Talk:Vaccine

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^[1] – "ghosts", with intact but empty bacterial cell envelopes. They are considered an intermediate phase between the inactivated and attenuated vaccines.^[2] Examples include IPV (polio vaccine), hepatitis A vaccine, rabies vaccine and most influenza vaccines.^[3]

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)

I removed the bit about ghost vaccines. MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 21:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Diligent researcher, The paper you are using is a case study, thus n=1. The paper is also quite hesitant and wishy washy at times, with a lot of use of "seems". Perhaps it could be included in a relevant sub-article with proper explanation and other papers, but in the main article on vaccines it fails WP:DUE coverage and presents Wikipedia:MEDRS problems. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

1) CASE STUDY OR REVIEW?

I'm inclined to believe it's a review paper rather than a case study, as the words: "case-based review" appear above the paper. It is a bit misleading as the authors also examine a single case.

As is common procedure in a review, the authors conducted a literature search, and they discussed their findings.

2) "HESITANT AND WISHY WASHY"

Being hesitant and wishy washy is known as hedging in scientific writing, and is common practice.

3) FURTHER EVIDENCE

A 2014 review said this:

"Aluminum Hydroxide is the Causal Factor of MMF Lesions

Works conducted between 1998 and 2001 in Créteil and Bordeaux identified aluminum hydroxide-adsorbed vaccines as the causal factor lesions MMF. "

A 2015 review said this: "aluminium adjuvants in humans have been reported to cause MMF"

A 2019 review said this: "The U.S. licensed anthrax vaccine (AVA; Biothrax®) is adsorbed on aluminum hydroxide and can induce MMF"

A 2020 review acknowledges MMF as a serious side effect:

"However, in a fraction of genetically susceptible and predisposed subjects, the administration of adjuvants may lead to the insurgence of serious side-effects... ...ranging from postvaccination side-effects, and macrophagic myofasciitis syndrome (MMF)"

...

I haven't been able to find any papers citing the opposite (that aluminium adjuvants do not cause MMF), so I'm not sure how WP:DUE applies here.

4) "TENUOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE"

It is mentioned on the MMF Wikipedia page that the link is "tenuous and unsustainable" however the sources are two WHO website links (that don't seem to work) rather than peer-reviewed studies.

5) FURTHER STEPS

What do you think we should do?

a) I want to edit the MMF Wikipedia page to accurately reflect the research.

b) I want to add MMF as a possible side effect of vaccines on the vaccine page. Diligent researcher (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a Primary single case study. So obviously not a meta analysis. And also obviously not meeting WP:MEDRS criteria. I removed the text from the article. --McSly (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The paper in question is Dias et al. 2020/ PMID: 32684650

It's a case-based review. This means that in addition to discussing the primary case study, it conducts a literature review and discusses the results. It is therefore a secondary source and meets WP:MEDRS criteria.

We can use the Gherardi et al. (2019)/ PMID: 31059838paper instead, it still supports the original statement: "Aluminium in vaccines may rarely be associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (a muscle disease)". Diligent researcher (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It is very clearly a primary source. We can't use a case study (or a 'case-based review') to make a general statement about vaccines like that. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that the article currently emphasizes common mild side effects (soreness, fever) but doesn’t cite large-scale meta-analyses on serious but rare adverse events. To keep the section balanced per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, would it make sense to add a reference to the 2021 WHO Global Vaccine Safety Report? This could provide readers with proportional, reliable context without giving undue weight to rare risks. JULIANYTING (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The goal of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is to bring all 101 top-importance articles—including this one—up to at least B-class quality. Many of these articles are widely read but overdue for review, so even small improvements can have a big impact.

If you watch or edit this article, your help would be very welcome. You can:

1. Add yourself as a participant
2. Note the state of the article in the Progress table (is the current class still correct?)
3. Update the article based on recent clinical guidelines and review papers
4. Help address gaps, improve clarity for a broad audience, or improve image selection

To reach B class, articles should have: suitable referencing, reasonable coverage, a clear structure, good prose, helpful illustrations, and be understandable to a broad audience. Contributions of any size are appreciated. Femke (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)