Wikipedia

Talk:Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 2

< Talk:Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Alexcalamaro in topic Description of how vaccine works seems wrong
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Scientific survey needed in a "Public perception" section?

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
  • @Berchanhimez: What do you mean by that [1]? Why scientific survey is needed for the "Public perception" section? There is nothing scientific in a teachers union or public polls mentioned here --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I mean that a survey of "which country would you trust a vaccine from" does not translate to "they have confidence in this specific vaccine". I'm not sure if you speak Spanish or not, but it's very clear the source doesn't say anything like what you tried to add. That edit is at best accidental synthesis of information, and at worst (and my personal belief) you again intentionally misrepresenting sources to prop Russia up. Your propaganda-like edits are not being tolerated on this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
      • What do you mean "propaganda-like"? Isn't it a public perception? El Financiero [es] [2]: "Por un lado, el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin, anunció que su país ya tiene una vacuna lista. [...] A ese respecto, la encuesta revela que el 66 por ciento de los entrevistados expresa mucha o algo de confianza en una vacuna producida en Rusia, incluido 32 por ciento que dijo tener mucha confianza. / On the one hand, the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, announced that his country already has a vaccine ready. [...] In this regard, the survey reveals that 66 percent of respondents express much or some confidence in a vaccine produced in Russia, including 32 percent who said they have a lot of confidence."??--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Una vacuna producida en Rusia - not esta vacuna producida en Rusia - the translation you yourself provide does not support the material you added. Congrats on proving you are intentionally misrepresenting the source - you know what it says, and you're intentionally using it to support something it doesn't say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
          • "Por un lado, el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin, anunció que su país ya tiene una vacuna lista." Then what vaccine, "announced by Putin", they are writing about?--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
            • That vaccine is never indicated as the one referred to in the survey. In fact, that article makes quite clear the survey was about the question "Would you have confidence in A vaccine from X country?" - not any particular vaccine. You are connecting information not explicitly connected in the source - a violation of Wikipedia policy at best, and intentional misrepresentation at worst. I am done explaining this here. I'll be reporting your responses here to the AN thread for others to evaluate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
              • Why does it matter, "una vacuna" or "esta vacuna"? My text: "According to a survey conducted by El Financiero, 66% of Mexicans expressed confidence in the Russian vaccine" Isn't this survey about the Russian vaccine? Isn't Sputnik V a Russian vaccine? We may add "Russian-produced vaccine" if you want. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
                • Adding that would be necessary to make it accurate. Adding that would also make it irrelevant to this article. This article is not about any Russian produced vaccine, it is about one specific one. It'd be like saying "90% of people expressed confidence in a baseball team from the northeastern US" - and putting that in the article about the New York Mets - it's useless fluff information that doesn't have any relevance to the specific article. By the way, if you can't understand the very important linguistic difference between "una vacuna" and "esta vacuna", maybe you shouldn't be attempting to use information from Spanish-language sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Primary reason this can't be included - the study is irrelevant. The survey asks people "Would you trust a vaccine from X country" - it does NOT ask "would you trust this specific vaccine". While that survey may be relevant in the article about vaccines in general, it is not relevant here, hence it was removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Registration is limited (conditional, “provisional approval”)

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Several media in russia did read the full text of vaccine registration claims. The registration is not full, but is some form of temporary, limited or conditional registration (ru: "зарегистрирована на условиях" in transcript ~= 'The vaccine is registered in accordance with the procedure for /early/ market access for medicines to prevent COVID-19'; with Government Decree 441 emergency procedures). And this registration is temporary - only from 08-2020 to 12-2020: `a5b (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Same media says that it is not the first registration: Russia’s vaccine has received the same limited “provisional approval” already awarded to the Chinese drug. In this sense, the two vaccines are the same `a5b (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Indeed. I think Meduza qualify as an RS ("The first vaccine that wasn’t Russia approves a coronavirus immunization, but a lack of clinical trials means those getting inoculated are rolling the dice"). It tells [3]: "Is this really the world’s first registered coronavirus vaccine? No. ... The Russian vaccine’s provisional approval ... is the regulatory measure that allows limited approval (effective only until the end of the year) of treatments on the basis of preclinical studies alone (in other words, animal tests). If the results of the large-scale study fail to confirm the vaccine’s effectiveness, provisional approval could be revoked.". This contradicts to the official approval [4] which claims that the vaccine did pass already the clinical (not pre-clinical) trials ("в результате проведенных доклинических и клинических исследований ... При проведении клинических исследований на нескольких клинических базах"). This whole thing looks like fake. My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • preclinical study is on animals, they can be used to show safety or efficacy; and clinical trials are on humans. Clinical trials have several phases (Phases of clinical research): 0,1,2,3,4 = 0(pharmodynamics),1(safety screening),2(preliminary efficacy),3(confirmation of safety and efficacy),4(after registration). Russian vaccine had some preclinical test on animals; but we have no data about efficacy test on animals (vaccinate animal and infect them with virus). The only stage that was used to get preliminary registration of Gam-COVID-Vac was stage 1 on humans; which was partially combined with 2 phase. Only 20 patients got full vaccine of 2 doses in the form which was registered (ru ref, photo of official docs,ru,page2 "20 - в режиме прайм-буст"; another 20 got both doses of gam-covid-vak "Lyo" form). There was no placebo control in these 1-2 stage trials; and there was no sars-cov-2 infection attempts of these patients. There is no contradiction between roszdravnadzor.gov.ru/news/22768 and meduza, as meduza did not claim that gam-covid was registered only based on preclinical; it says that Decree 441 allows limited approvals for medicines based on preclinical trials (on condition of registering each usage and doing trials later). Gam-covid had (acc. to meduza) "two groups of 38 healthy .. testing like this is typical for Phase-I trials" & "they’ve combined Phase I and II testing. But these trials involved incomparably fewer test subjects"; so there are clinical trials phase 1/2 for gam-covid, but they are too small and it is currently known that antibodies were generated, but not known will they protect from sars-cov-2 infection or severe illness or not. `a5b (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Stage III trial is planned for gam-covid but was not started as of 12-08-2020 due to not having enough money (Не получили еще финансирование на третью фазу), and as 20-08-2020 there is still no 3 phase trial permission in russian trial database and in ctrials.gov. Ref: NYT vaccine tracker: Filter the list of vaccines: - approved=2. `a5b (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Worse, it tells that such vaccine can be used only for people with an excellent health (not the ones with pre-existing conditions) of age from 18 to 60. Which defeats the purpose of the vaccine and enforces impression about it as a propaganda stunt. But even healthy people should not take it. This is just another fake drug. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, the first human trial requires a small number of perfectly healthy people for the sake of "pure experiment", e.g. for trial without involving possible issues with obesity/bad sweating/bad blood coagulation etc. Why would you say this? Uchyotka (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Phase III already started

