Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates toCOVID-19, broadly construed, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve allCOVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited tojoin and to participate inproject discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
"The vaccine is administered Intradermally using a spring-powered device that delivers the shot as a narrow, precise stream of fluid penetrating the skin."
Mention the device by name and refer to its Wikipedia pageJet injector.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) says: "Ideal sources forbiomedical material includeliterature reviews orsystematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputablemedical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, ormedical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies." The two newspapers are reliable, third-party, published secondary sources for news. But they are not expert in the medical field. So an unreliable medical source tag is warranted. In addition the citation details could be improved to show the authors and in the case of the second source, the correct newspaper:
Multiple RS reported ZyCoV-D to be the first ever DNA based vaccine against Covid in the world but none of the RS says otherwise. There have been so many Covid vaccines developed in the world and technologies involved in all the vaccines are in public domain. No other vaccine manufacturer has claimed that theirs is a DNA based vaccine. So, we have no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of this statement that ZyCoV-D is the first ever developed DNA vaccine against the Covid. Stating an undisputed fact can't be consideredWP: PROMOTIONAL.Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine's lead reads:The vaccine is the first COVID‑19 vaccine to be authorized by a stringent regulatory authority for emergency use[44][45] and the first cleared for regular use. It is not considered promotional because its factual. Same way, ZyCoV-D being first ever DNA vaccine is a fact. I am removing the term "world" though.Shinjoya (talk)
The sources used to support the statement in the ZyCoV-D article are not specialist medical sources as required byWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). In the case of thePfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine article, in the statement you quoted, source [44] was the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and [45] was a non-specialist source (The Guardian, a newspaper). There was another citation [46] at the end of the sentence, which was to the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (another specialist source).-- Toddy1(talk)09:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat thatWP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) doesn't apply to this. The project page reads "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice." The statement that "ZyCoV-D is the first DNA vaccine" isn't likely to be taken as a medical advice. If we start demanding specialist medical sources to cite each and every sentence in vaccine pages, then all these articles will be filled with[unreliable medical source?] tags. I am now adding some more sources. Let this matter be closed now.Shinjoya (talk)11:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Run n Fly, I have already explained that the statement is relevant for the section as vaccine is based on DNA technology. By the way, I think we should wait for the vaccine to get the approval first and then only add this statement.Shinjoya (talk)12:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removal of unreliable medical source tag and misrepresentation of what a press release said
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On 1 July 2021, Cadila Healthcare reported the efficacy to be 66.6%, in its interim analysis of its phase 3 trial data.[1][unreliable medical source?]
to this:
On 1 July 2021, Cadila Healthcare reported the efficacy to be 66.6% against symptomatic Covid and 100% against moderate or severe disease in its interim analysis of its phase 3 trial data.[1]
Regarding the change to the text, a Wikipedia says: "Cadila Healthcare reported the efficacy to be... 100% against moderate or severe disease", but the press release was far more guarded and said that: "no moderate case of COVID-19 disease was observed in the vaccine arm post administration of the third dose suggesting 100% efficacy for moderate disease. No severe cases or deaths due to COVID-19 occurred in the vaccine arm after administration of the second dose of the vaccine." So the change misrepresents what the press release said in a way that could be damaging to the company.-- Toddy1(talk)06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what your concern is. The company's report says that "no moderate case of disease has been found in the interim data and it suggests 100% efficacy against moderate or severe disease". This means nothing but 100% efficacy against moderate disease as per company's report. I just elaborated the company's report. Objection to my addtition is simply undue.
As far as my removal of[unreliable medical source?] tag is concerned, the tag isn't valid here. It could have been valid had Wikipidea read: "The vaccine has a 66% efficacy against covid". But thats not the case here. Our version clearly mentions in the beginning of the sentence that "As per company's report..."
Now lets see what other Wikipedia articles on different vaccines read:
1.Moderna COVID-19 vaccine'sefficacy section reads:Evidence of vaccine efficacy starts about two weeks after the first dose.[20] High efficacy is achieved with full immunization, two weeks after the second dose, and was evaluated at 94.1%: at the end of the vaccine study that led to emergency authorization in the US
2.Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine's lead reads:An interim analysis of study data showed a potential efficacy of 91.3% in preventing symptomatic infection within seven days of a second dose.[34][39]
3.Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine's lead reads :On 29 January 2021, Janssen announced that 28 days after a completed vaccination, the vaccine was 66% effective in a one-dose regimen in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, with an 85% efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19,[27][28][29] and 100% efficacy in preventing hospitalization or death caused by the disease.[1]
Toddy1, Thanks for the elaborate explanation. Its very important to comply withWP:MEDRS forWP:COVID-19 vaccines when making bio-medical claims. Also, press releases are unreliable medical source until backed byWP:MEDRS like peer-reviewed journals, DailyMed, WHO, EMA full report which are missing forZyCoV-D since its under review and other quoted vaccines examples have published results in peer-reviewed journals.
