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

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

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

Please add the petty partisan vaccine hesitancy fueled by Democrat Party leaders. Here is Kamala Harris stating she would not take the vaccine, simply because of Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 116.255.1.118 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Maybe rewatch and pay closer attention to the first part of Harris's response Cannolis (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2023 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirbyJan (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The new paper is not a reliable source; see WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Because it is a primary source, as opposed to secondary or tertiary? DonaldPayne (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And it's also in a slightly iffy journal to compound issues. Bon courage (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The journal Nature is "slightly iffy"? The journal that published the seminal paper on monocolonal antibodies in the 1970s? What absolute nonsense. 204.145.225.74 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe take a closer look in which journal at was published, not the url of this link. Scientific Reports Cannolis (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Evidence to disprove the possibility of a worldwide conspiracy

Does this page contain enough body of sources to ensure that it is near-impossible to mastermind a conspiracy of injecting the world population with harmful material on COVID-19 vaccines? It would strengthen the point of view represented in this article that everyone from those who produce these vaccines to those who examine them are reliable. What could constitute a good enough proof that nobody in world is strong enough to orchestrate such thing? Yuzerneim (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No this article does don't "contain enough body of sources to ensure that it is near-impossible to mastermind a conspiracy of injecting the world population with harmful material on COVID-19 vaccines" as we are not trying to do this (nor can we as we can't disprove something done in secret).

Yes we do use only wp:rs.

You can't prove or disprove a conspiracy theory, but the onus would be on those wishing to prove it, After all can you prove you are not a small cat that just got lucky on the keyboard? Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

1- You can however at least prove whether such thing is practically possible.

2- Also the second statement was not a question regarding "what sources you use", but it was just that, a statement, a piece of honest opinion.

3- Last but not least, you can say that I am not a cat based on the fact that cats are practically incapable of using a keyboard, and prove that they are indeed not, but can we do the same with questions regarding the vaccine safety? What should you say had someone asked whether are the people behind the vaccination process capable of such conspiracy? Yuzerneim (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Prove what is practically possible that Wikipedia ensures that a "conspiracy of injecting the world population with harmful material on COVID-19 vaccines can't be carried out"?, that is not wikipedias job.

This talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not for your opinions of it (or the sources).

I would say, look at the actual medical evidence as published in peer-reviewed medical journals. As has been said about many many conspiracies (and going back Rr}we GOP by what RS say, not some bloke on the internet. My cat point is to illustrate the problem, you can't "prove" something that by its nature has no proof to start with.

Thus WP:ONUS is on you to poove you have a valid point, not for us to prove you do not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd talk about this a bit further but as now I realise that ONUS stuff, I see no point and therefore I cease it here. For your information, I wanted to know, not to convince. Have a nice day, stranger. Yuzerneim (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"government/experts said the vaccinated can't get covid"

One of the most common current examples of disinformation on covid on social media and elsewhere is the claim that the government or medical or pharmaceutical experts lied about the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing infection and transmission. I couldn't find any info on this disinformation in this article or in the one on transmission (and not much elsewhere online). Instead, i found and corrected disinformation in that article's section on effectiveness that wasn't noticed and/or reverted despite being an edit from more than 3 months ago by an unregistered editor. We need more effective patrolling of that and this article and others on covid.

In the past there were plenty of headlines by journalists and other laypeople similar to It's official: Vaccinated people don't spread COVID-19 (behind a paywall, so perhaps only the title is so misleading) that did accidentally or sloppily spread incorrect or exaggerated enthusiasm about effectiveness in preventing infection and transmission (during the first vaccinations), but experts were almost always careful and reported actual scientific knowledge correctly based on studies like https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w , which reported 90% effectiveness, at least for the first variants.

I spent quite a bit of time searching on WP and elsewhere online, but Google search results are mostly about the disinformation about the related but very different issue consisting of the naively or deviously claimed dishonesty of experts concerning the vaccines not being tested for transmission reduction before mass vaccination. I do remember reading that the director of the CDC talked about reduction of infection and transmission in a too optimistic way and in wording that was too absolute and that the CDC had to correct those claims. I found a source for that sloppiness, but probably other experts were sloppy too, so we need to report on those too to help explain where the misinformation and later disinformation came from. We also need to report on similar sloppy exaggerations of infection/transmission reduction by Biden and other government officials.

