![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
mRNA should be spelled out at first occurence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerdami (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a subject expert so I do not know how to fix the incomplete second sentence in the second paragraph. Any ideas?
The RNA sequence codes for antigens, proteins that are identical or resembling those of the pathogen.
DavidHarkness (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
RNA sequence is the subject, codes is the verb, antigens is the object, the sentence is fine. ~ (Just some rando...)
Yes, this grated with me the first time I read it too. "Codes" is used here as a verb, which can read a little oddly if you are unused to it. Tedmarynicz (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC) (Not a rando...)
Yes but. I didn't pause over the sentence in context, but see it now as problematic. Edit to: The RNA sequences are the molecules that code for antigen proteins that are identical to or resemble those of the pathogen.
The article states: "Currently, there are no RNA vaccines approved for human use.". I think Russia's SARS-CoV2 vaccine is an RNA vaccine ([1]) and they approved it for human use ([2]) 212.51.129.95 (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The lede says this is "a new type", but it alludes to "clinical trials in the late 1990s", and there is no history section. What does "new" mean, what is the timeline here? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The lead currently states: "The fragility of the mRNA molecule requires cold chain distribution and low temperature storage, and may impair long-term efficacy.[1][4][5]" I find this confusing. Is this talking about problems of delivery and distribution? Or are we talking about the persistence of immunity? The vaccine mRNA does not need to persist long term for the development of long-term immunity. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to reference the vaccine page and the results are NO blue highlight. I suspect that the RNA vaccine is interfering with the blue highlight because of the vaccine in the similar headings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgordski (talk • contribs) 08:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
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.
It's bad form to tell any group of people what they are ignoring when they advance an opinion, however silly it might appear to be, even from a relatively objective swoke perspective (swoke = science-woke):
Very bad form.
———
Furthermore, the use of the word "accumulating" makes scientific process should like a rumbling train of inevitability.
Hardly. Because the world is a messy place, and this same scientific tradition has no shortage of historical black marks.
The completed studies were reasonably large, but they tested:
———
This mRNA delivery technology is a radical departure from traditional approaches. On paper, it looks like advantages all the way down, but ordinarily caution would reign in introducing a technology as substantially new and different as this technology.
We do not yet know that scaling up product at the drop of a pin to hundreds of millions of doses won't prove problematic.
We do not yet know whether the various national and regional health authorities can reliably duplicate the mode of distribution and application that the studies seemed to validate as safe.
The fact of the matter is that we've judged the global pandemic as severe enough in human cost to justify learning the rest of these lessons on the fly, using the general population as a massed pool of Guinea pigs.
For various reasons, some inherent in the new technology, odds are exceptionally good that this is a wise trade-off in pursuit of global health outcomes.
Nevertheless, it's rude beyond belief to seemingly accuse hesitant skeptics of simply ignoring what evidence we now have, as if anyone regards the evidence we now have in hand as entirely sufficient or ideal.
———
What we have in hand is a spectacularly good result, both in terms of efficacy and safety, from a rushed development project with few direct parallels in the whole of human history.
Our modern understanding of infectious disease goes back to the invention of the microscope, circa 1674, when we discovered 'animalcules' swimming around in common fluids, shortly after postulating that eggs are fertilized by tiny sperm.
Most of the current human population is on board with sex causing babies.
Not quite as many are on board with the infectious model of disease transmission—at least not enough to participate in a global public health response by covering their cake and snot-holes in public venues with a thin piece of cloth. We've been studying these little booger-buggers for 350 years now. It's hard to fathom how The Bad News Bible could deliver its cognitive payload quite this slowly, but apparently the bleat goes on.
Darwin's smaller claim, that species evolve in physical form through the incremental accumulation of hereditary change is perhaps now the most thoroughly supported major hypothesis in human history.
His larger lemma, that incremental hereditary change explains nearly all of the modern diversity of life has about a billion times less direct evidence (you can't print this kind of evidence out by the terabyte with automated sequencing machines). A five-million-year longitudinal study of genetic change and drift over wide range of plants and animals would be extremely useful—but still incomplete—in placing Darwin's larger lemma onto a secure footing. (We do have plenty of indirect evidence, this largely of the form that biologists have so far always seemed clever enough to concoct a story where evolutionary history such we have managed to observe just might have been entirely self-propelled by the mechanism of random mutation/selection via genetic heredity alone—or mostly alone, depending on your stance toward epigenetics.)
