Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

Can the vaccine trigger a false-positive rapid antigen test result?

Rapid antigen tests look for viral proteins, presumably including the spike protein. The Pfizer vaccine induces the (non-viral) production of the spike protein. Therefore it seems possible that vaccination would lead to false positive Covid diagnoses. The article needs to comment on this issue.Paulhummerman (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

With very few exceptions, the antigen tests all target the nucleocapsid protein. There is no risk of vaccine-related false positives. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

How many lipid nanoparticles are in one dose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.191.31 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Missing further/later development section

The article lacks further/later development section that would describe if this vaccine is effective against virus variants; such section is present in AstraZeneca and Moderna articles.--83.29.95.158 (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point and I've updated the article with some stats on the vaccine's efficacy versus various strains. Cheers! Goodposts (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian deaths

The article should say something about what happened in Norwey https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1372 --190.19.38.36 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Any informations about Taiwan purchases available?

I heard from TSMC that they have approved to buy BioNTech vaccines together with Terry Gou, are there any details available that can let us write so in the article? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan will not accept vaccine which is manufactured under the control of the Chinese communist party. Mainland china will not allow vaccine unless it is manufactured under the control of the Chinese communist party. So Pfizer–BioNTech is forced to choose between a deal with Mainland china or a deal with Taiwan. This is the usual attempt by the CCP to sabotage the independence of Taiwan regardless of the human cost. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs: See press release Fosun Pharma Announces the Supply of 10 Million Doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 Vaccine to Taiwan Region, this looks real. --117.136.1.147 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved; consensus is that the article titles policy should take precedence over the manual of style on medicine-related articles.

• Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine → Tozinameran @ Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine#Requested move 3 July 2021
• Moderna COVID-19 vaccine → Elasomeran @ Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine#Requested move 3 July 2021

These two requested moves pose the same question — whether the title of COVID-19 vaccine articles should be the international nonproprietary name (INN) (per the article titles section (MEDTITLE) of the manual of style on medicine-related articles) or the name of the company (or companies) which developed the vaccine concatenated with "COVID-19 vaccine" (which has been argued to be in accordance with the commonly recognisable names section (COMMONNAME) of the article titles policy). Both articles' title is currently the latter. The arguments made in each discussion were also very similar. Therefore, I am closing these discussions as one discussion.

There was not much question on what the manual of style or the article titles policy recommend — in this case, the INN or the company-name concatenation, respectively. Rather, much of the discussion was on which of these takes precedence. While the article titles policy is a policy and the manual of style is a guideline, the manual of style on medicine-related articles is much more specific (and there is no policy giving explicit advice on medical titles). Some opinions were that the manual of style takes precedence due to its specificity. Opposing opinions were varied; some argued that the INNs were not widely used enough in reliable medical sources; others made the point that the company-name concatenations were the common names in (non-medical) reliable sources by a large margin.

While medical guidelines are often stronger than other subject-specific guidelines because it is crucial that Wikipedia provides reliable information in this area (like those for biographies of living people), policies still override guidelines. In this case, the consensus appears to be that the article titles policy is stronger than the manual of style on medicine-related articles, so the company-name concatenations should be used instead of the INNs, and the pages should be not moved.