I'm adding this probably not quotable article about the slow or non-existent public education campaigns to counteract antivaccination and antigovernment propaganda. This info seems to also be missing here. --Espoo (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I came here also looking for this information, and was surprised not to see any of the misinformation about the effectiveness of the vaccines in the article. This is a key point now looking back at many of the mandates and their impact on civil liberties. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The majority of public consensus about the protection the vaccine would supposedly provide was delivered ad nauseam via the various dominant 24 hour news networks. Fauci, Biden, other officials as well as every news anchor spoke at length about how the vaccine would “stop the spread,” “Make transmission impossible” and “prevent you from giving covid to others” - the fact that you searched Google & WP and somehow found nothing, yet are for some reason unable or unwilling to document information from any not-yet-dead mediums like TV News (as opposed to print/e-journalism, which immediately remove and revise outdated propaganda without any trace or consequences) is disturbing and baffling. 2607:FB91:51B:C32E:D5F9:62A8:B44:696A (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

ANd what did the doctors say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Many "journalists", the CDC, & Anthony Fauci claimed that the vaccine stopped the spread of the virus and never retracted those statements or issued corrections. Many of these reports are still active on their original official accounts

So?Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

So? Who would you be protecting? I can add multiple sources where Joe Biden, President of The United States, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases also the chief medical advisor to the president of the United States from 2021 to 2022, along with numerous journalists, celebrities, and others that spread misinformation about the vaccine and the virus itself. Please explain how that is not relevant. Is it not the point to show unbiased information about people from different sides of the issue being incorrect or made claims that misled the public. In particular by using that false information to coerce people into taking a vaccine they were hesitant about putting in their body. 107.195.140.198 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow was in the Biden administration? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That is what you choose to take from my comment? I said the President of The United States, The Vice President of the United States, his Chief Medical Advisor during the pandemic, The Center for disease Control in addition to other "journalists" and celebrities. To ignore that is in bad faith which seems to be the direction Wikipedia is going seeing that Trump and his comments, as they should be, are always mentioned in Wikipedia articles. What makes Biden, his administration, and many others exempt from scrutiny? The people should be help accountable for creating a false narrative in order to influence public opinion and mislead the public regarding their own health decisions. It is part of the history of the pandemic to show that propaganda from the United States government was used and spread through traditional media and social media. Since I am unable to add anything referring to this subject it seems there is leaning control over Wikipedia content to decide what information is or is not important. Who is in control of these COVID-19 pages deciding what people show know? Splankton (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it is what I took from the source provided. And wp:agf, the reason this can't be done is this is about misinformation, not incorrect information. In other words, people not giving out the best medical advice available, but giving out information not based upon the best scientific advice at the time. Moreover, people who continue to give out this information, rather than correcting themselves, long after it is proven false. Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the sources are still available with no retractions or level of accountability is misinformation. All of these people were culpable, and without updated sources, can still be used as sources. They, like others accused, preyed on the lack of knowledge of non-professionals to push their agenda and force people (vaccine mandates) to believe their information. They were wrong and need to be held accountable or the same people, organizations, and parties will repeat the behavior. They attacked, ridiculed, and shamed millions of people. Lumped concerned citizens in with anit-vaxx. Something should be said in any of these articles that, yes, the so called moral compass of the media and progressives were wrong for all of these actions and there is little evidence for atonement. Without it documented, these same people can use the same tactics again and allow history to repeat itself. Splankton (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that a lot of disinformation and nothing but that has been added to my OP. (I wasn't informed about these comments because someone had removed the subtitle formatting.) It seems that none of these commenters know or want to know the facts about COVID transmission reduction due to vaccines as reported in Transmission_of_COVID-19#Effect_of_vaccination. --Espoo (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"a growing body of evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission" as chains of transmission are interrupted by vaccines. While fully vaccinated people can still become infected and potentially transmit the virus to others (particularly in areas of widespread community transmission), they do so at a much lower rate than unvaccinated people. The primary cause of continued spread of COVID-19 is transmission between unvaccinated people.

References