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Please, update that info. Phase III already started in the end of august -- 40 000 people involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.169.193.123 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I do believe any attempt to add any info on this cute link will result in massive burst of claims it's not WP:MEDRS, albeit mentioning the Stage III has nothing to do with "primary source" reason to reject it. Uchyotka (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
It looks a solid source. There are no medical claims being made, so the normal standards of WP:RS apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Except without secondary sourcing is it WP:DUE to mention? And I'm not sure how a trial which is "Not yet recruiting" has "already started" in any case (which rather illustrates the problem of using primary sources). Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: I think the source ClinicalTrials.gov is secondary in the normal RS sense, although it's doing nothing more than recording the registration of a clinical trial. It's true that the design of the trial does mark the beginning of phase III, but it would be rather disingenuous for us to baldly state that phase III has "begun", as the propagandists would like to portray it. I feel strongly that we should only be stating that the phase III is in progress once the earmarked "day 0" first vaccinations have taken place. Nevertheless, the source could be used to update the article with the fact that the phase III trial has been designed and registered, and is at the stage of recruiting 40,000 volunteers for the trial which will last six months. I don't see any UNDUE issues with that, as it is an important stage in the testing of the vaccine, albeit not such a spectacular one as it will be spun to be. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's okay to "fill in" detail, with the caveats you mention. Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Lemme quote tis: And I'm not sure how a trial which is "Not yet recruiting" has "already started" in any case. I am going to call Gamalea guys and as for a dose. I got a dose as a testee volounteer, will it be OK to add the news? Uchyotka (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

To avoid propaganda puffery, I've used the clinicaltrials.gov source for the registration to write a couple of sentences (in the lead) as neutrally as I could about the phase III trial. It really needs more detail to be added to the body of the article if anybody has the time. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I am impressed you didn't use "Wikipedia is not a..."-something reason, yet decided to WP:DUE report on Stage III, which is not supposed to have "weight".

... Your point matches "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" criteria; but "undue weight"??? Come on! Uchyotka (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Scientific assessment?

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Here it is:

"The US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar said that "The point is not to be first, the point is to have a vaccine that is safe and effective for the American people and the people of the world."[25] Here is about Alex Azar - a pharmaceutical lobbyist in the past, entrepreneur, attorney, the US government member. How on Earth this is "scientific assessment" Is Azar a scientist? He never was involved in any medical research in his life, just in lobbying the pharmaceutical companies. Maybe I'm an idiot, but it is a clearly based political statement of the US government official with no relation to science, just to his pockets, full of corrupted lobby money. Let me know where I/m wrong here! Please, correct at: Uchyotka, Zefr, Александр Мотин, JustinTime55 and any other editor who has common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C5B0:5EF9:6CD0:A786 (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин cannot comment here as they are topic banned for their disruptive editing in this field. The department of Health and Human Services definitely is a scientific department of the United States - and the statement made by their director is the best we can get for a United States scientific analysis of this vaccine at this time. Azar in this instance is acting as the "spokesperson" for the department itself - which definitely did conduct a scientific analysis of this vaccine. Let me pose you the opposite question - if he had come out and said "This vaccine is great and we're ordering it for the American people now", would you be arguing against it being included? I think not, because your point is to remove any criticism you can. It does not matter what his past is - what matters is he made the statement as the head of the Health and Human Services arm of the US government - making his statement at this time the most high-ranking statement of the US government's scientific opinion on the vaccine. I don't support removal or change unless an equally or higher ranking statement can be found to replace it with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, this is true. "The American people and the people of the world", in that order, is a nationalist phrase, and the rest is just a prompt for the response "duh!" We already have enough statements by real scientists, and this platitude from a non-scientist is not only not needed, it is an embarrassment and weakens the point the section is making. Also, there is no reason to assume that what a Trump official says has any connection to the organization he is preventing from doing its job, aka "leading". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me pose you the opposite question - if he had come out and said "This vaccine is great and we're ordering it for the American people now", would you be arguing against it being included? I think not, because your point is to remove any criticism you can.
  1. I think I would delete such a claim though: Wikipedia isn't about promoting a product. Uchyotka (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. ADDITIONAL INFO:
I think not, because your point is to remove any criticism you can.

Obviously, this was not the point; the request to improve the statement with some extra quoting was. Uchyotka (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

On Alex Azar's quote

"The point is not to be first, the point is to have a vaccine that is safe and effective for the American people and the people of the world."

I think the "...for the American people and the people of the world" part is a logical tauthology (subset "the American people" before the set "the people of the word"), simply for sake of improving his style, it should be slightly shortened: 

"The point is not to be first, the point is to have a vaccine that is safe and effective..."

Uchyotka (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be putting lipstick on a turd. The Azar quote is useless, it says nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The article does not indicate the second developer under sanctions

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Speech about what is described the Research Institute of Microbiology of the Ministry of Defense of Russia [ru], details here ru:Обсуждение:Гам-КОВИД-Вак#А кто основной разработчик на самом деле?. 37.113.160.125 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

what? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You could just explain.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparently a lot better then we read Russian.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Article title

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

N.B. WP:MEDTITLE. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Allegedly fabricated data of phase 1/2

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
  • The results of phases I and II were published in Lancet. But a group of Italian researchers published an open letter saying the results were fabricated [5], [6]. The specimens for different persons were completely identical. This is not surprising for anyone who knows how things are done in Russia right now. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Please quote something substancial, like
>In the red boxes, 9 out of 9 volunteers challenged with rAd26-S appear to have identical antibody titres at 21 and 28 days; this is also true for 7 out of 9 volunteers challenged with rAd5-S (yellow boxes). Furthermore, in the cyan boxes we can see all the experimental points differing for a constant value in two completely unrelated experiments; and 8 out of 9 experimental points are completely preserved among other two completely unrelated volunteer groups (green boxes).

Uchyotka (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be this way. According to RFE/RL, a secondary RS: "9 of 9 volunteers who participated in one of the vaccine experiments had identical antibody titres for 21 out of 28 days ...this is not a uniform distribution of numbers as common for clinical trials, but a repetition of the same numbers for different participants. " I am certain this needs to be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it appears that The Lancet asked authors to provide an official reply about it [8]. Let's see if this story will lead to retraction of the article. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Or it will just pass another peer-review as I understand.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No because it was already published. Critics requested additional data from authors. Typically, if such data will be provided and the critics and editors are satisfied, there will be no retraction. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The original authors have since responded to the allegations of fabricated data: Safety and efficacy of the Russian COVID-19 vaccine: more information needed – Authors’ reply. They state that the observed repeated patterns are due to the discrete nature of the data with a very limited number of possible outcomes. Our article cited a news article as a reference, but failed to cite the authors' reply in a scientific journal. I felt that violated both WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS and have removed the part for now. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that reporting the controversy requires MEDRS sourcing as it does not involve making a biomedical claim. The authors replied on 21 September, so the original content did not breach NPOV. Nevertheless, once the authors responded, the correct course of action is to describe both sides of the dispute without engaging in it (not to remove all mention of it). I've reinstated the content and expanded it to include the authors' response per WP:IMPARTIAL. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add information on potential registration and use in Hungary:

The Hungarian minister of Foreign Affairs (Péter Szíjjártó) announced on 7 November 2020 the coming registration of the Sputnik V vaccine in Hungary will be finished soon, and an unspecified amount of "smaller batch" of the Sputnik V vaccine will arrive to Hungary in December 2020, and Hungary will be able to purchase "large quantity" of the Sputnik V vaccine from January 2021, after the registration in Hungary.