There remains a large segment of the human population who continue to choke on Darwin's smaller claim like a sharp chicken bone. Terabytes of genetic sequence data continues to pile up, and yet it seems to make hardly any dent on this insular subculture.
As for Darwin's larger lemma, it's already compelling in some lights, but actually I think many working biologists ought to temper their faith in this one pending actual direct evidence. It sure is a pity the first solid installment is going to take roughly 5 million years (though we might already have some tantalizing hints after the first 1000-year preamble).
So there it is: for every express train of human comprehension, there's also a milk run that circumnavigates Siberia. Trendy passengers in fancy business suits pull down the shades and believe too easily, while others clad in practical dungarees have yet to notice that the window mechanism contains such an incomprehensible modern accessory, and so they sit there dazed and blinded by the sun.
———
So where are we on modern vaccination technology?
Local responses to IM injections of vaccines aren't readily visible and haven't been systematically studied. Few animal model studies bothered to examine muscle tissue after an IM vaccine jab and the few that did found signs of intense, even long-term inflammation.
However, this issue remained both under-researched and unaddressed for decades, in hindsight seeming to await the revitalization of research into the innate immune system, something that only got galvanized in the late 1990s.
In the meantime, IM injections took firm root in vaccinology while modern medicine also took shape over the same time period and again, from convenience, IM became established as a predominant injection route and thus we reach present-day when most vaccines are IM jabs.
- ...
'Depot' effect: How this immunological dogma got started and brief assessment of its impact
Though practical and cosmetic considerations helped IM injections dominate vaccinology, another element absolutely crucial in doing so was a dogma that also explains why the IV route became a non-starter for vaccines.
Apart from discovering the adjuvant effects of aluminum salts, currently the most widely used adjuvant in human vaccines, Glenny's legacy looms over vaccinology and even immunology itself in the form of the dogma called the 'depot' effect.
No question, immunology was in its infancy in Glenny's time. Key players such as T and B cells were still decades away from being discovered.
The question still had to be answered though.
How to explain why adding aluminum salts to purified toxins such as diphtheria and tetanus vastly increased the immune responses (measured as antisera) they elicited?
Given the limited understanding of the immune system in the early 20th century, consensus soon coalesced around a physical explanation, namely, that the crystalline aluminum salt and its adsorbed antigen(s) remain at the site of injection as a depot, which would allow the antigen(s) to be released slowly over time to serve as continuing stimulus for sustained antibody production.
Clearly, IV injections couldn't sustain a 'depot' effect so they were never seriously considered for vaccines.
A mechanistic link between antigen-adjuvant 'depot' and robust immunity was challenged almost from the very beginning when animal model studies summarized in a 1950 book showed that strength of the immune response remained unaffected even if the injection site nodules containing antigen-adjuvant were surgically excised a mere 14 days after immunization.
However, with no other satisfactory answer forthcoming, the 'depot' effect took root and vaccinology more or less slumbered for decades, at least as far as trying to figure out how aluminum salts and other adjuvants boosted immune responses to the antigens conjugated to them.
The decades-long Rip Van Winkle-like slumber over how adjuvants augment immune responses got jolted in 1989 when Charles Janeway wrote a hugely influential article about, among other things, the immunologist's 'dirty' little secret, a play of words alluding to the fact that immune responses to purified antigens typically tend to be muted or non-existent unless accompanied by 'dirt', by which he meant adjuvants such as CFA (Freund's adjuvant) in animal models or aluminum salts in human vaccines.
Janeway's hypothesis was invigorated and validated by the discovery of the first mammalian Toll-like receptor (TLR) by his lab in 1997 followed in short order by discoveries of CLRs (C-type lectin) and NLRs (NOD-like receptor) and other pattern recognition receptor (PRRs) discoveries that offered a biological explanation for the adjuvant effect and opened the door to a molecular basis for understanding how the innate immune system operates and how it co-ordinates with and/or controls the Adaptive immune system.
Is the 'depot' effect important or even necessary now?
Though considerably weakened by the discovery of PRRs, it still retains some of its hold as an immunological dogma to explain the role of even PRRs since we don't yet fully understand how strong and long-lasting immunological memory forms nor how adjuvants work.
However, regardless of the need for antigen 'depot', today IM vaccine injections remain a mainstay.
So there it is (supplementary lemma): The history of vaccination is not precisely littered with vaccinologists entirely having their shit together on every sharp ramification.
