Talk:RNA vaccine

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 [1]: 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. [2]. 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)

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.[3] [4] 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)

It did not get pulled to be safe, it got pulled because a threshold of patients were getting coagulation/myocarditis which has been seen in Pfizer as well . Notice the bias in this article, where it downplays 0.016% - 0.033% of young men(16-24) developing myocarditis after the second shot, yet this rate is 5x - 25x higher than the base rate. Researchers suspect this could be due to antigens(mRNA-1273 spike proteins) being released into the bloodstream and circulating all throughout the body. This detection of proteins contradicts the claims that vaccine manufacturers claim about the proteins being permanently binded to the cells that create them near the injection site Asailum (talk) 11:24, 11 July 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)

It is correct, that he is the original inventor of the lipid transfection technique which is now widely used. He worked with two other researchers but was the key figure in it's discovery. Well before all this controversy he wrote about how the spotlight was stolen from him which I linked above. Now we can see these corrupt editors are removing him, ignoring the patent which is the highest form of proof of any invention and basically displaying they are not objective editors. Asailum (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Asailum, Yes, he indeed came up with this technique. However, he did not invent mRNA vaccines. Period. Much like Alexander Fleming is not the inventor of norfloxacin or nearly all other antimicrobials, even though Fleming was the first one to describe the mechanism and therapeutic properties of an antibiotic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

KashmiriHe did though his work and patents that were licensed out is well documented:

A novel approach to study packaging of retroviral RNA by RNA transfection (Abstract). RW Malone, P. Felgner, I. Verma. RNA Tumor Viruses, May 17-18, 1988. Cold Spring Harbor
mRNA Transfection of cultured eukaryotic cells and embryos using cationic liposomes. Malone RW. Focus. 1989; 11:61-8
DNA and RNA Transfection and Vaccination (Abstract). First Place, Northwestern AOA Research Symposium Competition for Medical Students: 1989.
Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Malone RW, Felgner PL, Verma IM. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) U S A. 1989;86(16):6077-81. Cited in 749 articles.
Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Wolff JA, Malone RW, et al. Science. 1990;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8. Cited in 4,750 articles.
High levels of messenger RNA expression following cationic liposome mediated transfection tissue culture cells. Malone R, Kumar R, Felgner P. NIH Conference: “Self-Cleaving RNA as an Anti-HIV Agent (abstract). Washington, DC June 1989.
Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Dwarki VJ, Malone RW, Verma IM. Methods Enzymol. 1993;217:644-54. Cited in: 102 articles.
Delivery of exogenous DNA (includes mRNA) sequences in a mammal P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, R Malone, D Carson. Biotechnology Advances 1993: 15 (3-4), 763-763
Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. No. 7,250,404, date of issue: 7/31/07 Cited in 105 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject’s becoming infected (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195 B1. Date of issue: 3/15/05. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Generation of an immune response to a pathogen (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035. Date of issue: 3/23/04. Citations: 39 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
DNA (and mRNA) vaccines for eliciting a mucosal immune response. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,110,898, date of issue: 8/29/00. Cited in 40 articles.
Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human (includes mRNA) . Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776. Date of issue: 1/6/04. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6.413.942. Date of issue: 7/2/02. (cited in 150 articles). Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804, date of issue: 4/10/01. Cited in 360 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
DNA vaccines for eliciting a mucosal immune response (includes mRNA). US Pat. Ser. No. 6,110,898. Inventors: RW Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone. Date of issue: 8/29/00. Cited in 40 articles. Priority Date: 1997.
Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466. Date of issue: 12/31/96. Cited in 899 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859. Date of issue: 12/3/96. Cited in 1244 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055. Date of issue: 12/30/97. Cited in 419 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Dwarki VJ, Malone RW, Verma IM. Methods Enzymol. 1993;217:644-54. Cited in: 88 articles.
Robert Malone’s patents issued cationic lipid formations for use in mRNA vaccinations
Formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,925,623 7/20/99.
Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,892,071 issued 4/06/99.
Polyfunctional cationic cytofectins, formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,824,812 issued 10/20/98.
Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,744,625 issued 4/28/98.
Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,527,928, date of issue: 6/18/96.
Papers related to cationic lipid polynucleotide transfection and vaccination (including mRNA)
Electroporation enhances transfection efficiency in murine cutaneous wounds. Byrnes CK, Malone RW, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(4):397-403.
Marked enhancement of macaque respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Gene Med. 2002;4(3):323-2.
Enhancing direct in vivo transfection with nuclease inhibitors and pulsed electrical fields. Glasspool-Malone J, Malone RW. In Gene Therapy Methods: Methods Enzymol. 2002;346:72-91
Cutaneous transfection and immune responses to intradermal nucleic acid vaccination are significantly enhanced by in vivo electropermeabilization. Drabick JJ, Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2001;3(2):249-55. Cited in 192 articles.
Theory and in vivo application of electroporative gene delivery. Somiari S, Glasspool-Malone J, … Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2000;2(3):178-87. Cited in 345 articles.
Efficient nonviral cutaneous transfection. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2000;2(2):140-6. Cited in 138 articles.
Developing dendritic cell polynucleotide vaccination for prostate cancer immunotherapy. Berlyn KA, …, Malone RW J Biotechnol. 1999;73(2-3):155-79
Models of Cationic Liposome Mediated Transfection. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology. Ahearn A, Malone RW. Vol 4. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology 1999;4
Cationic lipid-mediated gene delivery to murine lung: correlation of lipid hydration with in vivo transfection activity. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW, Nantz MH. J Med Chem. 1997;40(25):4069-78
Toxicity of cationic lipid-ribozyme complexes in human prostate tumor cells can mimic ribozyme activity. Freedland SJ, Malone RW, et al. Biochem Mol Med. 1996;59(2):144-53
Considerations for the design of improved cationic amphiphile-based transfection reagents. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW. Journal of Liposome Research 1996;6(3):545-65
Structural and functional analysis of cationic transfection lipids: the hydrophobic domain. Balasubramaniam RP, …, Malone RW. Gene Ther. 1996;3(2):163-72. cited in 172 articles.
Direct gene tranfer into mouse muscle in vivo. N Shafee, …, RW Malone, et al. International Journal of Virology 2 (1), 33-38
A flexible approach to synthetic lipid ammonium salts for polynucleotide transfection. MJ Bennett, RW Malone, MH Nantz. Tetrahedron letters 36 (13), 2207-2210
Tfx-50 Reagent, a new transfection reagent for eukaryotic cells. Schenborn E, …, Malone RW, et al. 1995 Asailum (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

