Talk:COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Cherry picking of sources

How does one come to the conclusion that a source is unreliable through broad assertions without checking the source material? I was sure that editors of Wikipedia vetted and checked sources but apparently this is inaccurate? An example would be the reversions done by RandomCanadian, insisting a particular source was not acceptable without first checking the source nor the claims made in said source (as one can note, the publisher did not actually make any claims whatsoever). Some clarification on sourcing would be appreciated. Rowan Cooma54 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

by discussion via wp:rsn. You might also need to read WP:MEDRS as this pertains to the issue. As well as wp:fringe and wp:undue, if Professor Von Loonpants says the earth is flat, that is covered by both of those. We judge by what the bulk of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

And I'm not even given the courtesy of being pinged? Nevermind the above SPA whose single edit is the above; but clearly they didn't even bother to read my edit summary (nor bother to check WP:RSP). The complaint about reverts is also quacking like a duck... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

1. I don't know how to ping or I would have. 2. I have read your reverts and clearly you were unable to read the sources provided and additionally incapable of reading the reasons for your reversions. By your own standards, all references to NYT must be removed from all articles, period. 3. WP:MEDRS does not pertain to this issue, as Project Veritas is the claimed to be the source when it fact the source is actually Pfizer. 4. By the standards being presented here, if Person A shoots Person B and it is recorded on camera, but in a panel of 10 third party persons, 7 state Person A did not in fact shoot Person B, then you (Wikipedia) is obligated to state that Person A did not in fact shoot Person B. 5. I'm not logged in because raisins. Rowan Cooma54 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You do not understand the meaning of "source" used on Wikipedia (see WP:SOURCEDEF). Here, you cited Project Veritas as a source (whether they are reporting on something said by John Random Doe or by the President of the USA himself, it does not change the fact that they are the source being cited for this information; in the same way, say, that, say for A related debunked theory, out of India, claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were lowering people's ability to withstand new variants instead of boosting immunity.[4], the cited source is Reuteurs). Project Veritas is not a reliable source, as established by previous community consensus (as documented at WP:RSP). Same for the Washington Times, which is dubious for politics and science (arguing about MEDRS or not, this is clearly a topic which is both politics and science). You cannot use either as a source, even if it claims to be giving information from Pfizer or from anyone else. If this information is encyclopedically noteworthy, then you must be able to find better sources. It's the same reason we don't use the Daily Fail as a source: yes, occasionally, they might be right (the same way even the dumbest sources might occasionally say something unsurprisingly true like "the sky is blue"), but on those cases, then there are also more competent sources on the matter. Re. no. 4: Yes, exactly (if you change your metaphor from random third parties to reliable sources), see WP:VNT. Re. 5: obvious irony. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

In the Medical section on Deaths "This claim have" should be "These claims have". Thank you. 2600:1014:B06D:CEAB:5F28:A286:FA3A:B585 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no section on deaths. if you mean "This claim have been debunked as a misleading misrepresentation by anti-vaccine sources" it is about one claim.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Misinfomation

How are attempts to get people to get vaccinated Misinformation?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nocebo

A January 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis said that "placebo arms (“nocebo responses”) accounted for 76% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and 52% after the second dose." - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2788172 . --Bawanio (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Added. --Bawanio (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please help - Claim: We don't know what is in the vaccine, the ingredients are kept secret. There is over 150 ingredients in them but we don't know which one but some are very bad. What are the Ingredients of the COVID-19 vaccines? What is in them?

We often hear that in france. The list of ingredients is open of course: often it is not more than 10 molecules as explained here: https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/Covid-19-Knowledge-Base/Vaccine-Ingredients The confusion seems to arise from the fact that it takes easily 500 steps to get to the molecules and at the origine hundreds of molecules need to react, but in the end there are only about 10 molecules in the dosis. I don't have more time, thy for expanding and transferring the paragraph in the article. SvenAERTS (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@SvenAERTS: This talk page is not a forum, so we cannot help you to find the ingredients here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael Yeadon

Michael Yeadon was formerly V.P. of Pfizer. The present version of the article refers to him simply as "British researcher". Wouldn't it be important for readers to know he was V.P. of Pfizer? Why or why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solid Research (talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That would be Michael Yeadon. Probably there are things about him which are more relevant to this article than his former employment, as per that opening of that biography! Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeadon was vice-president of the allergy and respiratory division, not the entire company. He didn't work on any vaccines at Pfizer that we know of. In any case, he's far more notable as an anti-vaxxer. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

False hepatitis link

Vaccines have recently been falsely (all the cases are in children too young to be vaccinated) linked to spate of unexplained child hepatitis cases [1]. Worth adding or too insignificant? Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's ?now mentioned in 2022 hepatitis of unknown origin in children which is probably good enough. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Addendum to "reproductive health" (section 1.3.4)