———
Moral of the story: One or two hasty studies of thirty- or forty-thousand people, however brilliant the results, does not suffice to settle all pertinent concerns and worries over a novel vaccination technology. — MaxEnt 17:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
There's a separate article for COVID-19 Vaccine. This article should be about mRNA vaccines, which don't always apply to COVID-19. It's a method that's been around for over 2 years. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuba Penguin (talk • contribs) 04:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
References
I think this page is missing an explanation that mRNA used for such vaccines are usually not self-replicated and became quickly inactivated in the cell, as described in Messenger_RNA#Degradation. Otherwise, they would produce viral protein to infinity. Was anything published about the life time of COVID-19 vaccines in human cells and what types of cells?My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Use of RNA as a tool for vaccination was first published using mouse models by Berglund and Liljeström at Karolinska Institutet back in 1994 and 1998.
None of the references in the history section reference the Karolinska Institutet or Berglund and Liljeström? Even the Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development, just published last year in Nano Today? Perhaps the editor(s) in question could provide independent evidence on this from a non WP:PRIMARY source. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Use of RNA as a vaccination tool for generation of antibody responses in vivo was first published by the Swedish scientists Berglund and Liljeström at Karolinska Institutet in 1994.[1][2][3][4] NIH researchers Nicholas Restifo and Wolfgang Leitner in 1999 wrote about this work that "A single intramuscular injection of a self-replicating RNA elicited antigen-specific antibody and CD8+ T cell responses".[5] This technology resulted in significant investments by pharmaceutical companies including Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, later acquired by GlaxoSmithKline, who under the leadership of Dr. Jeffrey Ulmer, one of the inventors of Plasmid DNA vaccines, spearheaded the industrial development of RNA vaccines based on self-amplifying mRNA.
References
((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
The focus of this article is oddly skewed. The title says it's an article about RNA vaccines, but the actual article jumps directly to analysis of COVID-19 vaccines.
Either the article should be renamed (perhap "RNA Vaccines for COVID-19"), or else the general discussion of RNA vaccines (currently at the very end of the article, in the "history" section) should be at the front, not the end.
I moved one general section up to the beginning, so that there's some discussion of mRNA vaccines before the article jumps directly to COVID-19, but the article really should be refocussed. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm referring to this edit on 11 December 2020 by User:SandyGeorgia.
The previous text was mostly accurate in conveying the key point of the Stat article: that while still at Stanford, Dr. Rossi read Dr. Kariko's paper in 2005, recognized it was groundbreaking work, and looking back fifteen years later with the advantage of hindsight in 2020, said that it was worthy of a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Anyone with basic training in close reading can immediately discern that from the face of the Stat article (specifically, the clause "he now says"). User:SandyGeorgia completely mangled that by implying that Dr. Rossi presciently arrived at that second conclusion in 2005. Any objections before I clean up this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This section had inline text
"References need to be added that discuss the unintended immune reactions and their frequencies. References need to be added that discuss all risks and adverse effects of RNA vaccines and their delivery systems."
(I'm about to replace that with an appropriate template, but the template needs a talk page section to refer to.) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I replaced the phrase "should be avoided" with "needs to be circumvented" wrt the evolved mechanism to prevent incorporation of foreign nucleic acids. Evolution cannot be avoided, but can be circumvented.
Elsewhere, "lipid nanoparticles" are the only mention of a means to get around the extreme lability of naked RNA molecules when introduced at the cellular level. This is the aspect of RNA vaccines that, as a molecular biologist, I have been asked about and can't explain properly. Smcewincarr
Much of this section references outdated secondary sources (i.e. old articles in Science magazine). For example, hepatotoxicity is mentioned, based on an article in Science magazine from 2017, which is itself based on older nanoparticle technology. This whole section is fairly speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmastc1 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm very concerned about the addition of biomedical claims not supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, especially as this article is subject to general sanctions. For avoidance of doubt, I'm prepared to issue sanctions against any editor who is aware of the general sanctions and adds biomedical content that isn't supported by MEDRS sources. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to see that pre-clinical speculation about autoimmunity from a 2018 review article has resurfaced at the top of this section. This whole section is hand-picked speculation. Mcmastc1 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Iztwoz I don't agree with obscuring the INN names here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
If there was ever a time to adhere to MEDRS compliancy this is it! There is so much conspiracy theory circulating seems we should be including only content that adheres in the strictest way possible to our own protections against such stuff. Just sayin'. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to everybody for putting up with my questions and my clarify tags. Couple of follow up questions.