TLDR. This WP:WALLOFTEXT is of little help as we must use WP:SECONDARY sources. Yes, I am in the process of reading https://patents.google.com/patent/US6110898A/, it's an interesting read and seems to partly support some of the claims, but will wait with any significant edits until I find and read better secondary sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A peer reviewed journal that publishes a study is a secondary source no? Most of these are peer reviewed publications for example the first: "A novel approach to study packaging of retroviral RNA by RNA transfection (Abstract). RW Malone, P. Felgner, I. Verma. RNA Tumor Viruses, May 17-18, 1988. Cold Spring Harbor", published after peer review in Cold Spring Harbor May 1988. A primary source would be his own pre-prints, website or self documentation from what I understand. This published paper gives an overview of developments from different parties. Quoting: "Nucleic acid-based treatments have developed as promising substitutes for traditional vaccine approaches. In animals, the first data of the use of successful in vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA was reported in 1990, while reporter mRNAs were administered into in vivo mice model, and subsequently, protein expression was identified [5]" where 5 is "5. Wolff J.A., Malone R.W., Williams P., Chong W., Acsadi G., Jani A., Agnes F., Philip L. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science (80-) 1990;247:1465–1468. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918." Asailum (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A peer reviewed journal that publishes a study is a secondary source no? ← No. Please read WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDFAQ if you're still unclear. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well the last source I mentioned falls under this ″A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.″

Thank you, yes. However it is a journal published by MDPI, a borderline predatory publisher, and that particular journal is notorious.[5] We need to use better quality sources, and many are available. Alexbrn (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

One controversial study, which that link says has now been retracted and the journal posted a statement about it is not a valid criticism to discount MDPI which has published many studies for 25 years. There's nothing to suggest the mRNA overview paper is invalid/flawed, and it would require expertise in understanding all the medical jargon to really say much. If you check the right hand side, there are many previous overview papers that this one was building on for instance "The concept of nucleic acid-encoded drugs was conceived over two decades ago when Wolff et al.1 demonstrated that direct injection of in vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA or plasmid DNA (pDNA) into the skeletal muscle of mice led to the expression of the encoded protein in the injected muscle" which is citing -> . There are many other overview studies that reference this same Robert Malone study. Asailum (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

kashmiri, You might find these two review papers useful, both state 1990 was the first date mRNA was injected into a mouse to successfully demonstrate transfection, and both link to the Wolf/Malone paper.

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)

RNA transfection can be used for gene therapy, however that is not the use case here, and it would be inappropriate to refer to it as such. No alteration to host genetic code is done by the RNA vaccine and neither is the intent to alter gene expression. It is basically an efficient method is delivering the mRNA of the virus to the dendites, which then train the T Cells on how to identify the virus. During an infection or after a traditional vaccine the dendites would normally obtain the same mRNA anyway from the virus itself, by first eating it and then breaking it down to its constituent proteins, one of which is its mRNA. With the vaccine, the dendites basically just eat the mRNA itself directly and skip the process of having to break down the virus to obtain it.2601:140:8900:61D0:2134:A70C:463F:9009 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 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

|ans=no 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)

The patent from 1989 along with over scientists who were involved show that lipid mRNA transfection techniques now widely used were first patented by V.J.Dwarki, Robert Malone and Inder M.Verma Asailum (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: - This is being characterised on the conspiracy-theory corners of the non-wiki web as "censorship" rather than the removal of COI - https://ussanews.com/News1/2021/07/05/mrna-vaccine-inventor-erased-from-history-books/ - Cabayi (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing conspiracy theory about it, Robert Malone along with two others were the first to discover and patent lipid carrier mRNA transfection methods in 1989 which were later improved upon by others to create mRNA/DNA vaccines. There are no earlier patents of this specific technique being invented that is now in widespread use. Removing his name simply because anti vaxxers are misusing his concerns is censorship. There is a key difference in safety concerns over a rushed vaccine which bypassed years of testing and well established vaccines which all had multi year trials to prove safety. Asailum (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

