Talk:mRNA vaccine

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Microbiology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Malaria vaccine#saRNA vaccine against PMIF|malaria vaccine]] The anchor (#saRNA vaccine against PMIF) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Hesitancy section needs more information

The hesitancy section seems to lack a lot of body, and needs expanding.

I have found this scientific article with a survey, about vaccine hesitancy to the COVID vaccines to add, but the protection seems to limit my abilities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8219067/

If anyone could help include the information, that would help expand this article.

The current paragraph does a bad job giving a general view, and focuses on one hesitancy problem that mostly occurs in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.231.178.5 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, but that's a dental hygienist's take. I don't find that article thorough, and its theses, convincing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hesitancy section is an argument against one reason for heaitancy (and new research proves it partially false as well but that shouldnt be the focus here at all) w. taylor (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mRNA vs RNA in body

mRNA and RNA are used inconsistently throughout the article; as far as I can tell, there is no reason for the inconsistent use, as they both refer to the same thing. As such, I would like to change all the RNA's (apart from the one in the first sentence) to mRNA in order to match the title (should the title be changed to RNA, then I would support the opposite change happening)

However, I wanted to run this by here first to ensure there wasn't a valid reason for the apparent inconsistency. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that sounds fine. That'll avoid any confusion that the terms "RNA vaccine" or "mRNA vaccine" mean something different. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for doing that; by some strange coincidence, I was actually doing the exact same thing, only to find an edit conflict with your own implementation! I have to wonder what the odds of that are. BilledMammal (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The current article does not describe the history of saRNA vaccines. Especially important for the readers is that these were discovered and demonstrated to elicit both humoral and cellular immune responses already back in 1994 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7879415/), which was in fact before the same had been shown for named mRNA.

I therefore propose to: Insert before "saRNA vaccines are being researched" : "saRNA vaccines were discovered and demonstrated to elicit both humoral and cellular immune responses already back in 1994 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7879415/)" Pberglundvax (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That is a primary source, a research paper. It is not sufficient to make the claim that saRNA vaccines were discovered back then, because that is intepretation of a primary source, which is WP:OR. If this is truly significant, then you should be able to find secondary sources which describe this (I found some which say that "The notion of using synthetic saRNAs as a vaccine was first described [in Zhoue et al. 1994]" - but "described" is not "discovered and demonstrated") RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not that difficult – this review reads: The notion of using synthetic saRNAs as a vaccine was first described by Zhou et al. when they modified an SFV replicon to express the influenza nucleoprotein (NP). — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also for saRNA, the open-reading frames is not clearly written: most saRNAs are based on the alphavirus with the first open reading frame being the non-structural proteins and the second to be the gene of interest. This section should also mention the amplification aspect of the sub-genomic / gene of interest. Finally, the figure doesn't use the same terminology as the text: For example SAM, for self-amplifying RNA which is used by some researchers but is less common than the saRNA term. Innatestability (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:MRNA vaccines against the coronavirus.webm, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 21, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-10-21. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Nosferattus (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An mRNA vaccine is a type of vaccine that uses a copy of a molecule known as messenger RNA (mRNA) to produce an immune response. The vaccine transfects molecules of synthetic RNA into dendritic cells, where the vaccine functions as mRNA, causing the cells to build foreign protein that would normally be produced by a pathogen (such as a virus) or by a cancer cell. These protein molecules stimulate an adaptive immune response that teaches the body to identify and destroy the corresponding pathogen or cancer cell. This animated video illustrates how immunization with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine stimulates an immune response against COVID-19 infection.

Video credit: Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences

Recently featured:

Great video, but I made a couple of suggestions there - I hope that's the right place to discuss. — soupvector (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big mistake in the page!

Hello, I've received the following request from an internationally renowned scholar on the subject of this page:

"If you have time, please correct the below page

RNA vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

under 'History':

"Early research" Timeline of some key discoveries and advances in the development of mRNA-based drug technology. The first successful transfection of mRNA packaged within a liposomal nanoparticle into a cell was published in 1989."

This is a big mistake because it happened in 1978.

"Translation of rabbit globin mRNA introduced by liposomes into mouse lymphocyte"liposome-formulated mRNA encoding mammalian protein (globin) had been delivered into mammalian cells and it was shown in two papers that the encoded protein was translated in the cells. These papers were published in Nature in 1978.