World's first DNA COVID-19 vaccine is aWP:PROMOTIONAL statement here, which they have incorporated in their logo. Currently, there are many DNA COVID-19 vaccine candidates. ZyCoV-D has only submitted for Emergency Use Approval (EUA) in India. The statement does not fit to be 'Technology' section as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and written fromWP:NPOV. I hope the editor has understand from your clear explanations and does not commit the same mistake.Run n Fly (talk)11:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Run n Fly, As perthis source, there were as many as 10 DNA vaccines as of Feb 2021 and ZyCoV-D was the front runner as it was already in plase III trials back then. As I said, there are no point in questioning the authenticity of news sources which state that ZyCoV-D is the first DNA vaccine. But we should still wait for vaccine's approval.Shinjoya (talk)12:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please point me to the "norms" that allow you to violateWP:NOTNEWS. The precise time when a company thought their interim trial data to be available, is non-encyclopedic. It might have become significant if something extraordinary happened (for example, large delay or way too rapid) and media covered it extensively.TrangaBellam (talk)11:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And,The plasmids here arecoded with the instructions to make the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Vaccination gives thecode to cells in the recipient’s body, thatbegin making the spike protein of the virus.Seriously, is this encyclopedic language? Your audience are 16 year old high school kids? Not even mentioning that a news-daily isnotWP:MEDRS.TrangaBellam (talk)11:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do we help a reader by imparting dubious information drafted with childish (and technically, wrong) language?
We use MEDRS tonot bother with poor medical journalism in mainstream press. You need to show how excepting the policy, even if temporarily, is a net positive move.TrangaBellam (talk)12:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan, We are following the same pattern for all vaccine. There is no "dubious info". It may that one person is unable to understand. That does not mean everyone is unable to understand. What is your say?Run n Fly (talk)12:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a long note, sourced from MEDRS. I am also interested to know thatyouare following thesame pattern forall vaccine. A few examples will be helpful.TrangaBellam (talk)12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SeeCovaxin#Manufacturing saysAs an inactivated vaccine, Covaxin uses a more traditional technology that is similar to the inactivated polio vaccine. Initially, a sample of SARS-CoV-2 was isolated by India's National Institute of Virology and used to grow large quantities of the virus using vero cells. From then on, the viruses are soaked in beta-propiolactone, which deactivates them by binding to their genes, while leaving other viral particles intact. The resulting inactivated viruses are then mixed with the aluminium-based adjuvant Alhydroxiquim-IIplease note that the NIH reference is for adjuvant only
SeeEpiVacCorona#Pharmacology that saysIn the vaccine all peptides are conjugated to a carrier protein, which is an expression product of the chimeric gene. This chimeric gene was created by fusion of two genes originating from different organisms, namely a gene encoding a viral nucleocapsid protein and a gene encoding abacterial maltose-binding protein (MBP).The fusion chimeric gene expressed inEscherichia coli. The sequence of the chimeric protein is available from the patent.[3] The genetic construct of the chimeric gene also includes a short genetic fragment encoding apolyhistidine-tag, which is used to purify the chimeric protein fromE. coli lysate. After the purification, the protein is conjugated with three peptides in a way that only one variant of the peptide molecule is attached to each protein molecule. As a result, three types of conjugated molecules are created: chimeric protein with attached peptide number 1, the same protein with peptide number 2, and finally the same protein with peptide number 3. All three types of conjugated molecules are included in the vaccine.[citation needed]
Its very unfortunate that a editor who is not involved inWP:COVID-19 project is making major changes without following the norms.
I have edited in Covid-19 areas. So, stop with this passive-aggressive posturing about norms, project etc.USer:ToBeFree might like to take note.
