Talk:ZyCoV-D

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)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I found [1] (primary) and [2]

Chandradeep Dey (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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.

References

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)

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)

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)

The sources used to support the statement in the ZyCoV-D article are not specialist medical sources as required by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). In the case of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine article, in the statement you quoted, source [44] was the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and [45] was a non-specialist source (The Guardian, a newspaper). There was another citation [46] at the end of the sentence, which was to the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (another specialist source).-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not try to find some specialist medical sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I repeat that WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) doesn't apply to this. The project page reads "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice." The statement that "ZyCoV-D is the first DNA vaccine" isn't likely to be taken as a medical advice. If we start demanding specialist medical sources to cite each and every sentence in vaccine pages, then all these articles will be filled with tags. I am now adding some more sources. Let this matter be closed now. Shinjoya (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Run n Fly and Toddy1:, Is this source ok : Everything you need to know about the world’s first DNA Covid-19 vaccine: Analysis by Darcy Jimenez?

@Run n Fly, I have already explained that the statement is relevant for the section as vaccine is based on DNA technology. By the way, I think we should wait for the vaccine to get the approval first and then only add this statement. Shinjoya (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Shinjoya, No its not a WP:MEDRS and vaccine is based on DNA technology is already said in {{Infobox drug}}. Please do not duplicate things. Run n Fly (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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.

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.

References

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)

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 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 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)

I looked at the first of your examples: Moderna COVID-19 vaccine#Efficacy, which is backed by citations to third-party specialist medical sources - which is precisely what Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) asks for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Toddy1, Thanks for the elaborate explanation. Its very important to comply with WP:MEDRS for WP:COVID-19 vaccines when making bio-medical claims. Also, press releases are unreliable medical source until backed by WP:MEDRS like peer-reviewed journals, DailyMed, WHO, EMA full report which are missing for ZyCoV-D since its under review and other quoted vaccines examples have published results in peer-reviewed journals.

World's first DNA COVID-19 vaccine is a WP:PROMOTIONAL statement here, which they have incorporated in their logo. Currently, there are many DNA COVID-19 vaccine candidates. ZyCoV-D has only submitted for Emergency Use Approval (EUA) in India. The statement does not fit to be 'Technology' section as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and written from WP:NPOV. I hope the editor has understand from your clear explanations and does not commit the same mistake. Run n Fly (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Run n Fly, As per this source, there were as many as 10 DNA vaccines as of Feb 2021 and ZyCoV-D was the front runner as it was already in plase III trials back then. As I said, there are no point in questioning the authenticity of news sources which state that ZyCoV-D is the first DNA vaccine. But we should still wait for vaccine's approval. Shinjoya (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)