Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

Journal publications
I've reverted good faith edits by @Myosci that mention lack of peer-reviewed scientific publications because I don't think they're necessary in the article. The data about the bivalent vaccines was reviewed by regulatory bodies, the ACIP, and CDC. See slides. While the data isn't in a journal yet, it was made public and reviewed by experts. I'm reverting similar edits on the Pfizer article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @ScienceFlyer I may be mistaken but I was unaware that the raw data is public, only a truncated report of the trial along with its purported results. As we've seen from the Pfizer trial scandal covered by the British Medical Journal, IMO it's far to say that without full, unedited, (anonymised) participant-level data, these reports can only be trusted as far as the company itself can be trusted. A global encyclopedia should reflect global scientific consensus, not simply that of US regulatory bodies. Furthermore, regulatory bodies worldwide, including those of the USA, have a long history of bad decisions regarding treatment approval and, unfortunately, corruption. Oxycodone was and is quite a famous fiasco in the USA, I believe, which incidentally may also have been avoided if the trial data had been more transparent. Point being, a lack of peer-reviewed raw data is absolutely relevant and should be given its due weight. Not only from an encyclopedic point of view, but an ethical one. For better or for worse, people make medical decisions on the basis of the information contained within pages such as this, and thus should be informed if the safety is If I am mistaken and the full raw data has been released, I would greatly appreciate if you could provide a source. Many thanks. 31.4.149.90 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just realised that "corruption" is something that should be backed with a respected medical source to avoid sounding too quacky, so here is a link - https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538 - I would also like to add that I understand that this space is more to discuss the article and improvements to it, rather than the subject matter itself. However I feel that the approval of a regulatory agency does not warrant the removal of pertinent information about the lack of peer-reviewed raw data, unless I am, of course, mistaken and it has been released in full and peer-reviewed. 31.4.149.90 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Certain and verly likely facts
@recent deletion: It's a - certain - fact that Moderna's vaccine has been discontinued for younger people in countries like Germany, France and Sweden due to the - very likely - increased rate of myocarditis. Even if one doubts the increased rate (like many people once doubted climate change) one cannot deny the fact that vaccination has been restricted due to this concern.--Myosci (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Certain facts

Very likely means that it is not 100.0% sure but well above the treshold of high significance, see e.g. the large NHS study: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970. --Myosci (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Emphasis added --Myosci (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Verly likely facts
 * In 42 842 345 people receiving at least 1 dose of vaccine, 21 242 629 received 3 doses, and 5 934 153 had SARS-CoV-2 infection before or after vaccination. Myocarditis occurred in 2861 (0.007%) people, with 617 events 1 to 28 days after vaccination.
 * Risk of myocarditis was increased in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of ChAdOx1 (incidence rate ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09–1.62])
 * and a first, second, and booster dose of BNT162b2 (1.52 [95% CI, 1.24–1.85]; 1.57 [95% CI, 1.28–1.92], and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33–2.22], respectively) but was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64–14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54–7.87], respectively).
 * The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25–19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25–5.58]).
 * Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).
 * In women younger than 40 years, the number of excess events per million was similar after a second dose of mRNA-1273 and a positive test (7 [95% CI, 1–9] versus 8 [95% CI, 6–8]).


 * So a risk ratio of 11.76 (95% CI 7.25 to 19.06) compared to 1.57 (95% CI: 1.33 to 2.22)! This is a very hughe difference. The propability that this was only by chance is practically zero. The study would have to have systematic flaws. But there's no basis to assume this. Do the British people have so much more confidence in the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine than the Moderna vaccine that they only go to the doctor when they have (servere!) symptoms after the Moderna vaccine shot and not after the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine shot? That would be very doubtful and on such a far-fetched possibiliy one cannot dismiss such a profound statistical finding! --Myosci (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And there is a interesting difference between the 2nd and 3rd shots. In BNT 2nd shot: RR=1.57 vs. 3rd shot: RR=1.72 and Moderna's 2nd shot RR=11.76 vs 3rd shot: 2.64. Why did the rate in Moderna decline so much? Well, the 3rd Moderna shot has only 50 µg of modRNA vs. 100 µg of for the 2nd (and 1st) shot. And BNT has only 30 µg for 1st, 2nd and 3rd shot. So it's perhaps not the vaccine formula itself but the much higher dosis in mRNA-1273 primary vaccination that makes the difference!--Myosci (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the reintroduction wasn't deleted the subsections above in small. --Myosci (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)