It is interesting that you found only two (of the hundred and one articles about vaccines, we have) and even then, half of one's text is tagged withcitation needed. Still, they are drafted in anencyclopedic language without wanting to come off as pop-science books written to interest grade-fivers.TrangaBellam (talk)13:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theplasmids here are coded with the instructions to make the spike protein ofSARS-CoV-2. Vaccination gives the code to cells in the recipient’s body, that begin making thespike protein of the virus. Theimmune system of the recipient recognize this and develop antibodies in response. The vaccine is administeredintradermally using aspring-powered device commonly referred asjet injector that delivers the shot as a narrow, precise stream of fluid penetrating the skin.[1][unreliable medical source?]
PerWP:MEDSECTIONS, information about administration goes intoMedical use, notAuthorizations. If the section is missing, just create it.
Theplasmids here are coded with the instructions to make the spike protein ofSARS-CoV-2. Vaccination gives the code to cells in the recipient’s body, that begin making thespike protein of the virus. Theimmune system of the recipient recognize this and develop antibodies in response.[1]
This is surelynotirrelevant. It may be slightly inaccurate, as the source is not a medical source, but it is inWP:RSP. If we have nothing better, that's initially ok, as is the case of the technology descriptions of many other COVID-19 vaccines. If the text seemsoversimplified, then use your knowledge and improve it. Maybe simply linking toDNA vaccine allows a more succinct description of the mechanism. PerWP:MTAU, the text should be accessible to the general reader near the top and can get technical further in.
In April 2021, the company reported that they expected to have initial data for the Phase III trials by May 2021.[2]
@TrangaBellam andRun n Fly: This source is actually not inWP:RSP, a better source is needed. It is notirrelevant since articles such asOxford–AstraZeneca andPfizer–BioNTech vaccines are filled with ahistory of announcements. But this is not describing a trial nor reporting trial results. So, if a better source is provided, I think this information should go underHistory perWP:MEDSECTIONS, but not under theClinical trials subsection.
WP:BOLD specifically refers to the"BRD" cycle, which has long been exceeded. "Being bold" has already happened, and now a discussion exists. Continuing to "make the necessary changes" at this point wouldn't be "bold", it would be edit warring.~ ToBeFree (talk)13:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" is about article deletions, not article content removal, and it's just an essay. You meanWP:PRESERVE, part of the editing policy. At the moment,WP:ONUS justifies keeping the material out of the article until a consensus is reached here.~ ToBeFree (talk)13:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I havenever said that the vaccine-mechanism is irrelevant or it does not belong at the article. I have said that the language is too simplistic (to the point of being inadvertently dubious) and comes off aspop-science books written to interest grade-fivers. I will re-draft the section.
Thanks for the pointer toWP:MEDSECTIONS. The information is shifted to a new section along with an accompanying foot-note.
I still disagree that all these routine announcement matters. (WP:OSE) But, I am willing to drop the ball on this locus if others feel this to be vital information.
Nice. Regarding the announcements, I think the situation of the pandemic isspecial. I can foresee this information being removed in the future (also for "major" vaccines such as the ones I mentioned), but it seems somewhat relevant in the present. If it is moved into the History section, then the reader can easily decide whether they want to skip the section altogether. --Fernando Trebien (talk)13:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better source.Article in medical journalVaccine. It's still not MEDRS because it's primary, but it is written by experts rather than lay people. From the sounds of it, the vaccine developers wrote this paper. Up to you guys if you want to use it or not, I have no opinion yet. –Novem Linguae(talk)03:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree, we shouldn't have press releases and primary sources written by the company itself as sole sources in this article. I'm not sure if I want to mess with it, as I can't find any other good sources. If Businesswire press releases are not WP:RS for other Wikipedia articles, then they shouldn't be acceptable for COVID19 vaccines, no?--FeralOink (talk)11:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't, but if we don't, then there is no other source. When information is scarce butneeded, I think it's more abouthow it's reported. I just checked the articles about the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the Novavax vaccine and they have 16, 23 and 7 references to the companies' websites, respectively. Except for Novavax, most of them could be replaced by secondary sources, but sometimes it doesn't make much sense, for example when you're narrating the history and mentioning a date when the company announced something important. In this case, not only is the primary source the most reliable source, but secondary sources can just echo what the company has said and sometimes express opinions about it. Most of the content of the COVID-19 vaccine article also depends on primary sources. --Fernando Trebien (talk)18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2021
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Jonesey95 (talk)17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply].svg)
Done by Joshua Issac.42.106.201.83 (talk)15:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]