In the United States, all the major medical expert groups that treat pregnant people and people attempting become pregnant support the safety and importance of COVID-19 vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), the two leading organizations representing specialists in obstetric care, recommend that all pregnant individuals be vaccinated against COVID-19 [2]. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the leading organization representing specialists in fertility and infertility care, recommend that all people who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant be vaccinated against COVID-19 [3]. ASRM states there are no fertility-related exemptions to vaccination. These groups recommend vaccination in part because COVID-19 infection itself increases the risk of pregnancy complications such as maternal mortality, preeclampsia, and preterm birth [4]. MDinQueens (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Antibody dependent enhancement

New information suggests ADE can in fact occur with SARS-cov2 depending on antibody levels and more so with variants such as omicron (pre-booster) See Nature article from September 2022

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19993-w

Newer omicron variants in last few months( autumn 2022) have more immune escape and are not well-covered by the recent booster , which theoretically could make ADE more of a problem.

For reference, i am a Harvard and Yale trained MD, and i am vaccinated x3 but chose not to get the recent booster as this new information came out. I have never stopped masking with N95. I am not anti-vax or COVID-denier. I am interested in the full truth, which I believe to be that the vaccine has been important but is not enough, and our reliance on it and abandonment of NPIs such as masks will be our downfall.

Meanwhile there is another error in the article: “when infected by a second closely-related virus, due to a unique and rare reaction with proteins on the surface of the second virus.[60][61] ADE has been observed in vitro and in animal studies with many different viruses that do not display ADE in humans.” This quote is misleading and makes it sound like there is no ADE in humans. On the contrary. ADE is not that rare, there are notable viruses that employ it (consider dengue). Just read the Wikipedia page on ADE, for example. Also a “second closely related virus” is misleading. Sometimes (as with dengue), it is the SAME virus, but with a mutation— in other words a variant. And COVID produces NUMEROUS variants. An antibody that fit the original variant well, but now, because of viral mutations, fits the newer variant less well, is a prime candidate to perform ADE.

So I am not taking a position on the vaccine being good Or bad. I would simply like to see the full updated truth here rather than the current post which implies the whole ADE discussion is an irrelevant non-issue. It’s not. KirbyJan (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

The recent edit by @SomeNeatGiraffes leaves the sentence not making sense. ("While a study published to JAMA showed an increased risk for myocarditis within seven days of vaccination, the group with most recorded cases (males aged 16 to 17) only had 105.9 per million doses. Only minor symptoms were reported, and patients typically experienced symptomatic recovery after treatment.") It would be good to get some scrutiny so that the wording is improved. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Person who made the edit here, can you explain how the statement doesn't make sense? If it was me removing the part about "0.01% chance of contracting it", that was me deriving the percentage from "105.9 per million", and I felt that it may be inaccurate to keep it in. I could revert "the group with most recorded cases" back to "the group under highest risk" if that would improve the statement. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

This edit request to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:80:4301:2D0:55E7:4B96:81F1:345A (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add that some people don’t want it just because they do not choose to participate.2601:80:4301:2D0:55E7:4B96:81F1:345A (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"Not a gene therapy"

If you have a look at the Gene therapy, most "gene therapies" including the first one approved, and the modern one's that deal with genetic disorders do not really change a cell's DNA (excepting the incidental rate genome integrations of AAV vectors). The whole "not a gene therapy" appears to be made up pro-vaccine propaganda by ill-informed health communication experts because "gene therapy" sounds scary. I'm very tempted to change the reference to gene therapy in the article to do "modify a cell's DNA" to get rid of this absurdity that is at odds with basically an entire body of academic research. Of course... this would be a bit of an editorial decisions to exclude a source based on its content.. which is a little sketchy. I guess I could add material saying "20% of gene therapy trials were run on treatments that used Ad vectors. Ad vectors do not modify the genome" directly next statement. I've contacted a few sources who appear to be selling this narrative... but it might be rather late for them to backtrack on a year and a half of lying to the public during a pandemic. Talpedia (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

So I followed up on the source for the claim. Firstly it's a blog post - so I could just delete it potentially. However unfortunately similar claims are coming out of fact checkers, newspapers who quote fact checkers, and one publication by NHS. However in the comments on the blog, the author helpful linked to a paper discussing the definition of gene therapy (where the author suggests a more restrictive definition). But following the citers of the work gave me this: http://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2022.29223.aas. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to download this paper, but the abstract gives the tantalising

But people in academia did not react to this anti-scientific information uniformly, as some insisted on the idea that mRNA vaccines are not considered gene therapy to avoid the spread of anti-vaxxers's disinformation, whereas others emphasised the idea that mRNA vaccines are considered gene therapy because they introduce genetic materials into cell

.

I think I might just replace the current source with this - though I would interested in getting a full copy of the paper - since I think it might give us a nice definition of the history of the term Talpedia (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023