Talk:RNA vaccine/Archive 3

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)
 * 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) 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.  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.  Sandy Georgia  (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)


 * If Myocarditis is supposedly from the mRNA running rampant, why did it occur in the J&J vaccine, which is a traditional vaccine? It is more likely it is a product of typical immune response, which naturally results in inflammation. Comparison to base rate is not sensible, comparison to the typical after effects of a typical vaccine would be more meaningful. COVID 19 infection itself of course can frequently cause Myocarditis, because, again, it is an infection, it causes an immune system response, and immune system response results in inflammation. So avoiding the vaccine due to fear of Myocarditis, is poor judgment. 2601:140:8900:61D0:2134:A70C:463F:9009 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)