Ostro, M. J., Giacomoni, D., Lavelle, D., Paxton, W. and Dray, S. (1978). "Evidence for translation of rabbit globin mRNA after liposome-mediated insertion into a human cell line." Nature 274(5674): 921-923. https://www.nature.com/articles/274921a0

Dimitriadis, G. J. (1978). "Translation of rabbit globin mRNA introduced by liposomes into mouse lymphocytes." Nature 274(5674): 923-924. https://www.nature.com/articles/274923a0

Thank you very much. I have nothing to do with these pages, but someone needs to correct the mistake. KK"

As I am not authorized to edit the page, please do so if you are.

Szefato (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Interesting, certainly worth looking into. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit request MRNA_vaccine#Early_research has NOT been answered for 10 months. |ans= NO Szefato (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The correction has not been made. Have you succeeded in checking the big mistake, as you promised, Kashmiri? --Szefato (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kashmīrī ^TALK, I wonder if in the exactly 1 year that has passed, you have had the opportunity to verify that this mRNA vaccine page contains a significant scientific error at the point I have given it, which is clearly unworthy of the standard expected of Wikipedia? Szefato (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad article

It is - or should be - clear that this article is at best misleading and contains all sorts of factual errors and omissions. First of all, this article seems to ONLY describe HUMAN medical use. Given that well before 2019 mRNA vaccines were being used in veterinary medicine this gross blunder is incomprehensible. My only guess is that the editor(s) are so narrowly focused on the use of mRNA for covid that they ignore or are ignorant of the large history BEFORE 2020. For instance, the lead claims that the first (regulatory) approval occurred in 2020. It did not. I can assure the editors that vets actually have standards, too! I could go on about the distorted (but topical) focus this article has, but why bother?40.142.191.79 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@40.142.191.79: Why don't you propose changes to the article, if you have relevant knowledge, so as to improve it? Passive aggression towards other editors doesn't improve Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

This edit request to MRNA_vaccine#Early_research has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I propose to change Early research:

In 1978, Giorgos Dimitriadis used liposomes to transport mRNA into mouse cells to induce protein expression.^[1] In the same year, Marc Ostro, Dario Giacomoni et. al. did likewise to transport mRNA into human cells.^[2] The first successful transfection of mRNA packaged within a liposomal nanoparticle into a cell was performed in 1989 at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies by Robert Malone, Philip Felgner and Inder Verma.

Use same source for study in 1989, rest of Early research can stay in place. Sigmund von goethe (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sigmund von goethe Are you proposing this as a change or an addition? Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dswitz10734 Sorry for the confusion, I propose the addition of the two studies in 1978 and change the sentence concerning the study of 1989, the rest can stay in place. So that the chapter "Early research" looks like this:

In 1978, Giorgos Dimitriadis used liposomes to transport mRNA into mouse cells to induce protein expression. In the same year, Marc Ostro, Dario Giacomoni et. al. did likewise to transport mRNA into human cells. The first successful transfection of mRNA packaged within a liposomal nanoparticle into a cell was performed in 1989 at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies by Robert Malone, Philip Felgner and Inder Verma. "Naked" (or unprotected) lab-made mRNA was injected a year later into the muscle of mice. These studies were the first evidence that in vitro transcribed mRNA with a chosen gene was able to deliver the genetic information to produce a desired protein within living cell tissue and led to the concept proposal of messenger RNA vaccines.

