The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I've reverted good faith edits by @Myosci that mention lack of peer-reviewed scientific publications because I don't think they're necessary in the article. The data about the bivalent vaccines was reviewed by regulatory bodies, the ACIP, and CDC. See slides. While the data isn't in a journal yet, it was made public and reviewed by experts. I'm reverting similar edits on the Pfizer article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScienceFlyer I may be mistaken but I was unaware that the raw data is public, only a truncated report of the trial along with its purported results. As we've seen from the Pfizer trial scandal covered by the British Medical Journal, IMO it's far to say that without full, unedited, (anonymised) participant-level data, these reports can only be trusted as far as the company itself can be trusted. A global encyclopedia should reflect global scientific consensus, not simply that of US regulatory bodies. Furthermore, regulatory bodies worldwide, including those of the USA, have a long history of bad decisions regarding treatment approval and, unfortunately, corruption. Oxycodone was and is quite a famous fiasco in the USA, I believe, which incidentally may also have been avoided if the trial data had been more transparent. Point being, a lack of peer-reviewed raw data is absolutely relevant and should be given its due weight. Not only from an encyclopedic point of view, but an ethical one. For better or for worse, people make medical decisions on the basis of the information contained within pages such as this, and thus should be informed if the safety is If I am mistaken and the full raw data has been released, I would greatly appreciate if you could provide a source. Many thanks. 31.4.149.90 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that "corruption" is something that should be backed with a respected medical source to avoid sounding too quacky, so here is a link - https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538 - I would also like to add that I understand that this space is more to discuss the article and improvements to it, rather than the subject matter itself. However I feel that the approval of a regulatory agency does not warrant the removal of pertinent information about the lack of peer-reviewed raw data, unless I am, of course, mistaken and it has been released in full and peer-reviewed. 31.4.149.90 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