The covid vaccine was released under emergency authorization, but if the current pandemic did not warrant the use of the emergency authorization procedure, it is difficult to imagine what would. This is the textbook case of a situation where it is necessary, the rapid release of a vaccine in response to a brand new mass pandemic. The vaccine has also subsequently been given full FDA approval anyway, there were no additional serious issues found in the additional testing. As for this testing being rapid compared to that of a total vaccine, that was largely enabled by using extremely large cohorts of tens of thousands of participants, so that effectiveness could be judged on a shorter time scale based on the few that would get sick in that time period, rather than the typical method of a using a much smaller cohort over a long period of time. This is not done generally because such trials are already expensive, and increasing the participants and expense by an order of magnitude of an already complex and expensive study usually isn't worth it to save a few years. In such instances people are mostly glad that a vaccine gets produced at all. The expense was spared here, in contrast, because this is this is the most catastrophic pandemic in a century and an almost unprecedented public health risk. To compare the situations the the peace of studies on vaccines for conditions that are a fraction of the magnitude in that, is ridiculous. It is as if you attempted to compare the level of military organization in World War II to that in, I dunno, the invasion of Haiti in the 1910s. It is not suspicious that far more men were organized far more quickly in response to world War II than were organized in preparation for the invasion of a poor island country. 2601:140:8900:61D0:2134:A70C:463F:9009 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

Why was the history of the discovery removed? It had sources and now the article is misinformation Fluridil-god (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)  Not done sources still used. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Epitranscriptome studies need to be talked about

The transcripts for protein spike of long non-coding mRNA needs to be added to the page. It’s unable to be edited, but the research is clear that general population using mRNA tech is not as efficacious for transcription as promoted. Chemical modifications when translations are doing the one job of addressing the reason of design, but that same message (transcript) is being sent elsewhere.

More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5713356/

KG90Learns (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

The history section needs to be much improved. RNA vaccines date back at least to the 1970s. Venneman, et al. in Immunogenicity of Ribonucleic Acid Preparations Obtained from Salmonella typhimurium. Infect Immun. 1970 Jun; 1(6): 574–582 used whole cell purified RNA from Salmonella typhimurium to immunize mice and showed protection against infection upon challenge with Salmonella. Likewise, ribosomal fraction RNA vaccines date back to at least the 1960s. 134.56.31.244 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Would need secondary sources saying this was so. Alexbrn (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Try to find the sources. I hear Malone is still visible in the 1989 references and this is giving ammunition to the anti-vax crowd. It's better to be flexible if necessary, don't you think? 46.10.181.145 (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really, WP:V is a core policy for a reason. Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Jon Wolff unique contribution?

Just wondering- why name Jon Wolff specifically, as opposed to just using 'researchers at the University...' or naming all of the involved scientists? The first citation used for this uses 'Wolff et al.', (which then cites the paper attributed to "J.A. Wolff, R.W. Malone, P. Williams, W. Chong, G. Acsadi, A. Jani") and the second is a citation directly to the paper.

Were there any contributions made uniquely by Jon Wolff to give him higher naming priority? 2601:249:8180:28D0:686E:C59D:A30F:2945 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The first named author in multiple author papers is normally the corresponding author. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia article on RNA vaccines an attempt to correspond to the author of that paper? Isn't the purpose, at least in part, to properly credit the discovers and inventors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.160.36.116 (talk • contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2021 (2)

No mention of Dr Robert Malone who invented the technology and holds the patents.

Please rectify or clarify the discrepancy. 37.155.61.207 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read the rest of this page to see why we will not be doing anything as a result of this request. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Error in "History"?

The first paragraph in history says "The idea that mRNA could be used for therapeutic purposes was first realized in 1989 by researchers at Vical, a Californian biotechnology start-up.[3][15] Researchers working with the Salk Institute that year published an article showing that nanoparticles could transfect mRNA into cells." and for both these claims, it refers to citation 15. The issue here is, the paper at 15 exclusively belong to the Salk Institute, and from what I can tell at the very least Inder Verma and Robert Malone were both under the employ of Salk, not Vical, at this point in time (Felgners association I can't find). It were the mice studies that were carried out a year after this paper was published that was part of Vical.

Tracking Citation 3 points out the culprit; this paper misidentified the institute as well despite also citing it, so its a faulty citation chain at play here. I recommend clarifying that it was realized by the Salk Institute.

I don't know whether this was corrected in the past but ended up getting deleted when Robert Malone was needlessly highlighted for his accomplishments within the team, but I world recommend correcting it as following the citations seems to declare it as self-evidently wrong

According to his faculty profile, Felgner worked at Vical. 2601:249:8180:28D0:686E:C59D:A30F:2945 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Sloppy use of references concerning mRNA research and side effects

One paragraph in this article uses suggestive argumentation with outdated or inadequate references:

"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 the mRNA delivery methods were too serious.[29][30]"

Reference [29] is dated 10 January 2017 Reference [30] is dated 13 september 2016

These references can't be used for a statement that the side effects of the mRNA delivery were too serious 'up until 2020'.

"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.[31]"

Reference [31] links to a webpage of the Centers for Deisease Control and Prevention about 'Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines'. There is nothing on this page about mRNA vaccines not having been licensed.

"Many large pharmaceutical companies abandoned the technology,[29] while some biotechs re-focused on the less profitable area of vaccines, where the doses would be at lower levels and side effects reduced.[29][32]"

Reference [32] is a CNN article that opens with a description of a meeting of vaccine developers with President Trump. The first line of the article reads: 'It almost felt like an episode of "Shark Tank".' This statement inspires little confidence that the author is an unbiased source. And there is nothing in the referenced article that substantiates anything in the sentence or paragraph. Reference [29] is the same reference as in the first line of this paragraph, linking to an article from 10 January 2017.

Escritor Polopos (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Big thanks, corrected. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Malone deleted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is an obscene elephant in the living-room. He used to be in this article, but wacko revisionists ghosted him after June 12th, 2021 when he reported the systemic transport problem identified through the Japan FOIPOP and Dr Bridle. Kashmiri simply erased this petition to include Malone as the DOCUMENTED inventor of mRNA as if the world doesn't already know. See the real history at https://www.rwmalonemd.com/mrna-vaccine-inventor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There are at least two discussions about the same topic above. Adding the third one here is of no help. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does. You keep deleting the rationale and his documented academic history. https://www.rwmalonemd.com/mrna-vaccine-inventor

His prior art is a fact of scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk • contribs)

Between 2017 and recently an account has existed purely, it seems, for the purposes of adding Malone's name to multiple articles on Wikipedia.[6] On 8 June this year the account added Malone's name to this article.[7] Such additions were not backed by the sources cited; in fact no reputable source identifies Malone as the "inventor of RNA vaccines", or even as a significant figure. The account was blocked for self-promotion/spam and the article returned to its longstanding form and improved in other ways. Meanwhile, on social media and in the scummier parts of the web, a lie has been spread that "longstanding" information on Wikipedia was scrubbed. Some people have been suckered in by this. Alexbrn (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a published fact. In as much you accuse Malone of self-promotion, you are anti-promoting Malone. Facts are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is only claimed by him. Nobody agrees. To show otherwise, produce an independent, reliable, source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

His laboratory notebook, was signed August 29, 1989. Signed and dated notebooks are the legal standard for priority.

Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge in reliable, published, sources. If you want to engage in overturning that, go somewhere else to do it. Without such sources, nothing can change. Alexbrn (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

US law is the standard. Not your opinion. Signed and dated notebooks are the legal standard for priority. First to Invent as a legal principle was the standard for priority date until that was changed under Obama to First to File. All US courts recognize contemporaneous notes signed by the author as factual evidence for priority date. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

"The standard" is what is published in reliable sources. An enyclopedia is just a summary of such sources. If you're here to WP:RGW you're wasting your time. Alexbrn (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The most reliable source in US Patent Law is the inventor's signed and dated laboratory notebook. There is nothing more reliable than that. You wont even look at the jpeg. This is the exact problem that has lit up the news. Wiki editors ignored glaring published facts. And yes, the notebook has been published in the USPTO in the "file wrapper" for all his subsequent USPTO submission because patent law required him to do so. All the court documents are a mater of record. Your dislike of Malone is showing. It is getting kind of silly.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here is wikipedia's article on the relevance of the laboratory notebooks reliable evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventor%27s_notebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

History Section - Photo of only one scientist

(1) This photo of Katalin Karikó, supposedly a scientist behind a key discovery in the development of mRNA vaccines is peacocking one scientist. This should be removed immediately. [[8]]
(2) The History section either includes all scientist names or none - just using the name of the organization. This section is out of balance by promoting or deleting key scientists according to an editors preferences rather than neutral scientific information.
(3) The imbalance needs to corrected. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, Thanks. I accept the argument and am removing the photo. Re. names, I don't think it's not possible to list all scientists who have contributed to the development of RNA vaccines – there will certainly be hundreds of them. Also, as we can see, there are many competing claims and different sources focus on different individuals. I will leave the part as is. Of course, other editors may make other editing decisions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The solution is to add more photos (if any exist), not to remove the woman credited in sources as the key figure behind RNA vaccines, especially if it's because some bloke is making unsubstantiated claims. Alexbrn (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, A photo of Senior Vice President of BioNTech here is borderline promo, especially when it's the only photograph in the article. This is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional piece for a pharma business. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Good articles have lots of pictures. I don't see how a photo of someone, acknowledged in multiple good RS as a key player in the history of RNA vaccines, is anything other than completely appropriate in a section precisely about that history. And bringing some side concern about "Pharma" into it smacks of tinfoilery. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

A good article on Wikipedia is balanced and editors don't use peacocking to focus on one scientist when there are many involved. When you can find a photo of each of the key players, then present it here first. There could be too many. In the meantime we cannot just have the photo of one scientist. Look at this [[9]] I removed the photo until you can provide photos of all the scientists. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's the sources that focus on her. Your demand is obviously disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources in this history section also mention other key scientists and some that have been deleted which is disruptive. The history is seen clearly in the table provided. So focusing just on one scientist is not a balanced article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

False. No scientist who is mentioned has been deleted. This is all looking like a further attempt to boost Malone. A shall raise a query at WP:FTN. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Mistaken you are. I see an imbalanced section and did read through many edits and looked at sources. From what I can see you are boosting one scientist. I would be happy to help you bring this section to balance. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

All you've done so far is to edit war away one woman's photo who you referred to as "supposedly" a scientist behind a key discovery. That's not helpful. I see we also have Drew Weissman's photo. Those two would be fine eh? Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Enjoy! if that's your favourite noticeboard and if anyone using the word "pharma" is a conspiracy theorist. (You must be hating such websites). Nobody mentions Malone here, and I myself have been fighting unsubstantiated claims related to that guy. I only strive to retain balance and not to give prominence to one party of a patent dispute – but hey, maybe I shouldn't expect from you to have read much about the case. So, a quote for you:

With respect to invalidity proceedings, BioNTech has filed EPO oppositions against Moderna’s EP3492109 (Opposition filed December 2020: proceedings pending); CureVac’s EP3292873 (Opposition filed January 2020: proceedings pending); CureVac’s EP3319622 (Opposition filed November 2020: proceedings pending); CureVac’s EP3173092 (Opposition filed March 2020: proceedings pending); CureVac’s EP3153179 (Opposition filed March 2020: proceedings pending); and CureVac’s EP3116535 (Opposition filed May 2020: proceedings pending).

So now, Wikipedia is giving floor only to the claims by the BioNTech VP, thanks to editors like you, and prominently features only one side of the IP dispute. You still call it a neutral point of view? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We're not citing "BioNTech" or a VP, but independent reputable sources (NYT for example), about events that happened 30+ years ago. Citing reliable sources is the basis of NPOV. The photograph has been so hurriedly ripped out it's left a nasty syntax error in the page. This is not what I call "helpful". It looks to me like bias. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Oh, so you reverted my edit because it left a small syntax error? Very helpful indeed. The image was placed in the middle of a paragraph, against MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and this perhaps made it more error-prone on edit.

While we select sources, we must strive to offer a WP:BALANCED coverage. Nothing against having Karikó mentioned explicitly, and as you can see I pretty much support the current wording about her work. But having a photo here, given her CoI and the ongoing patent war, is too much for me.

If either of two happens: we add photos of more scientists, or Karikó indeed receives a Nobel Prize for her work on mRNA vaccines as speculated – then I will certainly not object. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't revert. Your mess is still there. If you're trying to edit Wikipedia to affect the outcome of a legal dispute, that is a problem. We must disinterestedly summarize what the WP:BESTSOURCES say, duly weighted. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, You did not revert? Let's first state that me and Red Rose are removing the image that you yourself added on 23th June, and that this page is under DS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You said "you reverted my edit because it left a small syntax error". I didn't - I left the syntax error there and another editor fixed it. This topic is indeed under DS, so downplaying reliable sources because you apparently have some knowledge of a legal dispute, and a view on how much "platform" to give its participants, is problematic. Anyway, since you say you will be content if we add more photos, I assume a photo of Drew Weismann and of Derrick Rossi (the other scientists we have photos for) will fix things? Alexbrn (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Yes, they will be fine, although it would be even better to have photos of renowned scientists from teams other than BioNTech et al. Also those who worked on mRNA vaccines other than those based on lipids. The field is so wide, there has been so many discoveries recently! As you may know, the pioneering attempt at developing a liposome-enclosed RNA-based vaccine has been the work of French scientists in 1993 [10]. Another breakthrough came with the work of the team of German scientists in 2012 who reported in-vivo success of another type of mRNA vaccine [11]. These are all people who made lasting contributions to the scientific field of mRNA vaccines. It would be unfair to focus, in an encyclopaedia, only on the team that made the commercial product. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the topic, or who's involved with what company. My main thought was, while there's been much disruption trying to push for inclusion of people who it seems didn't have a major role in the invention of RNA vaccine (which you have been helpfully pushing back on elsewhere I note), it was just a damn shame that we weren't giving some love to the amazing people who really were involved, when we have photos of them. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the photo correctly this time. It is important to keep wikipedia accurate until this all can be settled. With her photo in this section... the only one, the reader will assume she did it all herself. It is out of proportion and not necessary.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

" inclusion of people who it seems didn't have a major role in the invention of RNA " , this has been proven false over and over, why are you still saying it? Malone, Wolf et al demonstrated the first successful injection of mRNA into a mouse, and Malone was the key researcher in discovering that work. Suggesting he "didnt have a major role" is a flat out lie.Asailum (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Malones work was not specific to the application of the process to vaccination, it was general demonstration of a certain technique for preserving mRNA in the system such that it could transfect cells. Such knowledge was of course necessary for RNA vaccination to be possible, but a researcher could plausibly develop such methods with absolutely no real knowledge or expertise specific to vaccination at all. As well, be honest with me - did you come here after watching the Tucker Carlson report? All the other people who bombarded this page in the last few days did as well. They are solely interested in highlighting him because he's turned to crankery and grifting the right wing vaccination denial movement. There are plenty of people who made plenty of significant developments in the process of producing the rna vaccine who are not specifically mentioned by name in the text of the article itself, Malone is not somehow alone here. The hordes of people who finished watching his interview on Tucker in July and subsequently jumped online to edit the article, are similarly only specifically interested in him for to his vaccine crankery, not any genuine and specific concern for the degree with which the academic accomplishments of some random researcher they have no interest otherwise in was being overlooked. These people do not wish merely to praise a researcher for his important work, they want to use him as a springboard from which to start inserting vaccine denial in the article. It should be obvious to anyone with a degree of common sense, who participated in such a mob in response to a specific accusation by a specific demagogic figure in the media with a large platform, why they would be given the cold shoulder, and why their claims of just having a random, innocent, sudden interest in a certain researcher being accredited is being met largely with sighs and immediate reversion. 2601:140:8900:61D0:2134:A70C:463F:9009 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

efficacy

this sentence "This fragility of the mRNA molecule is a hurdle to the efficacy of any mRNA vaccine due to bulk disintegration before it enters the cells, which could lead people to believe, and act as if they are immune when they are not" is only supported by a journalistic source from Nov 2020 which is a long time ago and is pure speculation, mashing up the stability of mRNA with efficacy and people's behavior. None of this is supported by any MEDRS and the sentence should be removed. --hroest 15:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Whoever wrote it, has misunderstood the Cambridge Uni source. mRNA fragility refers only to naked mRNA, that's why no current vaccine uses naked mRNA. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleting facts is erasing history

Why do some editors here want to delete the discoverers of this groundbreaking vaccine? Where in the history of inventors and discoverers is their name deleted? Why would people want to come to Wikipedia with these facts missing? I could give you countless discoveries and inventions where the name is included. What is the problem?Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kasmiri you stated that you don't want to see Malone in every other sentence. Please show me where that was occurring? I saw Malone, Felgner,Verma, Williams, Chong, Acsadi, Jani, Felgner mentioned in the first paragraph, then Martinon, Zhou, Berglund, then Karikó, Weissman, Rossi, Langer in the following paragraphs. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

We're not a CV website, and encyclopedic writing should favour a summary of the situation instead of listing every darn detail. Unlike with, say, general relativity (Einstein) or penicillin (Alexander Fleming), this doesn't appear to have one single (group of) discoverer/inventor. Therefore, we shouldn't be bringing undue attention on "who did it" but rather "what did they do" (which is the real interesting matter) - if readers are really interested in the names of the scientists, they can just check out the cited papers, which include their author list, duh! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, your comment was helpful except the Duh comment.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, most readers are never going to look at the sources or papers that relate. We would as editors, but I believe, not the general reader.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Duh! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Crediting the researchers of discoveries is not making wiki a "CV website", what a crazy angle to argue. The edit Red Rose put in seemed completely appropriate and accurate, showing which people discovered different parts of the vaccine. It should be put in unless anyone can disprove any specific part of it. Theres been more than substantial amounts of proof provided for Malone which is the only scientist anyone has an issue about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asailum (talk • contribs)

Given the number of claimants, and the existence of exaggerated claims, it is more appropriate to not provide a laundry list of names, many of which are not notable. In any case, the bulk of the actual work was as always done by people whose names are not at the top of the papers. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

In particular, the deletion of the name of a researcher who expressed a different opinion and the protection of the article after that has cast doubt on the impartiality of the encyclopedia. Release the article so that we who think differently about it can make our positive contributions. --KediÇobanı🐈 08:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about allowing those who "think differently" (i.e. minority or fringe opinions) to hijack it for their own purposes. We're supposed to be a thoroughly mainstream work, and that includes not unduly promoting views or statements coming from dubious origins (an author who persistently refers to himself as the inventor of something which he is not independently recognised as being the inventor of). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it an extreme or minority view on a subject to include the name of the scientist who discovered it? He also has his own patent. The only reason for this exclusion is his views on the vaccine. --KediÇobanı🐈 06:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources say nothing about him discovering it, then, yes, it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Respectful Insolence about this Talk page

David Gorski writes about the Malone hullabaloo on his not-so-secret blog: [12] --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2021

source (reference)14 is not(or, no longer) suitable as support information for the sentence to which it is attached. information found in source 14 does not confirm what is written in in main article, suggest using publication from the Dr mentioned within the source. 147.161.167.22 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done as the request makes no suggestion in the form replace text "A" with text "B" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for a clause

The sourcing for the clause that is highlighted has been questioned (Special:Diff/1036701131):

These studies were the first evidence that in vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver the genetic information to produce proteins within living cell tissue, and led to the concept proposal of mRNA vaccines.

The sourcing per WP:Scholarship is solid. There is a review article and a primary source that back up the statement. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference section
References