— (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol | talk | contribs 22:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine → Tozinameran – I am aware of the heated discussion from 7 months ago above. Now it's time, I think, to restore compliance with WP:MED guidelines. I propose to move the article to the drug's international nonproprietary name in accordance with WP:MEDTITLE that governs the naming of Wikipedia articles about drugs. I find no convincing reason why this particular drug, however popular in 2021 (temporarily I hope, and still way less popular than many OTC drugs), should be an exception. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. It makes perfect sense to me, but WP:MEDTITLE says it should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources and recommends the INN where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English. I think the scientific name I've seen most commonly in recent, high-qualty medical sources (published scientific articles) is BNT162b2. The WHO is using Pfizer – BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine against Covid-19. The CDC uses Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. NHS uses Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. These sources are mentioned in WP:MEDORG. The EMA uses the trade name Comirnaty. Looking in core journals, it appears that NEJM, JAMA and the Lancet are using BNT162b2, while the BMJ is using Pfizer-BioNTech and sometimes just Pfizer vaccine. The media in general sometimes uses "Pfizer-BioNTech" and sometimes just "Pfizer". --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  BNT162b2 is the development codename. Normally such codenames are used during molecule development and are used until the company applies for and receives an INN. In this instance, a lot of literature will perhaps reflect the underlying data collected under the codename, and also, from my experience, people rarely bother to update existing datasets and publications. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I know. The various names can be grouped into two categories: technical names (BNT162b2, Tozinameran) and popular/press/brand names (Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, Pfizer vaccine, Comirnaty). The latter is widely known to the public and is strongly related to marketing, the former is not very well known and more neutral (not for marketing) and is what WP:MEDTITLE recommends. This article contains information related to marketing, but it is primarily about medical content. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ftrebien, Not precisely, sorry. Every single molecule under development has to be referred to somehow, and so companies routinely use codenames, composed of the manufacturer's prefix and a number. Then, after the molecule appears stable and is to become a drug candidate – sometime around phase 2 trials – the manufacturer is required to request the WHO to assign it an international nonproprietary name. Further pharmacology data are normally reported for the INN. A brand name can be used only after regulatory approval (marketing authorisation), and, strictly speaking, for the final pharmaceutical product, not for the molecule per se.

  So, we had BNT162b2 for the proprietary mRNA-nanolipid complex, which later received an official "chemical" designation tozinameran, while the final vaccine product is packaged and sold under the brand name Comirnaty®. For simplicity, popular media (but not academic publications) tend to refer to it simply as "the Pfizer vaccine".

  However, we had long had a consensus on Wikipedia that we should use international nonproprietary names as primary terms wherever possible. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I see. Alright. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I would suggest Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine → BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. In China, Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan, the vaccine is known as Fosun–BioNTech. In the rest of the World, it is known as Pfizer–BioNTech. Therefore in order to avoid confusion and discrepancies, I would suggest renaming it just BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. OSSYULYYZ (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Calidum 18:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  Calidum, how is this position consistent with WP:MEDTITLE? Please elaborate on that. If you see a reason to change MEDTITLE to bring it into line with COMMONNAME, then that should be raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. But for now, the guideline stands. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  There is no benefit of the proposed move, other than blind adherence to a rule. That being the case, we can ignore it. If the name is good enough for the World Health Organization, it should be good enough for us [1] -- Calidum 13:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. I agrees that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is still the most commonly recognisable vaccine name and if the page needs to be move, the article must be renamed alternatively as Comirnaty, which is the official vaccine brand name according to EMA, WHO, and other sources. A vaccine can have a single official brand name like CoronaVac, Sputnik V, etc but others are not like Astrazeneca, which has been called under different names depend of country of origin. 180.243.211.196 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  We NEVER use brand names if INN names exist (there is only one exception to-date that I'm aware of, for a very strong reason). — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an exception to the naming of other vaccines - the Moderna, Janssen, and Pfizer vaccines are not referred to by either their brand names or INNs in the US and in most of the English speaking world. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is a medicine-related article, so its title must follow the conventions of medicine-related articles (WP:MEDTITLE), which take precedence over the generic convention of commonly recognized (popular) name (WP:COMMONNAME). Doing the opposite would require a discussion of WP:MEDTITLE rules first, with huge implications for thousands of other articles. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: WP:MEDTITLE takes priority over WP:COMMONNAME. That's why we have Methylphenidate, not "Ritalin"; Hydrocodone/paracetamol, not "Vicodin", and Atorvastatin, not "Lipitor". To put it simply, articles are primarily about chemical compounds used in therapy; less about pharmaceutical products. Hence the WP:MEDTITLE guideline. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That is not case for this one. Are you a participant of the page move of this page previously on December 28, 2020? I believe is not. It was an argument that many users oppose. In addition, Tozinameran is an obscure generic name rarely used even in medical or high-quality sources itself. 180.243.211.196 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Kashmiri, yet we have Adderall, named for the brand name for reader usability, as that's the most easily recognized name and much better than the name. Nothing must happen on WP - we follow rules/guidelines because they in most cases benefit the readers and the articles the most - not because they are rules/guidelines. If a rule/guideline is not in line with what will help the encyclopedia/readers the most, we either ignore it or we use common sense and update the rule/guideline to have exceptions where they are due. Methylphenidate, HC/APAP, etc. are not good examples because they have many different brand names around the world - whereas these vaccines may "have" brand names, but the brand names and the INNs aren't listed anywhere when people are discussing them. This is another exception similar to adderall where the best thing for the encyclopedia is to keep the most commonly recognized name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The usage of Tozinameran is rare by medical source itself. Even AZD1222 is rarely used when referred to AstraZeneca vaccine. 116.206.35.12 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  No wonder, because AZD1222 is not an INN for that vaccine. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support: WP:MEDTITLE, as a topic-specific naming guideline, takes precedence over WP:COMMONNAME, which is a catch-all guideline. Drive-by comments from editors who don't understand the guidelines should be discounted. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: For clarity, in case some did not bother to click through, WP:MEDTITLE stypulates: The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name). — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, you’ve made your point. Please kindly stop bludgeoning the discussion. -- Calidum 22:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Haven't you made your point, too? — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