–Novem Linguae (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
See here
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf
Given all the anti-vaxx hysteria at the minute, this article needs to get sorted PDQ.
I came to wiki to find information because a family member has been told mRNA vaccines will lead to huge health problems in 2-3 yrs for those having it for Covid. There are numerous anti-mRNA videos on the web peddling horror stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:2682:3C00:FC6D:518E:D13F:9FF5 (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The last paragraph of introduction is too biasing and tends to be subjective. The arguments are social-media level. It triggers doubts more than it answers. B.yanis (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Quote from article: "The advantages of RNA vaccines over traditional protein vaccines are superior design and production speed, lower cost of production, and the induction of both cellular as well as humoral immunity." Great. Then why wasn't it produced before the Corona-era? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Trials began in April 2020; by November, the vaccine had been tested on more than 40,000 people.[21] An interim analysis of study data showed a potential efficacy of over 90% in preventing infection within seven days of a second dose.[17][18] The most common side effects include mild to moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache.[22][23] As of December 2020, reports of serious side effects, such as allergic reactions, have been very rare,[a] and no long-term complications have been reported.[25]mRNA-1273 does not have a summary of test results, but should have.
RNA vaccine is not the same as mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccine as not all RNA is messenger RNA although the current vaccines use mRNA but its not the same as RNA and there is a difference in effectiveness as mRNA is more effective then RNA and that is why the first vaccines use mRNA not regular RNA and why the regular RNA vaccines failed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.166.208 (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The "Efficacy" section reads as very skeptical and mostly consists of opinions expressing doubts about the COVID vaccines. I would think the section should start with known information about efficacy: successful trials of the COVID vaccines and whatever else is known about the efficacy of other RNA vaccines. Then to balance, add some positive quotes/opinions along with the skepticism that is currently represented. Sgtbilko99 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The efficacy of 90-95% is not backed up. The New Scientist cite note only mentions the 90% figure, and even that is not referenced for a source. What is 90% of what, for example? Did they try to infect vaccinated people with actual COVID-19? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.80.20 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a quote from the article. Can anybody help check that as it is a big reason here in the dutch speaking region why people do not want to get vaccinated. Enfin, here the claim circulates that mRNA vaccines are still experimental and new, whereas "The use of RNA vaccines goes back to the early 1990s." Thy and greetings from Brussels :), SvenAERTS (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subunit_vaccine ? Shouldn't "traditional" be either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inactivated_vaccine as these have been around the longest? I would add a link but not sure which one is being referenced (maybe all of the above?) --Melarish (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to RNA vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
NOT a VACCINE ......Gene Therapy . A vaccine has some of the attenuated live particles within the vaccine to provoke an Immune response . 199.247.74.137 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I remember the media crediting Trump for speeding up the process for this vaccine by eliminating regulatory barriers, etc., but I failed to see any mention of that historic action in the article. History would be more accurate were there a mention of this fact when discussing how the vaccine was ready and available so quickly. Facts are facts and matter! 74.219.95.99 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The article contains the phrase "display spikes on their surfaces". The source only talks about presenting fragments of spikes. Can whole spikes be presented? Wain2 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
To add confusion, there's an explanation by Moderna from 2017 with an image showing antigens exiting a cell or sticking to a cell surface without being broken down and without involving MHC. Are viral antigens in general able to do that, but spikes specifically aren't? Wain2 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
If I'm understanding it correctly, RNA vaccines inject mRNA, which then goes into human cells. The human cells then start producing antigen proteins and put these on their cell membrane. I imagine this causes the human's antibodies to target these vaccinated human cells and kill them. In other words, many human cells will be killed.
This article could use a paragraph specifying how many human cells are killed by a typical RNA vaccine, and whether this presents any danger to the human. Or if I am misunderstanding this completely, a sentence somewhere mentioning that this does not happen and it actually works X way would be helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The presentation of pathogen-derived proteins results in the elimination of the infected cell by the immune system.
