Jump to content

Talk:ZyCoV-D

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shinjoya (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 10 July 2021 (→Possibly promotional statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Technology - mention the wikipedia page of jet injector

"The vaccine is administered Intradermally using a spring-powered device that delivers the shot as a narrow, precise stream of fluid penetrating the skin."

Mention the device by name and refer to its Wikipedia page Jet injector.

Chandradeep Dey (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found [1] (primary) and [2]
Chandradeep Dey (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chandradeep Dey, updated to The vaccine is administered intradermally using a spring-powered device commonly referred as jet injector that delivers the shot as a narrow, precise stream of fluid penetrating the skin Run n Fly (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Run n Fly (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly promotional statement

A user has tried to add the following:18:21, 9 July 202105:13, 10 July 2021

It became the world's first DNA vaccine against Covid 19.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Zydus' ZyCoV-D Is World's First Plasmid DNA COVID Vaccine: All You Need To Know". Indiatimes.com. 2 July 2021.
  2. ^ "What's Zydus Cadila's ZyCoV-D? All you must know about world's first plasmid DNA Covid vaccine". The Financial Times. 1 July 2021.

Both articles are based solely on what the company responsible for the vaccine says about the vaccine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) says: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies." The two newspapers are reliable, third-party, published secondary sources for news. But they are not expert in the medical field. So an unreliable medical source tag is warranted. In addition the citation details could be improved to show the authors and in the case of the second source, the correct newspaper:

  1. Abraham, Bobins (2 July 2021). "Zydus' ZyCoV-D Is World's First Plasmid DNA COVID Vaccine: All You Need To Know". Indiatimes.com.
  2. Saha, Shriparna (1 July 2021). "What's Zydus Cadila's ZyCoV-D? All you must know about world's first plasmid DNA Covid vaccine". The Financial Express (India).

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple RS reported ZyCoV-D to be the first ever DNA based vaccine against Covid in the world but none of the RS says otherwise. There have been so many Covid vaccines developed in the world and technologies involved in all the vaccines are in public domain. No other vaccine manufacturer has claimed that theirs is a DNA based vaccine. So, we have no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of this statement that ZyCoV-D is the first ever developed DNA vaccine against the Covid. Stating an undisputed fact can't be considered WP: PROMOTIONAL. Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine's lead reads: The vaccine is the first COVID‑19 vaccine to be authorized by a stringent regulatory authority for emergency use[44][45] and the first cleared for regular use. It is not considered promotional because its factual. Same way, ZyCoV-D being first ever DNA vaccine is a fact. I am removing the term "world" though. Shinjoya (talk)

Removal of unreliable medical source tag and misrepresentation of what a press release said

A user has tried to modify:05:30-38, 10 July 2021

  • On 1 July 2021, Cadila Healthcare reported the efficacy to be 66.6%, in its interim analysis of its phase 3 trial data.[1][unreliable medical source?]

to this:

  • On 1 July 2021, Cadila Healthcare reported the efficacy to be 66.6% against symptomatic Covid and 100% against moderate or severe disease in its interim analysis of its phase 3 trial data.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Zydus applies to the DCGI for EUA to launch ZyCoV-D, the world's first Plasmid DNA vaccine for COVID-19" (PDF). Cadila Healthcare (Press release). 1 July 2021. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
  2. ^ "Zydus applies to the DCGI for EUA to launch ZyCoV-D, the world's first Plasmid DNA vaccine for COVID-19" (PDF). Cadila Healthcare (Press release). 1 July 2021. Retrieved 1 July 2021.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) says: all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. Clearly a press release by the company responsible for the vaccine is not a third-party published secondary source, so either the tag needs to be restored or the statement supported by the source needs to be removed.

Regarding the change to the text, a Wikipedia says: "Cadila Healthcare reported the efficacy to be... 100% against moderate or severe disease", but the press release was far more guarded and said that: "no moderate case of COVID-19 disease was observed in the vaccine arm post administration of the third dose suggesting 100% efficacy for moderate disease. No severe cases or deaths due to COVID-19 occurred in the vaccine arm after administration of the second dose of the vaccine." So the change misrepresents what the press release said in a way that could be damaging to the company.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what your concern is. The company's report says that "no moderate case of disease has been found in the interim data and it suggests 100% efficacy against moderate or severe disease". This means nothing but 100% efficacy against moderate disease as per company's report. I just elaborated the company's report. Objection to my addtition is simply undue.
As far as my removal of [unreliable medical source?] tag is concerned, the tag isn't valid here. It could have been valid had Wikipidea read: "The vaccine has a 66% efficacy against covid". But thats not the case here. Our version clearly mentions in the beginning of the sentence that "As per company's report..."
Now lets see what other Wikipedia articles on different vaccines read:
1. Moderna COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy section reads: Evidence of vaccine efficacy starts about two weeks after the first dose.[20] High efficacy is achieved with full immunization, two weeks after the second dose, and was evaluated at 94.1%: at the end of the vaccine study that led to emergency authorization in the US
2. Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine's lead reads: An interim analysis of study data showed a potential efficacy of 91.3% in preventing symptomatic infection within seven days of a second dose.[34][39]
3. Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine's lead reads : On 29 January 2021, Janssen announced that 28 days after a completed vaccination, the vaccine was 66% effective in a one-dose regimen in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, with an 85% efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19,[27][28][29] and 100% efficacy in preventing hospitalization or death caused by the disease.[1]
In none of the three articles, we see [unreliable medical source?] tag being used. Then why are you insisting on its usage in ZyCoV-D? We can't have two different policies for articles of the same subject. Shinjoya (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZyCoV-D&oldid=1032889814"