Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 2

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 Moderna article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not advocating adding it but information about some animal studies are available in a preprint. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello ScienceFlyer and Whywhenwhohow! The presentation slides from Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna aren't peer-reviewed but are kind of "endorsed" by the ACIP by presenting them on the webpage ACIP Presentation Slides: September 1-2, 2022 Meeting. So I would suggest to include these links. What is your opinion on this? As a second point, I would think that the lack of a scientific publication(*) should be mentioned, even if only briefly. --Myosci (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (*) "For the BA.4/BA.5 boosters, the companies have submitted animal data. They have not released those data publicly, although at the June FDA meeting, Pfizer presented preliminary findings in eight mice given BA.4/BA.5 vaccines as their third dose." see Omicron booster shots are coming—with lots of questions (science.org, archived, 30 Aug. 2022) --Myosci (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pfizer/Biontech used large doses for the mice: 1 mcg of the vaccines for a mouse that weighs ~25 g. Compared to 30 mcg for humans.
 * Estimated factor for Human Equivalent Dose (HED) conversion for mice is ~12.3, see and --Myosci (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Old-fashioned stuff: So the computation could go like this: NLs in mice (8 or 16 mice can be enough) -> NLs in humans -> VE in humans.
 * The Omicron BA.1 vaccines weren't tested for VE.
 * That's perhaps not so bad since one could compute VE from the neutralization levels (NLs): Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection ...
 * And for the Omicron BA.5/BA.4 vaccines, mice were used for examining the NLs.
 * Who needs real medical trials – published in decent medical journals – anymore? That's so old-fashioned.
 * This group of people who are neither totally for nor totally against vaccination are irrelevant now. No middle ground needed anymore. --Myosci (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: In the middle of October 2022 finally the announcement by Pfizer and Biontech that "early data suggest that our bivalent vaccine is anticipated to provide better protection" – without publishing any quantitive data. Is it possible to be more restrained? --Myosci (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Your revert is in error since that's not a WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS issue because the edit (see below) merely points to the fact that there's a profound lack of published studies by pointing to the October press release of Pfizer.
 * On 13 October 2022, Biontech and Pfizer issued in a press release – titled Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Positive Early Data From Clinical Trial of Omicron BA.4/BA.5-Adapted Bivalent Booster in Individuals 18 Years and Older – that the not yet published data was "showing a safety profile similar to that of the original vaccine" and that "early data suggest that our bivalent vaccine is anticipated to provide better protection against currently circulating variants than the original vaccine and potentially help to curb future surges in cases this winter."

A paragraph showing the lack of high quality publications cannot be sourced by high quality publications since it's not the policy of journals to exclaim: "Company XY did not submit a study to us!" So that lack can only be made visible by showing that what has been published like the October press release of Pfizer was without any data other than descriptions like "early data suggest that our bivalent vaccine is anticipated to provide better protection".--Myosci (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In fact MEDRS sources very often comment on the lack of data or its poor quality. Bon courage (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example?--Myosci (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The added text stated biomedical content without using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. The stated biomedical content includes "showing a safety profile similar to that of the original vaccine" and that the new vaccines "provide better protection against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages than original vaccine". The provided source is a press release. The discussion at Why MEDRS? may be of interest. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Myosci Apologies for being late to the party.
 * https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2668 (Nov '21)
 * https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102 (Jan '22) 31.4.149.90 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)