​Calidum, when participants make arguments that seem to ignore the guidelines, it's helpful to remind them that those guidelines exist. We can come to various conclusions regarding the application of the relevant guideline—in this case, WP:MEDTITLE—but to completely ignore the guideline's existence is something else entirely. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• oppose per WP:COMMONNAME--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Tartan357 explaination and any opposers comment should be disregarded. I also nominating the page move of Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to AZD1222 or Vaxzevira, which you can visit the vaccine talk page. 182.1.26.107 (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's not that any opposers comment should be disregarded. It's that any vote that does not address WP:MEDTITLE should be disregarded. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:MEDTITLE. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Berchanhimez. Zoozaz1 talk 03:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:COMMONNAME.Run n Fly (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Run n Fly, why should we violate WP:MEDTITLE? It's maddening that we have a guideline governing the names of drugs, yet so many are just ignoring it in their !votes. The only valid !votes should be the ones that actually address WP:MEDTITLE. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tartan357, Vaccines usually aren't generic drugs (each manufacturer's version is unique though biologically same product and are generally non-interchangeable) for example Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has two versions. (1) AstraZenca manufactured - Vaxzevria (2) Serum Institute of India manufactured - Covishield. But it is popularly known as Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine worldwide. So, they should usually be named as per WP:COMMONNAME and thus takes precedence over WP:MEDTITLE Run n Fly (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Run n Fly, MEDTITLE does specifically address vaccine names: Most biologics, including vaccines, do not have INN or other generic names, so the brand name is used instead. I see no reason why the guideline should not apply to this vaccine. As for which guideline takes precedence, it must be the topic-specific one. The other way around makes absolutely no sense. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tartan357, It says Most biologics, including vaccines, do not have INN or other generic names. Currently, only two approved vaccines [Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna] have been allocated INN names out 20+ vaccines worldwide. Thus, for WP:CONSISTENT, WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence. Run n Fly (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Tartan357: According to WP:MOSAT, which specifically mentions conventions for medicine: This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names. Are you sure that in this case changing the name produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names? Does this section of WP:AT not apply here for some reason clear to those involved in the WikiProject? Not arguing against the move, just genuinely asking the question. There are so many editors just ignoring WP:MEDTITLE that I'm questioning whether it's clear that it takes precedence over WP:COMMONNAME. —El Millo (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn, Soupvector, Gtoffoletto, Doc James, and Shibbolethink: for help Run n Fly (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The common name for this drug is "COVID vaccine". Between 100 - 500 million people in the world could easily talk about this drug by that name. I guess that there are about 1000 people in the world who routinely use the term "Tozinameran", but even those people would probably just call it the COVID vaccine most of the time. When anyone needs to distinguish vaccines, the current common practice is to name the corporate affiliation. Wikipedia is unusual for having information about all the vaccines, and of course we cannot name them all "COVID vaccine" because we among all media sources are in the unique position of having to name and describe them all together. What we do here is going to be unlike any other media source because we have different needs. Our priority is to be understandable, and adopting the made-up international unbranded name for drugs commonly known by other names does not advance that goal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per wp:commonname—blindlynx (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per User:Ftrebien. Tozinameran isn't well established even among WP:MEDRS sources. Maybe it is just "too soon". I would follow WP:COMMONNAME for now and reevaluate in some time. At the moment most readers would just be confused. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Agreed with User:Gtoffoletto in that it's "too soon." Pfizer's own site returns no results for "tozinameran" in a G-search. The explanation for that name elsewhere is that it's an attempted rebrand, but is still not included on patient information leaflets. -- AtomCrusher 16:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment, per WP:COMMONNAME. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME Abrilando232 (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose In cases like this, where one term is blatantly more colloquial than the other, WP:COMMONNAME should take precedence over WP:MEDTITLE. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per very clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, for multiple reasons. The most obvious are per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. For now, WP:MEDTITLE also supports opposition to the proposed name change: few biomedical sources use "Tozinameran", perhaps because it's too soon, or because it's an essentially meaningless, inscrutable appellation that scientists, health care workers, policy makers, and the general public may struggle to pronounce, much less remember. In contrast, many publications in widely-read biomedical journals use either "BNT162b2" or "Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine" or some close variation. For example, see the following report published last month in The New England Journal of Medicine, whose text alternates between using "BNT162b2" and "the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine". Yet another paper, published in the same journal just this week, doesn't even bother with "BNT162b2" and instead exclusively uses "Pfizer/BioNTech" and "Moderna" to refer to two approved mRNA-based vaccines developed by their respective companies. Furthermore, a quick search of NEJM and JAMA reveals that not a single paper published in those two widely-read journals uses "Tozinameran." A similar search of Nature Medicine turned up just a single paper using that appellation. Changing the title of this article to "Tozinameran" does not make sense, at least at this time.