Source: Announcement on Hungarian Government's COVID information site (https://koronavirus.gov.hu/cikkek/szijjarto-decembertol-kerulhet-magyarorszagra-az-orosz-vakcina) --Oattila-bxl (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Oattila-bxl (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL. Zefr (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Russian public perception

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@Zefr - I understand that TASS may not be acceptable in news reporting, but surely an opinion poll published by TASS about Russian citizens perceptions can be accepted? If it was government propaganda, like you state, they wouldn't have less than half of the people believing that the vaccine is good. If we report that Canadians and Americans don't put much trust in the Russian vaccine (and presumably prefer a Western-made manufacturer), why can't we show the other side of the coin, being that the Russian majority prefers their own vs. one that is foreign to them? "Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander". Adrian two (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Better to find a more reliable, non-government source, WP:RS. Zefr (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
As per WP:RSP, editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues. The icon for TASS is WP:NOCON, which is one level below WP:RELIABLE, but better than WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:DEPS or WP:SPB. As the poll is a Russian "statement of fact" and given that the content includes a less than 50% trust in the vaccine, I cannot see how this is "propaganda". Please reconsider your revert, the section is not within WP:MEDRS. Adrian two (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
A review of the article history will show we've rejected use of Tass as a source in previous edits, and none exists now. Once untruthful, always untrusted in science. Let's wait to see what other editors have to say, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Russian sources and the BBC

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

This edit was challenged because the BBC is reporting preliminary information from unreliable Russian sources, particularly the Gamaleya Research Centre which is responsible for Gam-COVID-Vac project financing and all the previous disinformation discussed above on this talk page. This BBC report states: "...proper evaluation of the safety and efficacy of both the Russian and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines was needed when the full data on the trials is published. Prof Eleanor Riley, from University of Edinburgh, worried the data had been rushed out too soon." WP:BRD: we should work out the likely non-reliable content here, and treat the BBC news articles as WP:NOTNEWS until peer-review and publication occurs in a reputable journal. Zefr (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr: What? Firstly What does the fact that BBC questioned "evaluation of the safety and efficacy" has to do with vaccine being lyophilized? They did not questione that. Its not even biomedical data which requires peer reviewed research its just basic chemistry and description of the state in which vaccine is destributed. Secondly, there is no proof that Russian source is biased, its not like Gamaleya research center has been caught lying or is blacklisted as a source on wikipedia. Thirdly, BBC is widely regarded as reliable source on wikipedia, unless you have a proof of what i wrote being factually incorrect, you have no reason to delete what I wrote. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the only peer-reviewed report on the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine, and includes discussion of the lyophilised formulation, including "We designed the vaccine in two formulations, frozen (storage at –18°C) and lyophilised (storage at 2–8°C). The lyophilised form was developed for vaccine delivery to hard-to-reach regions of Russia, and the frozen form was developed for large-scale use. Production volumes in a pandemic will be strongly biased towards the frozen vaccine, since production of a lyophilised form takes much more time and resources", mainly indicating that the lyophilised version has second-order priority in Russia, and is not confirmed as safe and effective or licensed internationally. Among many sources, this FT report indicates close involvement and probable government funding and further propaganda about Gam-COVID-Vac development, casting doubt about its veracity. We adequately discuss here why there should be skepticism about this candidate and the news around it. Zefr (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Zefr: "indicates close involvement and probable government funding" Well yes, This literally has never been a secret. It is a state funded organization that works with Russian military. I dont see how this is wrong or indicative of lying or misleading on their part. Secondly, i have read the section, and besides critisizms of them registering early I have not found any info of them Lying or Misleading public. Thirdly, After studying Lancet article you linked, I understand that i had some misconceptions, and I can rewrite my original sentence to include that info about 2 formulations developed and about Production volumes. How about that? F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@F.Alexsandr: when an article is under general or discretionary sanctions, it is best to discuss challenged content additions on the talk page and seek an agreed consensus before making further edits to the article. I've dropped an alert notice on your talk page which has some useful links for perspective. I encourage you to suggest what you think would be an agreeable form of words here and it will give Zefr and other interested editors a chance to reach a consensus which should stand up to scrutiny. That saves our article from the back-and-forth changes that inevitably happen if we don't move the discussion to the article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Zefr: @RexxS: My proposal will be this: "The vaccine has been developed and will be avaliable in two forms: frozen and lyophilised. Both versions can be stored at much higher temperatures than some other leading Covid-19 vaccines, especially the latter, which can be stored at temperatures of 2–8 °C, making it much easier to distribute, especially to faraway and tropical countries and regions. However majority of produced vaccines will be in the frozen form, since the production of a lyophilised form takes much more time and resources." I will link to both the BBC articles and the lancet paper. F.Alexsandr (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@F.Alexsandr: I think you're editorialising. For example, where does your text "Both versions can be stored at much higher temperatures than some other leading Covid-19 vaccines" come from? It's patently untrue as well as unsourced. Gam-COVID-Vac is stored at –18°C and Gam-COVID-Vac-Lyo is stored at 2–8°C. The Modena vaccine has a 6-month storage temperature of –20°C and a 30-day storage temperature of 2–8°C, according to a Modena press release. Where does the "faraway and tropical countries" come from? The Lancet report says "hard-to-reach regions of Russia". What information is in the BBC article that isn't in the Lancet report? --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: You have ignored the russian BBC article. It talks about tropical countries. Here is an excerpt Google translated:
"(Talking about Pfizer) This means that it makes sense to send the first batch only to the largest clinics in large metropolitan cities, such as New York or Rio de Janeiro. How to organize delivery to small medical practices (say, in rural areas) is still unclear.
For these purposes, Sputnik V is much better suited (of course, provided that scientists will be able to confirm the declared effectiveness). The Russian vaccine is also produced in a dry (lyophilized) form, so it is much easier to deliver it anywhere - both to remote areas in the north and to hot tropical countries.
Taking into account this feature of the drug, it is logical to assume that the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will become its main sales market."
Also I have said its superior in that reagard "than some other leading Covid-19 vaccines" If you want I can change it to scecify Pfizer. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@F.Alexsandr: Where sources are available from scientific journals, we should prefer them to sources from news media. Where sources are available in English, we should prefer them to equivalent sources in foreign languages. So yes, I'll discount the source you translated without giving a link to it.
It remains misleading editorialising to suggest it "can be stored at much higher temperatures than some other leading Covid-19 vaccines", when of the two vaccines that are currently reporting their phase 3 results, one of them has very similar storage temperature requirements to Gam-COVID-Vac/Lyo.
None of this is a matter of what I want, nor is it a negotiation about the extent to which you may be allowed to conduct original research. It is a matter of keeping Wikipedia's content true to what the best sources say, and you're failing badly to do that.
Please go back to the Lancet report and read it thoroughly. Then try to summarise dispassionately what it has to say about (1) the physical difference between Gam-COVID-Vac and Gam-COVID-Vac-Lyo and (2) the effect that difference may have on storage and distribution. If you can't do that, then please leave it editors who can. --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: It's not original research. I have originally linked to two BBC articles, In Russian and in English. The one in russian has a link BBC article Also, yes I know that english sources take precedent over Russian ones. But that is the case where russian version has information the english version doesnt. My proposal: "The vaccine has been developed and will be avaliable in two forms: frozen and lyophilised. Both versions can be stored at relatively high temperatures, especially the latter, which can be stored at temperatures of 2–8 °C, making it much easier to distribute, especially to faraway and tropical countries and regions. However majority of produced vaccines will be in the frozen form, since the production of a lyophilised form takes much more time and resources." F.Alexsandr (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@F.Alexsandr: Yes it is original research. There's no mention anywhere that phrases like "faraway and tropical countries" apply only to Gam-COVID-Vac. The Russian BBC article even suggests that the Pfizer vaccine will be used in "Argentina, Brazil, Germany, the United States, Turkey and South Africa", so you're simply inventing inaccurate comparisons that attempt to inflate the importance of Gam-COVID-Vac, which won't complete conducting its phase 3 trials for six months, in comparison with the Pfizer and Modena, which already have around six months of data from phase 3. We should not be using news sources anyway, when we have perfectly good scholarly journals that give solid information, like the Lancet. The best that we can say with any certainty about the vaccine is (1) that it has been developed and trialled in two forms: frozen (stored at –18°C) and lyophilised (stored at 2–8°C); and (2) the lyophilised version takes more time and resources to produce and is likely to be produced in smaller quantities, but should be easier to distribute to remote places. The rest of your proposed text is crystal-ball gazing and attempts to make comparisons for which there is no scientific basis. --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Now you are maliciously misinterpreting the article. You said that "There's no mention anywhere that phrases like "faraway and tropical countries" apply only to Gam-COVID-Vac." Yet the article clearly states "The Russian vaccine is produced in dry (lyophilized) form, so it is much easier to deliver it anywhere - both to remote areas in the north and to hot tropical countries." The fact that other vaccines may have this ability too is entirely out of the scope of this article. You have said that: "The Russian BBC article even suggests that the Pfizer vaccine will be used in "Argentina, Brazil, Germany, the United States, Turkey and South Africa" which is wrong, the article said that they are being tested there. But again, this does not have anything to do with the Sputnik V, why are you even mentioning this. You are saying that We should not be using news sources, but I am once again saying that nobody forbids using news sources for non-biomedical information on vaccine. Distribution and avaliability is not biomedical. I feel like we are just pondering at the same points.
Anyway, I am going to make the edit, and all words in there will be directly taken from either Lancet article, or BBC articles if the information in them will not be biomedical. If you think that I somehow posted posted incorrect information, you are free to make case by case edits and debate me on them. F.Alexsandr (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If you use the word "maliciously" about another editor, you are committing a personal attack. I will ask an independent admin to review your posts here as I believe you have gone beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct, especially on an article subject to general sanctions.
Your proposal was "making it much easier to distribute, especially to faraway and tropical countries". It was the "easier" that I objected to, because it is patently obvious that that Gam-COVID-Vac is not "easier to distribute, especially to faraway and tropical countries" than the other vaccines that can be stored at normal freezer or refrigerated temperatures.
How do you think the vaccine is being tested in Argentina, Brazil, Germany, the United States, Turkey and South Africa if it isn't being used? Surely you must be able to see that the vaccine has to be transported and administered to the thousands of volunteers in order to test it?
You were the one who made unwarranted and inaccurate comparisons between Gam-COVID-Vac and "other leading vaccines", so don't start complaining when I refute your errors by showing your suggested text to be false.
You seem to think that there is an exemption from WP:RS for non-biomedical information, but you are wrong. We find the best quality sources and then use them for our content. We do not use news media reports for issues of distribution and availability of vaccines when we have scholarly articles discussing them.
You have no consensus to re-insert your disputed text, and if you do, I'll seek sanctions to have you banned from this topic area. I hope that's clear. --RexxS (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