The finding that these vaccines cause their target cells to die by apoptosis is an added safety feature that also seems to increase efficacy.–Novem Linguae (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey Iztwoz. Thanks for your edits today and for adding good info to the article that satisfied my clarify tag. You seem pretty knowledgeable about this topic, maybe you know the answer to the question I asked above. The question is, "what happens to human host cells that take up these mRNA molecules"? When the human host cells express these viral proteins, are they in any way attacked by the innate immune system, or later on by the adaptive immune system's antibodies? I feel this is a question that a layman article reader such as myself would have when reading the article, and that it is not really covered in the article yet. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The presentation of pathogen-derived proteins results in the elimination of the infected cell by the immune system.
This is from CDC
"COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle. Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the immune cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them. Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19." (My bolding)
The DC cells eventually die probably by apoptosis, but these cells along with thousands of other cells of the immune system are dying everyday: vaccine or no vaccine. I think the problem we seem to have here is that the article, in an attempt to be layperson friendly, is just saying cells. Now, clearly we don't mean hair cells, skin, or cells that make toe nails, but perhaps we should be more specific. Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Below is a link where Bali Pulendran at Stanford says the vaccine does enter non-immune cells, but less efficiently. I assume it is the same as the DC cells, and not killed. Would be nice if the article could clarify, when the immune system sees spike proteins, how does it distinguish between infected cells it needs to kill versus vaccinated cells that it leaves alone? https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/12/22/how-do-the-new-covid-19-vaccines-work 68.34.140.215 (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The article and probably several like it refer to mRNA as "molecules". Of course they are ions, but maybe there is no better term and efforts to be more precise would just confuse readers and ruin readaibility. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to RNA vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why was the history of the discovery removed? It had sources and now the article is misinformation Fluridil-god (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done sources still used. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The transcripts for protein spike of long non-coding mRNA needs to be added to the page. It’s unable to be edited, but the research is clear that general population using mRNA tech is not as efficacious for transcription as promoted. Chemical modifications when translations are doing the one job of addressing the reason of design, but that same message (transcript) is being sent elsewhere.
More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5713356/
KG90Learns (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to RNA vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The history section needs to be much improved. RNA vaccines date back at least to the 1970s. Venneman, et al. in Immunogenicity of Ribonucleic Acid Preparations Obtained from Salmonella typhimurium. Infect Immun. 1970 Jun; 1(6): 574–582 used whole cell purified RNA from Salmonella typhimurium to immunize mice and showed protection against infection upon challenge with Salmonella. Likewise, ribosomal fraction RNA vaccines date back to at least the 1960s. 134.56.31.244 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to RNA vaccine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No mention of Dr Robert Malone who invented the technology and holds the patents.
Please rectify or clarify the discrepancy. 37.155.61.207 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering- why name Jon Wolff specifically, as opposed to just using 'researchers at the University...' or naming all of the involved scientists? The first citation used for this uses 'Wolff et al.', (which then cites the paper attributed to "J.A. Wolff, R.W. Malone, P. Williams, W. Chong, G. Acsadi, A. Jani") and the second is a citation directly to the paper.
Were there any contributions made uniquely by Jon Wolff to give him higher naming priority? 2601:249:8180:28D0:686E:C59D:A30F:2945 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is an obscene elephant in the living-room. He used to be in this article, but wacko revisionists ghosted him after June 12th, 2021 when he reported the systemic transport problem identified through the Japan FOIPOP and Dr Bridle. Kashmiri simply erased this petition to include Malone as the DOCUMENTED inventor of mRNA as if the world doesn't already know. See the real history at https://www.rwmalonemd.com/mrna-vaccine-inventor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Between 2017 and recently an account has existed purely, it seems, for the purposes of adding Malone's name to multiple articles on Wikipedia.[6] On 8 June this year the account added Malone's name to this article.[7] Such additions were not backed by the sources cited; in fact no reputable source identifies Malone as the "inventor of RNA vaccines", or even as a significant figure. The account was blocked for self-promotion/spam and the article returned to its longstanding form and improved in other ways. Meanwhile, on social media and in the scummier parts of the web, a lie has been spread that "longstanding" information on Wikipedia was scrubbed. Some people have been suckered in by this. Alexbrn (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
this sentence "This fragility of the mRNA molecule is a hurdle to the efficacy of any mRNA vaccine due to bulk disintegration before it enters the cells, which could lead people to believe, and act as if they are immune when they are not" is only supported by a journalistic source from Nov 2020 which is a long time ago and is pure speculation, mashing up the stability of mRNA with efficacy and people's behavior. None of this is supported by any MEDRS and the sentence should be removed. --hroest 15:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)