It's probably worth mentioning that at some point it may well be necessary to change the name. Pfizer/BioNTech and a number of other vaccine makers are developing new versions of their vaccines (for example, to address immunoevasive variants). It's possible that some time over the next year there will no longer be a single "Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine" but rather more than one. This will require more precise, differentiated appelations. However, we should probably not cross that bridge until we get to it. Biblib (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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.

Adverse Effects source needs update

The Herper (2020) source is written at a time when Phase III was still ongoing, and it announces optimism that things are going well in the trials, which is a sign that maybe by now (July 2021) we have other sources that use more firmly language based on more conclusive studies on adverse effects. Forich (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

News report 64% effective against delta/delta+ citing israeli research

The news articles such as:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/07/06/pfizer-shot-much-less-effective-against-delta-israel-study-shows---heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-variants-and-vaccines/

Seems to just quote each other.. Was anyone able to find the actual research or should we log this as misinformation? --Kreyren (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've found CDC article citing 64% in inviduals that only got one jab https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7018e1.htm maybe the news got that wrong? --Kreyren (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The CDC article is for effectiveness of one dose against hospitalization in people aged 65 and older from January to March 2021. I believe the lowered figure (from 78%) is mostly due to the age of the participants. We need to read the early research mentioned by Forbes to know exactly what 64% refers to. The Forbes article says it is 64% effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19, but then it links to an article that says (I'm using a machine translator) that the effectiveness of the vaccine against corona infection dropped to only 64%. Effectiveness against infection usually refers to asymptomatic infection. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think 64% really refers to (asymptomatic) infection. This would replace the 79% value we currently have from a study in Scotland. However, the current study is, at least for now, a better source of this information, since news articles are not medical sources. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

More details in the NYT article. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

So I think it's better to wait for data from more controlled studies. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Research highlights the increased risk of fatal myocarditis from inadvertent intravenous administration highlighting the importance of aspiration

See https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.29.450356v1.abstract?%3Fcollection= the working theory as i understood it being that intravenous administration causes the mRNA particles to spread all over the body causing an immune-response in sensitive areas such as heart to produce an unidentified liquid (puss?) resulting in fatal myocarditis/pericarditis by making the heart unable to pump blood in a healthy person without any pre-existing condition instead of those being contained in the muscle such as the case of fatal 13yo who died 3 days after receiving the 2nd vaccine jab highlighted in https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15498682/teen-dies-days-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-michigan/ and summarized by Mike Hanssen, MD in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3EBnIsDqao. --Kreyren (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The bioRxiv preprint article you mention is an interesting proposal of a mechanism by which accidental intravenous (instead of intended intramuscular) vaccine injection could lead to adverse effects. Note however that this paper focuses on the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine (based on adenovirus technology) as opposed to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (based on mRNA). The paper also focuses on the specific adverse event of TTS, not myocarditis or pericarditis. In the future it may be interesting to ask whether inadvertent intravenous injection of BNT162b2 (the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine) might also be associated with adverse events. Biblib (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

References

COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease

A study alerts of neurological diseases.

https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf

Please add

"Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans."