95% effective

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Per this source. I can't add, so someone please do the honours. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"... says Russia", which is quite an important qualification. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We don't write medical content based on newspaper reports. I'm also doubtful about the ability of the reporter to do maths, because 31 confirmed infections in the control group against 8 confirmed infections in the vaccinated group sure doesn't look like 95% effectiveness to me. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that the control group is the same size as the vaccinated group. This is not the case.
Besides that, I wouldn't use the Hindustan Times for that information. I do however think that we can use this press release as long as we state that it is an interim analysis provided by the developer. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You're quite right: the control group is designed to be 10,000 and the vaccinated group 30,000, which the Hindustan Times fails to mention. That would yield a 91.2% effectiveness, but of course we won't know the whole picture until the Gamaleya Research Institute releases the full data. The problem with different sized groups for treatment and control is that it complicates any pooled estimates for the population, but it does produce larger numbers of infections in the treated group when the effectiveness is high, so the Institute made a good call there in the design.
I think the press release would be suitable to use if we baldly report its results in figures, but I don't think it's a MEDRS source, so we shouldn't use it to make any biomedical claims. Perhaps something along the lines of:
  • On 24 November 2020, the Gamaleya Centre announced results from the second interim data analysis of the phase 3 trials. Seven days after the second dose (twenty-eight days after the first dose), the group of 14,095 volunteers that had received both doses produced 8 cases testing COVID-19 positive, while the control group of 4,699 volunteers contained 31 cases testing COVID-19 positive. No unexpected adverse events were reported. (ref: "Second interim analysis of clinical trial data showed a 91.4% efficacy for the Sputnik V vaccine on day 28 after the first dose; vaccine efficacy is over 95% 42 days after the first dose". sputnikvaccine.com. Retrieved 25 November 2020.)
It's tempting to reproduce the calculations that yield a figure for efficacy per WP:CALC, but I'm hesitant to go that far because of WP:MEDRS discouraging biomedical claims supported only by primary sources. Others may disagree. --RexxS (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
At the main COVID-19 vaccine article, the process of selecting sources for clinical trial results has been to use a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal rather than a press release from the organization funding the program. We have had previous misinformation about this vaccine candidate from premature announcements, as discussed in the Preliminary clinical research and Scientific assessment sections of the article. Zefr (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Zefr: I'd be more than happy to wait for peer-reviewed publication of the full interim results in a quality scholarly journal; and even happier to wait for a secondary source to review them. Even when we have a primary source in the Lancet (or similar), I still think it's important to restrict our summary to the bare information and not take biomedical claims made in any primary source at face value. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
As with most of the above, we do not base medical statements of press releases. When (and if) this appears in reputable third party sources as a fact, then yes include it, until them keep it out.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Bias

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments11 people in discussion

