Talk:Vaccine

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023 (2)

Add the following citation after the first sentence. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm Bondsubb (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

History section

Can the following (naturally without the nowiki formatting) be added to the top of the History section on this article?

{{Further|Vaccination#History|Inoculation#Origins}}

It would look like this:

Further information: Vaccination § History, and Inoculation § Origins

I think this would be useful to tie-in the Vaccine#History section into these related section in other pertinent articles, especially since we don't have a standalone article about the "History of Vaccines" nor "History of Vaccination". -- 97.124.47.226 (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Add the citation below to this section: Interactions When two or more vaccines are mixed in the same formulation, the two vaccines can interfere. This most frequently occurs with live attenuated vaccines, where one of the vaccine components is more robust than the others and suppresses the growth and immune response to the other components. Gizurarson S. Clinically relevant vaccine-vaccine interactions: a guide for practitioners. BioDrugs. 1998 Jun;9(6):443-53. doi: 10.2165/00063030-199809060-00002. PMID: 18020577. Karenjuliechristine (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

In the "History" section there's mention of waiting for a malaria vaccine, however, 2 have been authorized by the WHO:

https://ir.novavax.com/press-releases/R21-Matrix-M-TM-Malaria-Vaccine-with-Novavaxs-Adjuvant-Technology-Receives-WHO-Recommendation

https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/who-grants-prequalification-to-gsk-s-mosquirix-the-first-and-only-approved-malaria-vaccine/ Roybucks (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2024 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove or edit misleading/potentially confusing statement on inactivated and ghost vaccines?

The section on inactivated vaccines contains a statement that at best may be confusing and is otherwise misleading or erroneous. Below is the current text of this section with emphasis added by me to highlight the statement in question:

Some vaccines contain inactivated, but previously virulent, micro-organisms that have been destroyed with chemicals, heat, or radiation – "ghosts", with intact but empty bacterial cell envelopes. They are considered an intermediate phase between the inactivated and attenuated vaccines. Examples include IPV (polio vaccine), hepatitis A vaccine, rabies vaccine and most influenza vaccines.

There are a few major issues that stem from the last part of the first sentence, which essentially defines inactivated vaccine, ghost, and empty bacterial cell envelopes as being synonymous. The next sentence then goes on to say "they" ("ghosts") are actually distinct from inactivated (and attenuated) vaccines. The final sentence then lists only vaccines against viruses as examples of inactivated vaccines. While these examples are accurate, this is potentially confusing as the examples conflict with the preceding description.

The portion I bolded and italicized should be removed or clarified. If ghost vaccines warrant inclusion, they should either be more clearly defined as just one type of inactivated vaccine or listed as a separate type. I had never heard of ghost vaccines but a quick Google search does turn up other references. Some of these refer to ghost vaccines/bacterial ghosts as a type of inactivated vaccine. I haven't done a deep dive to locate appropriate references or consistent usage. MYCETEAE - talk 20:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)