An MDPI journal is borderline predatory, so your assertion that it is "solid" is false, and your edit-warring to include it problematic. A patent is obviously not usable without risking WP:OR. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The International Journal of Molecular Sciences is an indexed, first quartile journal. No evidence has been presented that it is "predatory". No evidence has been presented it's a "junk journal" as per Alexbrn's edit summary. In the absence of some reasonable demonstration beyond thunderous declarations, I agree with User:Guest2625. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"Borderline predatory", to quote accurately. Perhaps check WP:CITEWATCH, or if still in doubt ask at WT:MED. Bold claims require strong sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That's good advice, Alexbrn. Per CITEWATCH: "The updated list says "Some of their journals have a very poor peer-review; some are fine." ... Evaluate on a case by case basis." Looking at this on a specific case, instead of publishing house, basis, International Journal of Molecular Sciences is a first quartile journal indexed by Scopus. I haven't personally encountered many predatory journals with high impact factors. Perhaps you have specific information you can share about why you think this is a "junk journal" beyond personal declaration? Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the better MDPI journals (so yes, "junk" is overstating), but nevertheless the MDPI imprimatur calls into question a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the claim is truly accepted knowledge, it should be easy to find less problematic source. I am particularly concerned about the claim that Malone's work was vaccine-oriented ("led to the concept proposal of messenger RNA vaccines") - which didn't even appear to be WP:VERIFIED anyway? Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"so yes, "junk" is overstating" Indeed. "it should be easy to find less problematic source" Again, you have presented no demonstration this is a problematic source, merely declaration. This is a first quartile journal indexed by Scopus. In any case, it seems like we'll be going around in circles on this one trying to obtain evidence the first quartile, Scopus-indexed International Journal of Molecular Sciences is "problematic". Referencing one of the same studies, Nature called this "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA" [13] which should, hopefully, put this exercise to rest unless you're planning to also hold out for a less problematic journal than Nature ... Chetsford (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would never use an MDPI journal for something exceptional/surprising because the publisher is known to be disreputable. The Nature Medicine source is better first because it isn't MDPI, and second because it actually verifies the content, except it mentions Jon Wolff (the lead author), not Malone, in relation to this "first step". Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your personal discomfort, however, your inability to describe any objective reason or present any type of evidence as to why the International Journal of Molecular Sciences is not RS — despite being asked numerous times to do so — while continually reverting edits by others is disruptive and seems to indicate you're WP:NOTHERE. The patent, as I read it, is being used as a limited primary source to corroborate the date as described in the essay WP:PATENTS; the content doesn't depend on the source, though, so its omission or inclusion is probably irrelevant. Chetsford (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Chetsford that the clause is properly sourced and that the three sources are solid. I disagree with Alex's change Special:Diff/1036867473 where he removes two sources and states in the edit summary "trim spurious sourcing". I would like to hear other opinions should all three sources be included. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If something's properly sourced to Nature Medicine, how would it improve the encyclopedia to introduce a lesser source and (good grief) a patent? Even if they were good sources that would be WP:OVERCITEd. Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if we accepted (we don't) the non-mainstream position that a Scopus-indexed, first quartile journal is a vanity source, Lu Zhang is an SME and his authorship would qualify its use under WP:USESPS. OVERCITE is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and isn't usually applied to object to two, versus one, sources appearing at the end of a paragraph. Because the two sources offer a panoply of beneficial information, a correct application of OVERCITE would be WP:CITEMERGE. An incorrect application would be attempting to edit war out one of the two sources. Chetsford (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if you like the source and the patent, there is no policy to "offer a panoply of beneficial information", especially when doing so creates a WP:V failure. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you read V? The source is being used to verify the claim in the article. I think you need to better familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. Simply shotgunning links is not some kind of ace of spades. As for offering a variety of beneficial information, you're right, it's not policy - it's from the OVERCITE essay you cited. Again, with all due respect, I think you'd be well served to familiarize yourself with the links you're posting before posting them. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Better to WP:FOC rather than divert into odd personal comments. Where in the MDPI source is the text which will (yes) WP:VERIFY the claim that "These studies ... led to the concept proposal of messenger RNA vaccines"? Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No one here has made any personal comments about you, Alex. Chetsford (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to better familiarize yourself ...

seems like it's a personally-directed comment. And asking "Have you read V?" looks suspicious like trolling. But: to the point. Where in the MDPI source is the text which will (yes) WP:VERIFY the claim that "These studies ... led to the concept proposal of messenger RNA vaccines"? Alexbrn (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I'm sorry you feel that way. "Where in the MDPI source is the text which will (yes) WP:VERIFY the claim" On page 1: "In 1990, in vitro-transcribed mRNA was sufficiently expressed in mouse skeletal muscle cells through direct injection, which became the first successful attempt on mRNA in vivo expression and thus proved the feasibility of mRNA vaccine development" (referencing the Jon A. Wolff study). The text "These studies ... led to the concept proposal of messenger RNA vaccines" accurately summarizes that. Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't "feel" anything but do think we should stay focused. While that text is in the ball park, it's kind of off for supporting a claim of leading to a "concept proposal" (distinctive, odd, phrase). This seems to have got introduced by Guest2625 with a quote parameter of "Concept proposal of messanger [sic] RNA vaccines (1990)". But this text does not seem to appear in the source. So what's happened? Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Dunno, you'll have to ask Guest. Seems to me like the quote parameter should be modified to be true to source or removed from the citation. I don't find anything innately odd about the phrase "concept proposal" / "proof of concept proposal", but maybe that's just me. A POC demonstrates viability of an idea which is consistent with saying something "proved the feasibility" of an idea. Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Proof of concept" would be better. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alex. Sorry for not getting back sooner, I was out chatting with a friend. Thanks for catching the error on the quote. It should actually read "Concept proposal of mRNA vaccines". However, a ctrl+f search still won't find it. I always tell my friends to really focus on the images in science articles. That is where all the good stuff gets packed away. For the quote, see the figure 1. timeline at 1990. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for a clause

The sourcing for the clause that is highlighted is inadequate (Special:Diff/1036536537):

The use of RNA in vaccines has occasioned substantial misinformation in social media, wrongly claiming that the introduction of RNA alters a person's DNA.

The sourcing per WP:Scholarship is not solid. Scientific claims in science articles require scientific sources. The clause should be removed or replaced with the clause properly sourced. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference section
References

WP:PARITY applies. We can use pretty much any source do debunk obvious WP:FRINGE bollocks. Alexbrn (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree the sourcing is adequate, per Alexbrn, above. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Obvious facts of biology (that RNA can't alter the DNA in human cells) used to refute bollocks and misinformation don't need more than a reputable mainstream RS, such as the BBC (or likely, any biology textbook, if you insist). Taken to its conclusion, the OP's argument would be illogical, since we'd be fine with sourcing claimed misinformation (including obvious batshit crazy lunacies) to newspapers describing it, but we wouldn't be able to refute them without finding a scholarly article talking about it. Given how rarely scholarly articles talk about that kind of stuff (since scholars have more useful stuff to do than dealing with Randy in Boise), that would not help in preventing the spread of misinformation, and we would have failed in our purpose as an online encyclopedia read by millions across the world. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue of sourcing for the sentence has been resolved. A scientific source was added,(Special:Diff/1038072161) which verifies the scientific claim in the sentence. There still remains the issue of due weight of having this stand-alone sentence, which reads like a medical misinformation advisory, pasted in the lead. However, that issue can be addressed in another section on the talk page if someone is interested. In regards to the highlighted part of the comment directly above:

Given how rarely scholarly articles talk about that kind of stuff (since scholars have more useful stuff to do than dealing with Randy in Boise), that would not help in preventing the spread of misinformation, and we would have failed in our purpose as an online encyclopedia read by millions across the world.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to stomp out misinformation. Wikipedia's purpose as Jimmy Wales has said is:

"to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language"

And, that is its only purpose. The above quote does not come from a policy or guideline; however, I'm in agreement with Wikipedia's founder and Dennis Diderot's vision. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"Highest possible quality" implies the avoidance of misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ultracold storage

The introduction states the following:

RNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, have the disadvantage of requiring ultracold storage before distribution;[1] other mRNA vaccines, such as the Moderna, CureVac, and Walvax COVID-19 vaccines, do not require such ultracold storage temperatures.[7]

Please be aware that this is misleading. In May 2021, the European Medicines Agency updated the shelf life information for unopened vials (frozen: 6 months at -90 °C to -60 °C; thawed: 1 month at 2 °C to 8 °C; Comirnaty Product Information (PDF), May 2021, p. 11, retrieved August 2021 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)). Therefore, the sentence above can be changes this way:

Many RNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, require ultracold storage before distribution, but can be stored in the refrigerator for a few days.[1][7]

Please be aware that I have a COI here, so independent community feedback is highly appreciated. Thanks, J at BioNTech (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@J at BioNTech: This is a primary source which lacks context. Is this what the manufacturer specifies? Is this being done worldwide (I'm thinking of developing countries) or is this just an extra layer of safety for the EU? -- Beland (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(See WP:PRIMARY for policy details. -- Beland (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC))

Summarized data

Hi J at BioNTech and other editors looking at this sentence. Here is the relevant data summarized in a table for the sentence. The sourcing quality varies:

Manufacturer	Stability in Frozen State	Stability at 2–8 °C	Stability at Room Temperature
Moderna	−20 °C, up to 6 months	30 days	Up to 12 h
Pfizer-BioNTech	−80 °C to −60 °C, up to 6 months	up to 5 days 30 days (new EU info)	Up to 2 h (up to 6 h after dilutiona)
CureVac	≤ −60 °C, at least 3 months	At least 3 months	Up to 24 h
Walvax		for six months	at least 1 week

Also the following source states:

"For long-term storage and transportation, the current mRNA vaccines from BioTech/Pfizer and Moderna in Phase III trials require -80°C and -20°C, respectively, and this cold-chain requirement greatly limits their distribution and increases the cost."

Like J above has stated the sentence of concern states:

"RNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, have the disadvantage of requiring ultracold storage before distribution; other mRNA vaccines, such as the Moderna, CureVac, and Walvax COVID-19 vaccines, do not require such ultracold storage temperatures."

J from BioNTech would like the following sentence:

"Many RNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, require ultracold storage before distribution, but can be stored in the refrigerator for a few days."

J's statement according to the sourcing does not appear to be correct. Moderna requires -20°C which is not ultracold storage. According to Whirlpool, the factory setting for their home freezers is -18°C. It is true that Moderna does need a home freezer, so we could just indicate the two extreme examples and drop Moderna. The following sentence format is also possible:

"RNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, have the disadvantage of requiring ultracold storage before distribution; other mRNA vaccines, such as Walvax COVID-19 vaccines, do not require such ultracold storage temperatures."

Other ways of stating the information in the sources is possible, and other editors can make changes accordingly. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference section
References

 Not done: Lack of context and not enough sources. Quetstar (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Side Effects: Myocarditis and Pericarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination

"Since April 2021, there have been more than a thousand reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of cases of inflammation of the heart—called myocarditis and pericarditis—happening after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (i.e., Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) in the United States."

Myocarditis and blood clots are typical side effects of vaccines in general and not specific risks unique to RNA vaccines. The fact that these are the most reported side effects of any seriousness is just indication that they are largely functioning similar to any other vaccine. These are largely results of an immune response, which vaccines are of course designed to produce. Sometimes immune response can cause serious symptoms. Of course, infection itself can produce similar side effects, COVID 19 is known to cause Myocarditis itself, because it itself produces an immune response. The mRNA vaccines actually have reduced chances of blood clots compared to the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, which is a traditional vaccine. And the side effects of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine are themselves not so serious that they would warrant going without vaccination were it the only option.2601:140:8900:61D0:2134:A70C:463F:9009 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Side Effects: Blood Clots

In the United States "CDC and FDA identified 44 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and later developed TTS. Women younger than 50 years old especially should be aware of the rare but increased risk of this adverse event.

"Denmark has ceased giving the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine amid concerns about rare cases of blood clots, the first European country to do so fully." "Camilla, one of three Danes to be diagnosed with the side-effect VITT, experienced telltale symptoms of extreme headaches, bruising and clotting that could have proved fatal. Of the three Danes to have suffered from VITT – a rare and often fatal side-effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine – Camilla is the only survivor."