@Zefr: [9] I suppose your edit violates WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE in particular. It is better for you to rethink your edits, because they seem to be biased. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is as well-balanced as reasonable, with diverse, non-Russian (non-propaganda) sources. It's a valid question whether the article should exist at all, because little or none of the actual vaccine science can be verified independently, failing WP:V about its safety, effectiveness, or development status. Zefr (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
My God this is a joke, this article is as negative as can be! You yourself say "non propaganda" "should exist at at", but yeah, grown over the illusion that Wikipedia is 'balanced'. At least I had a laugh today. AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
AntonHogervorst, please feel free to suggest changes to improve the article to make it more balanced/less biased if you think it is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
You could start by removing the two sections of opinions and wait until there is some facts available about the effectiveness or toxicity of the vaccine. I really don't see other wikipedia vaccine articles being primarily made up of opinions of anitvaxers. --2A01:260:4111:3:716C:55E4:423D:FBEE (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
An "antivaxer" is somebody who uses bad science to argue against well-established vaccines that have been proven safe and effective. This vaccine has neither been proven safe nor effective yet, and the voices in the article are pointing that out. That is good science, the sort that prevents things like the thalidomide scandal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We are required to write prose in a neutral tone and point of view, but we cannot "selectively" quote something. Either the entire quote (or the reasonably relevant part thereof) should be used, or none of it. WP:WIKIVOICE does not apply here as the material you removed which was re-added is not in wiki-voice, but is quoted and attributed appropriately with the use of quotation marks. Per WP:QUOTE, including the opinions should be complete and attributed - both apply to the material restored that you removed. It is important to present the ideas of both those inside Russia criticizing the vaccine, and those outside Russia criticizing the vaccine, but as per WP:QUOTE they are attributed as "controversial" or "biased statements of opinion" - which is exactly how it should be. You not liking the viewpoints does not mean they are not encyclopedic - in fact, I think both viewpoints are quite encyclopedic and necessary to include - showing that criticism of this vaccine is coming both internally and externally. You may be correct it's biased - but it's not Wikipedia biased - it's bias from individuals who have every right to be biased. We report on that bias just as we report on the Russian approval of the vaccine itself - which is in and of itself biased (the Russians have a bias towards early approval for political reasons). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez: Oh really? And why there is nothing about "Crooked Hillary" or "Sleepy Joe" in articles about them? It's nonsense and propagandist ploy to disparage the subject and involved actors. Disgusting! --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Because one person's "nickname" for someone else does not provide any information. The fact that you consider those to be the same suggests to me that one week away from this article may not have been enough. You'll note that the articles on Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign both have large sections of criticism outlining the criticism and controversy surrounding her. This is not nonsense or propaganda as you claim - it's valid criticism which is encyclopedic to include. It seems clear you do not want a NPOV, but you want only information that is glowingly supportive of Russia's actions, which as is quoted in the article, were foolish and have the potential to harm many. In fact, NPOV requires us to cover this very valid and notable criticism from people both inside Russia and outside Russia. I've also moved my response back to where it originally was, and indented yours appropriately - please don't play with the ordering of responses - if this was unintentional, then I understand but I still fixed it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez: And someone's "I feel only shame for our country" or "foolish Russian government" also does not provide any information. It is a propagandist ploy to disparage the subject and this has nothing to do with criticism at all. At last, it is hateful speech which violates WP:NPOV. --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
It does not violate NPOV because it is a direct quote. In fact, it would be editorializing to attempt to “soften” what they said. Your entire argument is based on you not liking it. I do not support the removal of those direct quotes as they are important to meet NPOV in my opinion, and evidently in others’ as well. Feel free to start an RfC on it if you want other eyes, but per NPOV we must report on criticism as well, and one good way to meet NPOV is to do so with attributed direct quotes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, "I feel only shame for our country" and "foolish Russian government" is a tendentious presentation of information and should be fixed.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on a study currently cited on the page, there is less than 7% chance this vaccine would pass a rigorous phase III testing (by Western standards). Of course they might be just lucky; some people do win a lottery.My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
>Based on a study currently cited on the page, there is less than 7% chance this vaccine would pass a rigorous phase III testing (by Western standards).

>Of course they might be just lucky; some people do win a lottery Erm... Let's lay down this discussion. If you really want to distract me from reading on "Moscow's vaccine candidate", plz add some other, undergoing stage-III-testing, candidates in "See also" section. Uchyotka (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

User zefr just reintroduced ≈a factual false statement on sputnik. He ignors wiki itself. This is a severe violation. He wants at any cost avoid the reference to sputnik. This is a propaganda war by this user. User zefr, Do not revert my undo.., your sentence is wrong. Spitnik is not the name of the sdpace program. Sorry for the typos, using my tablet....

Take note dear co-editors of this completely unjustified bias here.. by this user

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed it @User:FrankBierFarmer - sorry for the confusion. I do agree that it's not important to rehash exactly what Sputnik was here, but calling it an "artificial satellite" is more accurate than "space program" for sure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The edit by Berchanhimez is correct, but the original edit by FrankBierFarmer here was a mess of attempted writing in English and conspicuous puffery, WP:PEA, to claim another "world's first" for Russia. And Boing! said Zebedee: WP:TALKNO (last statement, not a forum), WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:NPA apply to the drivel above about me on this talk page by FrankBierFarmer. There's no useful recommendation for a constructive change to the article, just whining about some supposed bias, with no regard (or ability, evidently) to contribute clearly written facts to the article about the vaccine, not Sputnik, a satellite. Unconstructive talk page comments and personal attacks can be removed from a talk page. Zefr (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a discussion about the article content, and that is what this talk page is for. I have no idea who is right or wrong about the content, but when you disagree with someone, you can't just decide their comments are not constructive and delete them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

And, in a nod to last century's Cold War space race, they named the vaccine Sputnik V after the world's first satellite, called Sputnik, launched by the Soviet Union on Oct. 4, 1957. (Space.com)

Questions?--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Truth is, calling something "Sputnik" after the beep-beep-beep satellite is something people should be reminded, to prevent possible claims word "sputnik" was used in its ancient, pre-space meaning; that's not redundant in any sense. Uchyotka (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I just realised Sputnik-V can be a reference to Belka and Strelka dogs from Sputnik-5 spaceship, not just the very first "Sputnik" Uchyotka (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Pupnik aside, "Sputnik" should have its linkage. kencf0618 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Generic statements in Development and registration section

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I'm questioning why this phrase exists in the article "A vaccine candidate has only a 40% and 7% chance of passing from a Phase I trial to regulatory approval for industry-sponsored and non-industry-sponsored vaccine development programs, respectively". The given reference talks about vaccine candidates in general, not about this specific one. Unless the same phrasing is inserted in each and every COVID-19 vaccine candidate article, I would suggest removing it from here.

