epitope to a mucosal inductor site in the mucosal tissue of the host could be elicited (reference #6 and 7). ,

Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko attempted to solve some of the main technical barriers to introducing mRNA into cells in the 1990s. Kariko partnered with American immunologist Drew Weissman, and by 2005 they published a joint paper that solved one of the key technical barriers by using modified nucleosides to get mRNA inside cells without setting off the body's defense system.[3][24] Harvard stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi (then at Stanford) read Kariko and Weissman's paper and recognized that their work was "groundbreaking",[24] and in 2010 founded the mRNA-focused biotech Moderna along with Robert Langer, who also saw its potential in vaccine development.[24][3] Like Moderna, BioNTech also licensed Kariko and Weissman's work.[24]

In 2000, German biologist Ingmar Hoerr published an article on the efficiency of RNA‐based vaccines, which he studied as part of his doctoral degree.[25][26] After completing his PhD, he founded CureVac together with his PhD supervisor Günther Jung, Steve Pascolo, Florian von der Muelbe, and Hans-Georg Rammensee. Up until 2020, these mRNA biotech companies had poor results testing mRNA drugs for cardiovascular, metabolic and renal diseases; selected targets for cancer; and rare diseases like Crigler–Najjar syndrome, with most finding that the side-effects of mRNA insertion were too serious.[27][28] mRNA vaccines for human use have been developed and tested for the diseases rabies, Zika, cytomegalovirus, and influenza, although these mRNA vaccines have not been licensed.[29] Many large pharmaceutical companies abandoned the technology,[27] while some biotechs re-focused on the less profitable area of vaccines, where the doses would be at lower levels and side-effects reduced.[27][30] Glasspool1 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: This seems largely based on primary sources (patents, WP:PRIMARY studies as explained at MEDRS) - and additionally, it is mostly the work by one researcher (RW Malone) who doesn't even have a page here. This level of detail about that might be WP:UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

An edit very similar to this edit seems to have been approved now (on 6/9/21 and maintained as of 6/12/21), but I am not sure why. I am not an RNA vaccine expert so I cannot comment on the validity of the edit directly, but I am a scientist and noticed the inconsistent and nonstandard citation styles (an unusual two author followed by et. al citation, "Jon A. Wolff, Robert W Malone, et. al.", and then an unusual five author citation, "P. Felgner, J. Wolff, G. Rhodes, R.W. Malone and D. Carson. P."). These strange choices seem to be cherry-picked to ensure maximum instances of the name Robert Malone, who has a history of unilateral self-promotion online. I'm not familiar with wikipedia standards, but is there a way to recommend review to ensure these edits are accurate and unbiased? Essennar (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it not correct that Robert W. Malone was one of the original inventors of mRNA vaccination? If correct, why isn't his name mentioned at least a single time in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Speed at which vaccine was produced

I remember the media crediting Trump for speeding up the process for this vaccine by eliminating regulatory barriers, etc., but I failed to see any mention of that historic action in the article. History would be more accurate were there a mention of this fact when discussing how the vaccine was ready and available so quickly. Facts are facts and matter! 74.219.95.99 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

...except that RNA vaccines for Covid-19 were produced quickly in multiple countries, most of which Trump had no control over. It isn't news when politicians assign anything good to their policies and anything bad to their opponents policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

NOT a VACCINE ......Gene Therapy . A vaccine has some of the attenuated live particles within the vaccine to provoke an Immune response . 199.247.74.137 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs)

Possible article title change

This article focuses too heavily on COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, the vaccines (at least the moderna vaccine) are actually classified as "gene therapy", not "vaccines", so perhaps the article title is a bit misleading. I would say maybe change it and try to move some of the content to a new page, like an updated COVID-19 treatment page or something like that while leaving this page intact or lessening some of the COVID-19 parts of it because this is really a page about the history of RNA vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c079:1710:102b:9e30:f74b:59ed (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

While the historical use was limited in that sense, vaccine is the application, and can be implemented using various methods today, including printed molecules and RNA... —PaleoNeonate – 08:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Presenting whole spikes

The article contains the phrase "display spikes on their surfaces". The source only talks about presenting fragments of spikes. Can whole spikes be presented? Wain2 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

To add confusion, there's an explanation by Moderna from 2017 with an image showing antigens exiting a cell or sticking to a cell surface without being broken down and without involving MHC. Are viral antigens in general able to do that, but spikes specifically aren't? Wain2 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Molecules are neutral entities, just sayin'

The article and probably several like it refer to mRNA as "molecules". Of course they are ions, but maybe there is no better term and efforts to be more precise would just confuse readers and ruin readaibility. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert removal of Robert Malone references

These edits by user Alexbrn are attempting to hide the history of mRNA's discovery by removing all references to Robert Malone. I suspect this is due to the recent controversy surrounding Robert, yet that does not make this edit appropriate. Please reverse these three abusive edits attempting to hide the history of mRNAs discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&diff=1029988072&oldid=1029743206 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&diff=1030322202&oldid=1030284345 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNA_vaccine&diff=1030787298&oldid=1030331671

Asailum (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No source(s) given. Note this is being discussed at WP:FTN#The danger of the spike protein in RNA vaccines, according to … their inventor?. Also, note WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a source which references the original mouse research which was removed. Even if the reference to Dr. Robert Malone is removed that is no reason to delete the history sections referring to that research. Caprilyc (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References