This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
"One thousand hospitalized"... but over what time period, and how does that compare to normal? PMID 27601519 (from just before the vaccine effort) says that ~842,000 cases of dengue happen each year there, and PMID 28093542 says ~794,000. With those numbers, it seems like only "one thousand hospitalized" could be a significant improvement. Do we have any sources that run proper comparisons? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Total Dengvaxia vaccinated done from March 2016 to November 2017 is 850,000.
Under PNoy –April, May & June 2016, while under President Duterte June 2016 to November 2017.
If this is correct, more children were vaccinated during President Duterte administration.
1. Why was only PNoy charge with criminal case and not President Duterte on this Dengvaxia vaccine case? 2. What countries in the whole world officially accept/allow Dengvaxia by the government? 3. Does Dengvaxia prove to be the cause of death of dengue?
REALME28 ( talk) 05:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Several sections of the article contain dates (e.g. February 5) with no year. This is likely to lead to confusion. Mock wurzel soup ( talk) 23:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
New to wikipedia so not sure how to add to talk pages but:
Spurious interpretation of the text concerning "600 deaths". The statement was that 600 deaths were under investigation, this does not equate to the number of deaths that are caused by DENV. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.83.110 ( talk) 00:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"600 deaths" is not supported by any credible agency or health provider. the DOH has not linked a single death to the vaccine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.230.44 ( talk) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia pages for Dengvaxia controversy and Dengvaxia avoid talking about antibody enhanced disease, which is discussed without talking about vaccines on the Antibody-dependent enhancement page. It would be nice if Wikipedia could approach an expert about adding sections to each of these pages that summarizes how antibody enhanced disease is an important consideration in the safety profile of a vaccine. These pages should link to the Antibody-dependent enhancement page, since it may be important for people to understand when we start discussing the safety of COVID vaccines.
On the Dengue fever page it is discussed how a patient who is exposed to Dengue virus often gets a mild case, and only gets severe disease when they are then exposed to a different serotype of Dengue virus months or years later. But there is a limited understanding about the mechanism by which having immunity to one Dengue serotype enhances the infection from another serotype.
It was known that severe Dengue fever is an antibody enhanced disease when Dengvaxia was developed. The problem with antibody enhanced diseases is that they can be host species specific, so there are not good animal models of these kinds of second infection enhancements. It was thought that Dengvaxia would not cause antibody enhanced disease because 4 different serotypes were included in the vaccine, so the patient would be protected as though they had been exposed to each serotype first.
When the Dengvaxia controversy article discusses how people who were vaccinated died, but not necessarily from the vaccine, that's because these people didn't die when they were vaccinated. Instead, they mostly died from Dengue fever that developed from their first exposure to Dengue virus after they were vaccinated. The vaccine only failed for the people who had never been exposed to Dengue virus before their inoculation. For people who had previously had a mild case of Dengue fever, the vaccine prevented them from developing severe Dengue fever when they were exposed after their vaccination. But the people who died probably would not have died from their first exposure to Dengue virus if they had not been vaccinated.
This episode is an example of how hard it is to properly safety test a vaccine for a disease that can be worse the second time you get it. The standard safety testing focuses directly on whether the vaccine causes immediate harm, and ends before there is enough exposure to tell whether the vaccine can act like a first infection and cause antibody enhanced disease when the patient is exposed to the natural virus the first time, which could be months or years after the vaccination. Since coronaviruses might also be antibody enhanced diseases, and that might affect the safety of vaccines that are under development, it would be nice if these Dengue related Wikipedia pages were updated to include a discussion of how Dengvaxia failed to protect naïve patients from severe disease, when it did not show an issue in the safety testing stage, and did prevent severe disease in experienced patients. PRR-Concord ( talk) 09:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I've again reverted the removal of referenced material from this article. The claim was raised that the referenced article "doesn't explicitly say that the vaccine saving lives is Dengvaxia", but in fact it does. I've moved a quote from the article into the reference given here.
Maybe that source isn't particularly reliable, but removing the reference definition leaves the the reference definition ":1"
undefined, which raises an error in the rendering of the article. If this reference must be removed (can we explain why?) then that usage of the reference must be examined and perhaps replaced, either ... but leaving the article with visible referencing errors is unacceptable. --
Mikeblas (
talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This section says "Most of the concerns about the dangers of the vaccine were imagined rather than based on fact.[2]"--is this claim substantiated by that source? I think the below paragraph is where this comes from, but it seems taken out of context. The point of the source is that prior to this crisis most concerns about vaccines (in general) were based on rumors and not facts. But in the case of this crisis (and this particular vaccine), the concerns were based on results from clinical trials.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214489/
2600:1700:6270:CA0:8050:72F1:42AD:2A93 ( talk) 15:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The Scientif American has a blonger background article on it, which possibly can be used to replace some of the current news media sources:
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
"One thousand hospitalized"... but over what time period, and how does that compare to normal? PMID 27601519 (from just before the vaccine effort) says that ~842,000 cases of dengue happen each year there, and PMID 28093542 says ~794,000. With those numbers, it seems like only "one thousand hospitalized" could be a significant improvement. Do we have any sources that run proper comparisons? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Total Dengvaxia vaccinated done from March 2016 to November 2017 is 850,000.