Next, since this vaccine candidate is well in phase III trials, why state that "Without Phase III trials, it is unknown whether the vaccine is effective or safe for vaccinating the public." Again, a generic statement, nothing specific to this article. Unless the same phrasing is inserted in each and every COVID-19 vaccine candidate article, I would suggest removing it from here. Adrian two (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Surely the reason why those two statements are in the article is to give the reader context to the claims that have been made for this vaccine based only on unreleased results of the phase 1/2 trials consisting of 76 volunteers? If another vaccine candidate comes along making similar claims on such sketchy evidence, it will be equally appropriate to insert that background information into those articles.
The Gamaleya Research Institute is presently reporting interim results on phase 3 (by press release) after six weeks of the six-month trial. That's hardly deserving of the epithet "well in phase III trials", when there are at least three other vaccine candidates that have completed six months of phase 3 trialling. (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Are you aware of another vaccine candidate that has made similar efficacy claims based on phase 1/2 trials, or on just six weeks worth of phase 3? If so, let's go and add those generic statements for context in those too. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
All the things you mention are discussed in the lead section, so the reader is amply forewarned. Why bring it back in a roundabout way? The first sentence talks about progressing from phase I, while in this case it's doing phase III with an appropiate number of participants. By all means, preliminary approval seems premature, but that does not mean we should use innuendo at every opportunity. What applicable information does the first sentence provide, that has not been present in the lead? Adrian two (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I meant that phase III has begun three months ago, that qualifies in my opinion as "well into". Yes, again you are right that other vaccine candidates are in more advanced stages, but what has that to do with the sentence I'm objecting to? Adrian two (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
That issue is dealt with elsewhere in the article. The two sentences do not make the article better, they make it biased. Adrian two (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't refactor other editors' posts; don't forge other editor editors' signatures; and don't intersperse your responses within the post of another editor. Read and understand WP:TPG. This isn't an internet forum, not is it a dialogue: other editors may wish to comment.
The lead section is a summary of the rest of the article, not preliminary reading. See WP:LEAD. Of course it is necessary to provide context for unsupported claims being made.
The only innuendo is yours when you try to whitewash appropriate criticism from the article.
The sentence you object to is providing the background information that most vaccine candidates that complete phase 1 still fail to gain regulatory approval, which is necessary to give perspective to the hype surrounding Gam-COVID-Vac. The lead is a summary of the key points in the body of the article, not a substitute for it. Of course the lead repeats points made in the other sections; that is its job.
The first participant of the phase 3 trial was enrolled on 7 September 2020 and the study status changed from "Not yet recruiting" to "Recruiting" on 10 September 2020. The initial doses for the first 18,794 volunteers ("day 0" of the trial) took place at the beginning of October. The recent press release on 24 November 2020 was just after the forty-second day. That timeline clearly demonstrates that you are spinning the beginning of phase 3 for propaganda purposes, as if the announcement of the study marks its beginning. It doesn't, and no serious observer is going to accept your claim that 'phase III has begun three months ago, that qualifies in my opinion as "well into".' as anything more than deliberate misinformation.
Now, what is your answer to the questions:
  • Are you aware of another vaccine candidate that has made similar efficacy claims based on phase 1/2 trials, or on just six weeks worth of phase 3?
If you are, we can make progress. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I did not "forge" other editors' signatures, I did intersperse my responses with proper attribution of what you wrote vs. point by point comments of mine; each part was properly attributed with name and timestamp. I did not claim that I wrote what you did, or viceversa. I apologize for refactoring / interspersing, I've learnt my lesson. You should not assume bad faith where there is none; Wikipedia policy goes even further asking everybody to assume good faith when you're not sure. Another example of assuming bad faith is the accusation of "deliberate misinformation" - this is a talk page, not the article itself; I've checked the article for phase III dates and I noted that it was "registered" on 28 August 2020 and that's what made me phrase it as "well underway" in this talk page. People make more typos and write loose and fast on talk pages, to call it "deliberate misinformation" is reaching, to say the least.
There are two, not one, sentences that I object to:
The first one talks about chances of progressing from phase I to regulatory approval. This vaccine candidate is not at the end of phase I. The information is irrelevant for the article.
The second one talks about the role of phase III in general. It should be in another article about vaccine regulatory approval process, not here.
To answer your question: Are you aware of another vaccine candidate that has made similar efficacy claims based on phase 1/2 trials, or on just six weeks worth of phase 3? No, I'm not aware of any. The question is a red herring. Yes, it has undergone less testing than other candidates, but that does not make the 2 sentences relevant to the article. There is plenty of valid criticism in the article which I'm not whitewashing at all; I'm saying that those two sentences are not pertinent to the article.
Awaiting to make progress on the relevance of each of those two sentences for this specific article. Adrian two (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
You did forge my signature. Never do that again. That's not what "proper attribution" means and you've been editing long enough to understand how talk pages work.
Read Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. When presented with indisputable evidence that you are spreading misinformation, like your "three months", no editor is barred from calling you out on it. That's not what AGF is about. Your protestation that "three months" was a typo doesn't stand up. It was a deliberate attempt to give the impression that the trial had progressed further than it actually had, and you know it.
The vaccine candidate has completed phase 1 and 2 trials and reported the results in the Lancet. It has not completed the next phase, and does not anticipate doing so until May 2021 (assuming all goes well). So the information about the chances of progressing from phase 1/2 to regulatory approval is very relevant to this article, because no competent regulator is going to authorise a vaccine without a successful conclusion of phase 3 (a point which is borne out by the well-sourced outcry in academic circles about this vaccine). What other vaccine candidate has sought regulatory approval with nothing more than a completed phase 1/2?
As I've already explained, but you don't seem t have read, the sentence "Without Phase III trials, it is unknown whether the vaccine is effective or safe for vaccinating the public." is valuable background for the reader to understand the issues posed by this vaccine candidate, because it is the only candidate that I am aware of that has made claims for efficacy based on phase 1/2 trials, and more recently on unpublished data from the first 28 days of a 180-day phase 3 trial.
That means that my question to you "Are you aware of another vaccine candidate that has made similar efficacy claims based on phase 1/2 trials, or on just six weeks worth of phase 3?" was anything but a red herring. You've demanded the removal of reliably-sourced background information that casts a negative light on Gam-COVID-Vac on the grounds that the information is not present in the articles of other vaccine candidates. Yet it is abundantly clear that this vaccine candidate is the only one which has been making as-yet-unsupported claims of effectiveness, as by your own admission, you are unaware of any other.
The lack of testing pointed out by multiple reliable sources is exactly the grounds for adding pertinent, well-sourced, background to this article. Your pretence that the background is irrelevant and your call for its removal is a clear attempt at whitewashing.
So, you accept that there are no other articles on vaccine candidates that have claims on the basis of such limited testing; yet you base your demand to remove information relevant to the relationship between testing and efficacy claims on the absence of that information in other articles. Your arguments are groundless. --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Once again, I did not attribute to you anything else but your words. I did not attribute to me anything that you've written. That is what "forging a signature" means, as far as I know. I did intersperse your several paragraphs with my responses, properly showing who wrote what. I've apologized for that, and you still keep accusing me of things I did not do. This feels like a personal attack on my integrity.
I did not say that "three months" was a typo, I said that the expected quality standard in talk pages is lower, people make typos and talk loose and fast, without the same care or self-verification that is warranted for an article itself. I've also explained how I calculated "three months", starting from wording in the article lead, trying to show there was no intention to deliberately misinform, You cannot seem to accept good faith.
Regarding the first sentence, you keep conflating phase I and II. This vaccine candidate has finished phase II and is undergoing phase III. The first sentence shows the odds of finalizing the process for candidates that have only finished phase I. The odds are different after two phases have been completed. Maybe some candidates never even start phase III, this one did. Therefore, the precise odds mentioned in the sentence are irrelevant for this article. Adrian two (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please read and try to understand MOS:LISTGAP. It's a kindness to the visually impaired who use a screen reader.
And once again, I'll point out that you used my signature in one of your posts. That's not what we do to make attribution. You made a contribution that included your use of my signature. It's about as clear an act of forgery as can be found. There's no point in trying to play the victim card; my criticisms of your actions are well-founded, yet you repeatedly attempt to blame me for making the criticisms.
Both of us know that the it was the registration of the then-proposed phase 3 trial that happened on 28 August 2020, and it is disingenuous to pretend that it constitutes the "start date" for the trial. You created the misleading "three months" as a counter to my factually accurate The Gamaleya Research Institute is presently reporting interim results on phase 3 ... after six weeks of the six-month trial. If your intention was not to deliberately misinform, what was it? What good faith is being displayed on your part?
Of course I keep conflating phase 1 and phase 2 for this vaccine candidate, because that's precisely what the Gamaleya Research Institute did. There was only one set of trials that covered both phases. I'm not criticising that, because I understand that the GRI was in a hurry, just as most of the other researchers on COVID-19 vaccine candidates are. Look at the mess AstraZeneca made by rushing.
I don't accept that a vaccine trial which has only completed one phase of testing has any better chance of successfully completing phase 3 than the sources cited indicate, particularly one with only 76 test subjects. Once the full data from the 42-day point for the entire cohort has been published and accepted by reliable secondary sources as showing both safety and effectiveness, I'll withdraw my objection to removal of the second sentence (and I very much hope that happens in the near future). In the meantime, I don't see any compelling reason to do so. --RexxS (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Second interim analysis reporting

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The addition of the second interim analysis report has been deleted on the basis "Just repeating a press release". However the similar press released interim results are in the interim results Oxford/AstraZeneca AZD1222 article - "On 23 November 2020, Oxford University and AstraZeneca announced ...". Is a different standard being applied on this article? Can someone explain please. Rwendland (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggest you review the above talk topics #32-34, and article sections on Preliminary clinical research and Scientific assessment. The source of the news is the Russian organization that is funding and promoting vaccine development, which has produced international skepticism for absence of transparency and premature Russian approval, despite dubious clinical trial results. The overall design of clinical research remains dubious. The consensus on this talk page appears to favor waiting for publication of the trial results in a reputable journal. The Pfizer and Moderna interim results have not attracted the same skepticism, and have advanced into emergency use authorization applications in Europe, Canada, and the US, which collectively have scientific processes not evident in Russia. Zefr (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rwendland: just because a problem exists in another article, it doesn't mean that you are allowed to create the same problem here. I've cleaned up the AZD1222 article, removing any biomedical claims and a newspaper source. Your addition to this article clearly made biomedical claims, not supported by a WP:MEDRS source. You're running a clear risk of breaching the general sanctions applicable to this page. --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
TITLE
Question AZD1222 BNT162b2 (mRNA-1273) CoronaVac Gam-COVID-Vac
Phase 3 interim result currently in article
(before peer-review published)		 Yes Yes Yes Not
announced		 No
Headline interim result given 62% and 90% over 90% 94% efficacy - 91.4% (2nd interim analysis)
Quality of cites 2 MSM + Nature:"puzzling" 3 MSM + STAT:"early data" 2 MSM - PressRelease + Science::"early data, Charlotte Houldcroft comments"
Date first added to article 26 Nov 2020 9 Nov 2020 16 Nov 2020 - 25 Nov 2020
Number of revert removal attempts 3 0 0 - 1
Date continuously in article from 26 Nov 2020 9 Nov 2020 16 Nov 2020 - Not reinserted - taken to Talk
Any Talk discussion No No No No Yes

I've done a quick analysis of the main COVID-19 vaccine articles, tabulated on the right, as it is today. RexxS, your edits to AZD1222 left in the interim results from the press release "62% and 90% ... to arrive at a 70% figure", so it was not the removal of interim press released results as done to this article. As far as I as a non-expert can see, WP:MEDRS is being interpreted differently for the other three articles with press released interim results being given in those articles before peer-reviewed publication. These interim results are of such major significance in this exceptional COVID crisis accelerated-development I think they should be reported, with appropriate caveats. I think you may be overstating WP:MEDRS a bit, which does suggest early-stage results might be acceptable outside a Treatment section:

"results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the Treatment section on a disease ..."

We are currently in a research/trial phase, not Treatment discussion, and I think we should permit the interim results with caveats in the COVID crisis until they are replaced promptly following peer-reviewed publication. (though it is looking like the UK will even deploy BNT162b2 vaccine before peer-reviewed results are published.) Rwendland (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rwendland: I don't think you understand what "interim" means. The Gam-COVID-19 reports are interim because they are based on data from the first 4 weeks of a 26-week trial, along with "preliminary results" from the part of the cohort who have completed 6-weeks. That's what "interim" means. The BNT162b2 results are based on data from volunteers who have completed 26 weeks of a 26-week trial. They are clearly final results, not interim.
You're incorrect. As I stated, I removed all claims of efficacy from the AZD1222 article. I left the bare figures of 62%, 70% and 90% because they were not associated with any claim in the article, and help put into perspective the criticisms of the way the AZD1222 study was carried out. Feel free to suggest better wording.
I don't see how MEDRS is being interpreted differently. What biomedical claims sourced to primary studies are being made in the other three articles? Tell me and I'll fix it.
I disagree that we should be making exceptions to MEDRS for COVID-related articles. When a topic has huge public interest, it is even more important to get it right, and that is why COVID-related articles are under general sanctions, imposed by the community. Why don't you take the time to read the thread immediately above this one, 95% effective, and try to understand the limited extent to which we use primary sources? You write "reported with the vaccine posting an efficacy of 91.4% based on a primary source again, and I'll take steps to see you receive a topic ban from all COVID-19 articles. You won't have the defence that you were not warned.
The UK will deploy BNT162b2 vaccine following authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). This followed Pfizer's final results available to the MHRA from November 18. The head of the MHRA stated "We are globally recognised for requiring high standards of safety, quality and effectiveness for any vaccine. Our expert scientists and clinicians worked tirelessly, around the clock, carefully, scientifically, robustly and rigorously poring over hundreds of pages and tables of data, methodically reviewing the data." Please give up your sad attempts to smear the work of an internationally respected regulatory authority. They have the expertise to make judgements based on primary sources. Wikipedia editors do not, and we insist that we must wait for a good quality secondary source before adding a biomedical claim to our articles. --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Outdated, unscientific sourcing and WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article suffers from severely outdated WP:WEIGHT. Its Technology section is barely two paragraphs long, meaning the entire article has only only two small paragraphs explaining how the vaccine actually works, its associated research and technical details per se, how it was developed (the development section only talks about its registration and a few vague lines about trials.)

But then in the longer "public perception" there's mentions of public polls in Canada and the United States. A mention of Russian people's acceptability reads "only half of the Russian population would take the vaccine voluntarily", the source of which is CNN that says "Polls suggest around half of Russian citizens have doubts about the vaccine, the Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin said on Friday during a video conference with Putin. He added, however, that two months ago, the figure was almost 90%."

Why is the word "only" added then? What poll is this? Why isn't the 90% number also included? The wording "around half" could also mean, say 55%, which would be a majority, but in the article this is presented negatively. How much of this distrust is about Sputnik V and how much is it about COVID-19 vaccines in general? Or even vaccines all together as the pseudoscientific antivaxxer movement has shown?