Liposome-encapsulated mRNA was shown in 1993 to stimulate T cells in mice. The following year self-amplifying mRNA was developed by including both a viral antigen and replicase encoding gene. The method was used in mice to elicit both a humoral and cellular immune response against a viral pathogen. The next year mRNA encoding a tumor antigen was shown to elicit a similar immune response against cancer cells in mice. Sigmund von goethe (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sigmund von goethe Thank you for your proposed edit; the link to the revision itself is here. Please contact me if you want any other changes made, or if I did this one wrong. Happy holidays! Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, unfortunately some sources got lost. The changes have been reverted anyway, not sure it was because of the sources that got lost. The comment says that it is because of secondary literature, however the sources https://doi.org/10.1038%2F274923a0 and https://doi.org/10.1038%2F274921a0 are obviously primary literature. Also, apparantly there was even someone before 1978. Lane et al. injected mRNA into frog oocytes in 1971.[1] Wish you happy holidays too. Sigmund von goethe (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dimitriadis, Giorgos J. (August 1978). "Translation of rabbit globin mRNA introduced by liposomes into mouse lymphocytes". Nature. 274 (5674): 923–924. doi:10.1038/274923a0. ISSN 1476-4687.
^ Ostro, Marc J.; Giacomoni, Dario; Lavelle, Don; Paxton, William; Dray, Sheldon (August 1978). "Evidence for translation of rabbit globin mRNA after liposomemediated insertion into a human cell line". Nature. 274 (5674): 921–923. doi:10.1038/274921a0. ISSN 1476-4687.

Johnson and Johnson

What about Johnson and Johnson and Janssen? Vector vaccines? 2600:1003:B465:6F46:6945:AB1F:4CC1:43A2 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not mRNA vaccines, so don't go on this page??? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute efficacy vs relative efficacy

Hello

It seems this article is bias, being the covid injection is still under experimental trial use it should be clear what the absolute efficacy is and what the relative efficacy is. Please provide full details as it appears you have only supplied the relative efficacy. Why so?

Thank you 1.146.49.168 (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of commonly used COVID-19 vaccines are fully approved and not under any "experimental trial use", so it's not clear what you want. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to when any of them finished stage 3 trials?

And why there is still legal immunity for the manufacturers? I understand that legal immunity is only because they are in emergency use authorization. 79.155.74.182 (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it removed that Robert Malone was one of the creators of the mRNA vaccine?

Robert Malone was one of the creators of the mRNA vaccine yet this fact was removed from the article. Why? Archived Wikipedia article showing that is here (just search for "malone"): https://web.archive.org/web/20210614140319/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

Please re-apply this change, it was vandalized months ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MRNA_vaccine&diff=prev&oldid=1032676696 I don't see any reason why someone would like to hide the inventors of mRNA vaccine. This is not just about Dr. Malone, but also Dr. Felgner and Dr. Verma. Their original paper is already at the sources, so no need to intentionally hide it. Just in case someone vandalize it again, will keep the paper link here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC297778 Waltercool (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes to the bottom. I moved this section.

Do any of you have reliable secondary sources saying that? The source is WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were secondary sources, they are somewhere in edit history, although IIRC they just mentioned Malone's publication as being among the first ones but otherwise did not give extra credit to the guy. I am aware that there is currently a battle going on somewhere for the recognition as the inventor of the mRNA vaccine. We at WP should not be dragged into it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is claiming to be "the" creator, yes. Actually, he is one of many who contributed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need more sources than currently quoted at 17 and 18. Specially 17 (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989PNAS...86.6077M) which claims "they" (Dr. Malone, Dr. Felgner and Dr. Verma) were able to develop a vaccine with mRNA transfection. They are the oldest publications talking about mRNA uses to generate proteins (1989, source 17 at article) and early usages (1990, source 18 at article). If someone else wants to claim other authors with earliest publications, please be welcome to share that here, but expecting some "reliable source" to claim something we already have a reliable publication is not a good idea. Waltercool (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source does not mention a vaccine, which is an application of this technology, and "They are the oldest publications talking about mRNA uses to generate proteins" isWP:OR, especially when you use the result to say "one of the creators of the mRNA vaccine". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very one-sided article with little information of adverse reactions

Absolutely no mention of adverse reactions such as myocarditis, menstrual changes or Guillain-Barré syndrome. 2001:14BA:1F0:300:854A:D2F9:5B9D:DE32 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse reactions are with regard to a specific medication. This article is about a large CLASS of medicinal products. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is MRNA vaccine. For balance there needs to be a section regarding adverse reactions from the MRNA vaccine.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources regarding adverse reactions to begin with. Children Health Defense has written articles with links to gov agencies regarding adverse reactions.
(1) links to sources within this article[2]
(2) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,033,994 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 1, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.[3]
(3) https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=ONS&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes&STATE=NOTFR
(4) Exclusive: Autopsy Confirms 26-Year-Old’s Death From Myocarditis Directly Caused by Pfizer COVID Vaccine [4]
(5)VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,033,994 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 21,745 deaths and 170,446 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 7, 2022.[ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-cdc-myocarditis-tops-list-covid-vaccine-injuries-teens/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=f17a58ab-9b35-48ff-92da-62e6a35e6875]
Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these "sources" comply with WP:MEDRS. We don't use self-reports (VAERS), case studies, press releases or other primary sources for reliable medical information. "Children's Health Defense" is a fringe website. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is one in a quick research [5] March 2021- this quote is under the title Vaccine from a study on Moderna "Vaccination reactions, which were, reportedly, limited to fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site, were reported by over half of recipients when prompted." and "Clinical trials evaluating the vaccine safety and efficacy in specific populations, including pregnant and youth populations, are now underway." Pfizer "a significant number of participants reported side effects, the majority of which were also limited to mild-to-moderate flu-like symptoms and pain at the injection site." Obviously, this was done close to a year ago and I am sure there are more recent studies.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side effects of each vaccine are listed its respective article. Here, we add stuff common to the entire class of mRNA vaccines. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other vaccines of this type approved before Covid.

the half dozen companies were working on had too many issues 2600:8805:3D12:AE00:C5E9:CD5F:C368:168 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article from John Hopkins Medicine to me is a secondary source. And explains the reactions COVID Vaccine Side Effects [6]

Article from Harvard Health Publishing: COVID-19 vaccines [7]- Why is the CDC recommending one of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines over Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine? Information of J&J side affects.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And finally I challenge you who seem to control this page, to find the exact source you need because vaccines have adverse side effects which is a known fact.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked quickly through the sources on this page in the first 2 paragraphs I found studies and reuters a news agency article. Please explain?Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline trolling what you are doing. I'm not interested in accepting any challenges from you. To put it simply, if you keep pushing stuff against editorial policies and keep challenging experienced editors, you may find your account sanctioned. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing on Wikipedia for about 10 years now and know the ropes pretty well as you can imagine. I have been watchlisting this page for a few months now. And I agree with the question - why aren't the adverse reactions to this vaccine listed on this page? It is pretty basic that everything about this subject should be covered here for a balanced and unbiased view as you well know. I just saw a small section called Effects under Disadvantages. I assume as I find sources, I am able to bring that information here correct? I am however new to the medical pages and have a lot to learn. If I understand it correctly, medical or academic papers that analyze a study is what is ok is that right? For now I am ok with bringing what I find to this page for your approval first as I learn the ropes. It is not necessary to threaten me. I am a reasonable person here to help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...adverse reaction to this vaccine. WHICH vaccine? Can't you really get it that this article is about a CLASS OF DRUGS, each of whom has its own, unique safety profile? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that is helpful. I found the correct page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That the point / This entire CLASS of vaccine is very dangerously flawed - so I guess that mean ANY mrna vaccine. Data is there if you look. 2A00:23C7:2993:4401:B1F1:FE84:57B3:FC17 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not even specifically about mRNA COVID vaccines. What data is there on flaws in the mRNA skin cancer and pancreatic cancer vaccines, for example? BD2412 T 21:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times article

"Halting Progress and Happy Accidents: How The mRNA Vaccines Were Made" Mapsax (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Department of Health updated guidance

Possibly at the end of the "Disadvantages" section, could an authorized editor please consider adding the new Florida Dep't of Health guidance dated October 7, 2022? It covers mRNA vaccines in general in the opening statement: "Today, State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo has announced new guidance regarding mRNA vaccines." Then it focuses upon COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. https://www.floridahealth.gov/newsroom/2022/10/20220512-guidance-mrna-covid19-vaccine.pr.html

Also, if this is for some reason rejected from this page, could you please recommend an appropriate page?

Thank you very kindly, 2600:4040:780C:6F00:F5A3:AA5D:87D7:8A25 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has sourcing requirements for medical information, which you can find at WP:MEDRS. This statement doesn't meet those requirements, so it shouldn't be used on this article, or indeed any other article on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: I could see a case for including Dr. Lapado's misinformation in the COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy article, as an illustration of misinformation leaking upwards into political discourse. BD2412 T 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in the Hesitancy section

Retrovirus can be single-stranded RNA (just as SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is single-stranded RNA)

The part of the sentence doesn't make much sense. I think the author meant to write "Retroviruses are single-stranded RNA viruses (resembling vaccine mRNA)"

which enters the cell nucleus and uses reverse transcriptase to make DNA from the RNA in the cell nucleus. A retrovirus has mechanisms to be imported into the nucleus, but other mRNA lack these mechanisms. Once inside the nucleus, creation of DNA from RNA cannot occur without a primer, which accompanies a retrovirus, but which would not exist for other mRNA if placed in the nucleus.