Under PNoy –April, May & June 2016, while under President Duterte June 2016 to November 2017.
If this is correct, more children were vaccinated during President Duterte administration.
1. Why was only PNoy charge with criminal case and not President Duterte on this Dengvaxia vaccine case? 2. What countries in the whole world officially accept/allow Dengvaxia by the government? 3. Does Dengvaxia prove to be the cause of death of dengue?
REALME28 ( talk) 05:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Several sections of the article contain dates (e.g. February 5) with no year. This is likely to lead to confusion. Mock wurzel soup ( talk) 23:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
New to wikipedia so not sure how to add to talk pages but:
Spurious interpretation of the text concerning "600 deaths". The statement was that 600 deaths were under investigation, this does not equate to the number of deaths that are caused by DENV. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.83.110 ( talk) 00:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"600 deaths" is not supported by any credible agency or health provider. the DOH has not linked a single death to the vaccine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.230.44 ( talk) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia pages for Dengvaxia controversy and Dengvaxia avoid talking about antibody enhanced disease, which is discussed without talking about vaccines on the Antibody-dependent enhancement page. It would be nice if Wikipedia could approach an expert about adding sections to each of these pages that summarizes how antibody enhanced disease is an important consideration in the safety profile of a vaccine. These pages should link to the Antibody-dependent enhancement page, since it may be important for people to understand when we start discussing the safety of COVID vaccines.
On the Dengue fever page it is discussed how a patient who is exposed to Dengue virus often gets a mild case, and only gets severe disease when they are then exposed to a different serotype of Dengue virus months or years later. But there is a limited understanding about the mechanism by which having immunity to one Dengue serotype enhances the infection from another serotype.
It was known that severe Dengue fever is an antibody enhanced disease when Dengvaxia was developed. The problem with antibody enhanced diseases is that they can be host species specific, so there are not good animal models of these kinds of second infection enhancements. It was thought that Dengvaxia would not cause antibody enhanced disease because 4 different serotypes were included in the vaccine, so the patient would be protected as though they had been exposed to each serotype first.
When the Dengvaxia controversy article discusses how people who were vaccinated died, but not necessarily from the vaccine, that's because these people didn't die when they were vaccinated. Instead, they mostly died from Dengue fever that developed from their first exposure to Dengue virus after they were vaccinated. The vaccine only failed for the people who had never been exposed to Dengue virus before their inoculation. For people who had previously had a mild case of Dengue fever, the vaccine prevented them from developing severe Dengue fever when they were exposed after their vaccination. But the people who died probably would not have died from their first exposure to Dengue virus if they had not been vaccinated.
This episode is an example of how hard it is to properly safety test a vaccine for a disease that can be worse the second time you get it. The standard safety testing focuses directly on whether the vaccine causes immediate harm, and ends before there is enough exposure to tell whether the vaccine can act like a first infection and cause antibody enhanced disease when the patient is exposed to the natural virus the first time, which could be months or years after the vaccination. Since coronaviruses might also be antibody enhanced diseases, and that might affect the safety of vaccines that are under development, it would be nice if these Dengue related Wikipedia pages were updated to include a discussion of how Dengvaxia failed to protect naïve patients from severe disease, when it did not show an issue in the safety testing stage, and did prevent severe disease in experienced patients. PRR-Concord ( talk) 09:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I've again reverted the removal of referenced material from this article. The claim was raised that the referenced article "doesn't explicitly say that the vaccine saving lives is Dengvaxia", but in fact it does. I've moved a quote from the article into the reference given here.
Maybe that source isn't particularly reliable, but removing the reference definition leaves the the reference definition ":1"
undefined, which raises an error in the rendering of the article. If this reference must be removed (can we explain why?) then that usage of the reference must be examined and perhaps replaced, either ... but leaving the article with visible referencing errors is unacceptable. --
Mikeblas (
talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This section says "Most of the concerns about the dangers of the vaccine were imagined rather than based on fact.[2]"--is this claim substantiated by that source? I think the below paragraph is where this comes from, but it seems taken out of context. The point of the source is that prior to this crisis most concerns about vaccines (in general) were based on rumors and not facts. But in the case of this crisis (and this particular vaccine), the concerns were based on results from clinical trials.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6214489/
2600:1700:6270:CA0:8050:72F1:42AD:2A93 ( talk) 15:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The Scientif American has a blonger background article on it, which possibly can be used to replace some of the current news media sources: