Talk:COVID-19 vaccine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updated Advice Needs Updating[edit]

"In April 2021, Astrazeneca and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) updated their information for healthcare professionals about AZD1222."

Given this, could the article expand on what was meant by "causal relationship" between the vaccination and the occurrence of thrombosis? For even if the adverse reactions where said to be "very rare", by how much had they "exceeded what would be expected in the general population"? Also, could the EMA Statement be updated to include their last advice on vaccination and any risk of thrombosis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.237 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMA stated in writing, as do the manufacturers, that the vaccines do not, and were never intended to, stop or reduce transmission. The article should be edited to be truthful 85.94.248.27 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of a questionable (now retracted) study suggesting "dangers of mRNA vaccines"[edit]

Sadly discovered this posted by a relative who doesn't like the vaccine, but it is concerning.[1] Doug Weller talk 10:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junk, non-peer-reviewed journal and a rogues' gallery of contributors. Some sane commentary on it here.[2] Bon courage (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My browser showed me this[3]. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published by Cureus, a definite red flag. @Bon courage seeing this [4] RSN? Doug Weller talk 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MDPI journals already listed at WP:RSP. Myself, I would probably never use this journal for health claims. Bon courage (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that MDPI? Anyway, going to RSN now. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O yes, it's not MDPI. It's Springer Nature (?!). Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
same people, same argument, different publisher.[5] Doug Weller talk 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to cap this off: Cureus (unusually) retracted the article.[6] Bon courage (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised that a reasonably seasoned editor would have fallen for this bogus report in the first place. BD2412 T 16:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024[edit]

In the end of the section "Adverse Events", after the part with tinnitus, the following references could be added, showing no signs of an increased rate of lasting vestibular damage:

https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15546 https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000003275

It could read like this: "Compared to pre-pandemic cohorts, no increased rate of lasting peripheral-vestibular damage has been shown in observational studies [ref 1, 2]." J.Q.G. (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Would need secondary sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]