See:

  • Just 30% of Brits say they would definitely get a coronavirus vaccine, with scientists blaming anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories and mistrust in government | Business Insider
  • Covid vaccine becomes divisive issue in US election campaign | Financial Times
  • "In the United States, a number of polls have shown that only around 50 per cent are committed to getting a coronavirus vaccine. This week, the country's leading public health expert Dr Anthony Fauci told CNN he believed that the US was "unlikely" to reach herd immunity as a result of this, inspired by the "general anti-science, anti-authority, anti-vaccine feeling". In Germany, a poll this week by YouGov found that only one in two Germans would definitely get vaccinated if there was a jab available, and one in five said they definitely would not. A protest was held in Ukraine on Friday over the potential for compulsory coronavirus vaccinations." [10]
  • Polls show that as the pandemic has continued, U.S. citizens have become less confident about the safety of a vaccine. Polling by YouGov in May found that around 55% of U.S. adults said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine. By the end of July that figure had dropped to 41% — well below the 60% to 70% public health experts think will be needed to achieve “herd immunity.” LATimes
  • Majority of Americans will wait to get Covid vaccine, poll shows. Six in 10 respondents in a new Axios/Ipsos poll said they would not take a vaccine as soon as it is available The Guardian

In the Scientific assesment section, half of it mentions how this development appears just as normal as any other COVID vaccine candidate, with all them having speedy trials, the United States even having its own program for this called Operation Warp Speed, yet the lede is mostly negative. Our own COVID-19 vaccine article has a section called Compressed timelines.

There's a dangerous rethoric by a few editors in casting doubt to anything Russian, this sentiment even extending to a lot of western media, this is a clear case of WP:Systemic bias, with a lot of editors arguing the country is known for its propaganda, this would be like arguing the US has a long history of unethical human experimentation and infecting its population via fake vaccines, this unscientific rethoric should be avoided per WP:FRNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want more content in the Technology section, find some good quality sources and write some content; see WP:SOFIXIT.
Why wouldn't a public perception section not include mentions of public polls in Canada and the United States? This is the English Wikipedia, after all.
Here's what the source, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/06/europe/russia-vaccine-putin-opposition-intl/ states:

Polls suggest around half of Russian citizens have doubts about the vaccine, the Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin said on Friday during a video conference with Putin. He added, however, that two months ago, the figure was almost 90%.

i understand that you don't like that, but it's a reliable source, and so the onus falls on you to explain how it can be summarised better. Do you want it attributed to Sergey Sobyanin? I don't think there's anything undue about reporting the criticism that this vaccine candidate has garnered.
The fact is that Gam-COVID-Vac is less than a third of the way through its phase 3 trials, and despite the promising interim results, it has been hyped up for seemingly political reasons according to many sources. It now is being rolled out for general use with far less testing completed than any Western country would accept for a vaccine. If you think that those facts are not relevant to this article, then I have to ask whether that doesn't give the impression of an editor attempting to present biased, pro-Russian propaganda? At least the editors criticising such an agenda have plenty of independent reliable sources to cite; something that you don't seem to be able to do. --RexxS (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Crimea marked as a "country that ordered millions of doses of Sputnik V"

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are there any sources on Ukraine ordering the vaccine? Even the FSB authored version of the article doesn't show this: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гам-КОВИД-Вак#/media/Файл:Sputnik_V_countries.png Dear darkness (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dear darkness:
Crimea isn't a country.
If you want to complain about File:Sputnik V countries.svg colouring Crimea as part of Russia, not Ukraine, take it up with the user who created the map. You are free to create your own map showing Crimea as part of Ukraine, not Russia, and upload that instead. But this page isn't a forum for hashing out the dispute about Crimea's status, and I consider that you're wp:disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Blanked

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Somebody deleted the entire section on the current vaccination program and the international distribution which was backed by multiple top reliable sources. WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to verifiable facts about non-medical aspects (see Biomedical v. general information), like countries buying X amount of doses or what the logistics of distribution are, etc. Loganmac (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Description of how vaccine works seems wrong

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The article states:

Gam-COVID-Vac is a viral two-vector vaccine based on the human adenovirus — a common cold virus — fused with the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate an immune response.[1]

However, according to the vaccine manufacturer's own site, the S-protein isn't fused with the adenovirus, or even present at all: only its genetic material (RNA) is present, and hopefully enters cells and then the cells actually manufacture the protein. In particular it says

  • Vector with a gene coding S protein of coronavirus gets into a cell
  • The body synthesizes S protein, in response, the production of immunity begins

Now this is a primary source, and mostly PR at that, so I'm not going to use it as a citation in the article (which currently usees Bloomberg — unlikely to be the most accurate medical source) since it's definitely not WP:MEDRS compliant, which is why I'm coming here to discuss it instead. Does anyone have a good source for this? I have decent sources about adenovirus-vector vaccines in general or some other specific COVID-19 ones, but that doesn't mean what they say necessarily applies to this particular vaccine. A specific source would be preferable.

LjL (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Coronavirus Vaccine Trials Advance in Race for Covid-19 Protection". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
@LjL: I'm pretty certain that a gene generally does not exist in isolation. From our Gene article, "a gene is a sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that encodes the synthesis of a gene product, either RNA or protein." From the description on the Sputnik V site, it appears that the gene in AD26 and AD5 responsible for replication is deactivated (removed) from its DNA, and a gene that codes for the desired S-protein is inserted (spliced/fused) into its DNA. Adenoviruses are non-enveloped, so you can't just inject a fragment of nucleotides into the virus and have it rattle around loose, so I'm also pretty certain that gene-splicing is the technique used. The modified adenovirus does indeed invade cells in our body and co-opts them into manufacturing its payload – but in this case, it is just the spike protein, and not a copy of the adenovirus. Eventually our body's immune system reacts to this, and destroys the infected cells within a few days, hopefully creating the relevant antibodies and T-cells in the process.
You're quite right that the vector does not carry the S-protein, but only a gene which will provide the blueprint for its manufacture in one of our own cells. I'll try to amend the wording in the article. --RexxS (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems this could be solved by simply adding the words "the gene for" in front of the part about the S-protein? Forgive me if I'm not completely understanding the issue here, but that seems to be the crux - ensuring the article is clear what the actual technology is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez: What's the saying about "thinking alike"? I think that the confusion arises from the pretty pictures found on https://sputnikvaccine.com/about-vaccine/ that seem to show the gene for the S-protein floating around loose inside AD26/AD5. --RexxS (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I believe it's that "great minds" think alike - though I definitely wouldn't consider myself one of those. I think it also needs edited in the technology section - I'll do it if you don't want to :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this. The way it's worded now seems fine, but maybe we should also get a secondary source that says something better than what Bloomberg says, or else someone may go on and "fix" this by going with what the source says...? I can probably ask some other people if they have a good source for this, although I'm not entirely clear whether WP:MEDRS need apply here (Bloomberg isn't very medical, is it?) or what an acceptable source would be. LjL (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the Bloomberg citation, and leaved the one from ClinicalTrials, that stated that the vectors contain the S gene. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine/Archive_2&oldid=1011855973"