88.8.63.78 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Do not propagate misinformation.
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check-no-evidence-that-pfizers-covi-idUSL1N2MZ382
See WP:RGW. Melmann 15:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

Please add

"The spike protein generated endogenously by the vaccine could also negatively impact the male testes, as the ACE2 receptor is highly expressed in Leydig cells in the testes (Verma et al., 2020)."

source: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23/51 88.8.63.78 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This source does not appear reliable, as it is a predatory publisher. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Further misinformation. Authors are a 'computer scientist' and 'naturopathic oncologist' (not a medical scientist and not a medical doctor, but a charlatan engaging in pseudoscience). Survey of available evidence dated after the linked 'paper' asserts no evidence in support of the thesis.Melmann 15:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

that's an authority argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#:~:text=An%20argument%20from%20authority%20(argumentum,evidence%20to%20support%20an%20argument.

Please tell why this paper is wrong with a reliable source

By the way, the "factchecker" says "VERDICT No evidence. As of this article’s publication, there is no evidence the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines affect men’s sperm."

The statement is about testes, not sperm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.63.78 (talk)

IP, what you are recommending is called original research, as it makes claims that are not supported by reliable secondary medical sources. We cannot add information that may mislead our readers, especially when it comes to matters of health.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Magnetism

The section on magnetism is not specific to the Pfizer vaccine and includes many other vaccine manufacturers. The magnetism claims are already in the Wikipedia page on Covid misinformation.

The magnetism content should be included on all vaccine brands, or it should be removed from the this Pfizer page (the better option). YeshuaAdoni (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

YeshuaAdoni, why? That's not how WP:DUE works. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Why have this information here? I don't see this info on Moderna or any other Wikipedia page on Covid vaccines. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

YeshuaAdoni, If there are sources which discuss it, then we should add it in those articles as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have added the magnetism passage to the J&J and Moderna vaccines, so now it is at the 3 most implicated vaccine articles. I have also added MEDRS compliant sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Problematic wording in the first sentences of the LEAD?

This was the line in the top paragraph:

The German company BioNTech is the developer of the vaccine, and partnered for support with clinical trials, logistics and manufacturing with American company Pfizer[18][19] as well as Chinese company Fosun in China, Hong Kong, and Macau.[20][21][22]

Below was what the article said after that, which is a true statement:

BioNTech, a German company, developed the vaccine and collaborated with Pfizer, an American company, for support with clinical trials, logistics, and manufacturing. In China, BioNTech is partnered with China-based Fosun Pharma for development, marketing, and distribution rights and the vaccine is colloquially described as the Fosun–BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

Then, it was changed into below, and references to China partnership etc. are removed:

For its development BioNTech collaborated with Pfizer, an American company, for support with clinical trials, logistics, and manufacturing.

To basically give the subliminal message that BionTech vaccine itself was developed with Pfizer help, while it is clearly not the case, and that Pfizer collaborated in clinical testing, manufacturing and distribution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.174.176 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"clinical testing, manufacturing" is typically what is meant by "development" in the pharmaceutical industry, so the latest wording makes sense to me. See Drug development particularly the sections on "pre-clinical" and "clinical development". The overall phases of the industry are: Research → Development → Distribution → Marketing.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Did they test >30mcg doses and >21 days already in year 2020? What were the results?

I know Pfizer tested larger doses than 30mcg in year 2020.

What were the results? More antibodies after 2 doses? Which could mean better efficacy.

Did they also test longer intervals than 21 days?

Why Moderna decided on 100mcg and 28 days?

--ee1518 (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Article name

Per Wikipedia police should not this article now be renamed to "tozinameran"? Policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide#Article_name David G (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)