This part is false. Retroviruses rely on host tRNA primers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167244/#:~:text=All%20retroviruses%20use%20a%20host,)%20(6%2C%2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7541250/

Furthermore, there are also human endogenous endonucleases. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105968118

I am certainly not arguing that mRNA vaccines can modify the human genome; there is no evidence for that claim and there is no indication that, even though some researchers observed this in certain cell lines in vitro, it actually can take place in normal human cells in the human body. I would merely like to see the errors of this section corrected. AufbauPrinciple (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retroviruses are not always single stranded [8] vs [9]. That is why the sentence is written this way. I agree that what it should say is "cannot occur without a reverse transcriptase protein" and have corrected the sentence to reflect the source. Endogenous endonucleases have no bearing here as they would equally affect both these ssRNA retroviruses and mRNA when in naked single stranded form. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there was a typo on the above. It was referencing human LINE-1 retrotransposons, which have reverse transcriptase and endonuclease capability. Should be clear when discussing endonucleases as there are DNA and RNA endonucleases and the relative relevance of each to mRNA stability and genomic integration are crucially different.

I concur that this section should be corrected. It should indicate that this was only shown in cell lines (for SARS-CoV-2 RNA itself, or with LINE1 overxpression) and that there is no evidence of genomic integration of mRNA vaccines in patients despite multiple studies examining this. Studies have also called into question the results of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA integration in the genome. Innatestability (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence in vitro that the mRNA is reverse transcribed in liver cells. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35723296/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.74.182 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous failed attempts

It’s a bit interesting that the fact that NO previous mRNA vaccines ever made it out of trials (Covid aside). Lots of glossing over the fact that there potential off target issues. Seems like this has been edited with its own narrative. 2600:8805:3D12:AE00:C5E9:CD5F:C368:168 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is what you trying to say connected to improving the article? If yes, please be clearer. If no, do it somewhere else. See WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find any support for your attempt to improve the article. The article is manipulated to suppress any negative views on mRNA vaccines. 2A00:23C8:9F93:FB01:48AF:23EC:961B:F690 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an attempt to improve the article, it was a fringe propaganda forum post. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error in article title

This is legally no longer a vaccine in my location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.30.201 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It never was: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000355_EN.html#ref2 2A02:2F00:C100:7C00:9882:1262:53F7:53C (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A vaccine is a scientific concept, not a legal one. Lawmakers can pass a law requiring gravity to pull things up rather than pulling them down in their country; that doesn't change the scientific nature of things. BD2412 T 01:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why in their reply the EPA changed the definition stating the following https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000355-ASW_EN.html

This was never a vaccine, it was not when it was being distributed, something which was never disclosed. Nor was the fact that they changed the legal status disclosed to the public. The status of the MRNA gene therapy should not have been changed to facilitate the marketing efforts of the drug companies, nor does a crisis or any moral justification in expediting the distribution excuse the lack of transparency 2A02:2F00:C100:7C00:9882:1262:53F7:53C (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to your link, the EPA affirmed that it is a vaccine (they say "MRNA vaccine" several times), not gene therapy. Please read that link again,and please stop mixing legal, political, and medical concepts. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"designed mRNA"

The phrase "designed mRNA" is being used without a definition of what "designed" means in this context. Should be mentioned in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.103.21 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mRNA into cells after injection

The second phrase of the article states: The vaccine delivers molecules of antigen-encoding mRNA into immune cells. This is not true. The antigen encoding mRNA enters any cell it encounters in the tissue in which it is injected. Each cell that receives mRNA produces the spike-protein that is exposed on the surface where it can stimulate the immune response. I can't make the changes myself since the article is protected. Check out the following articles: A review, an article from the University of Auckland and an article in the New York Times. Phacelias (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]