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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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 (primary) and


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


 * Thank you Chandradeep Dey (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ 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.

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)

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: -- 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 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)
 * , 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)
 * , No its not a WP:MEDRS and vaccine is based on DNA technology is already said in . 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 to this:
 * On 1 July 2021, Cadila Healthcare reported the efficacy to be 66.6%, in its interim analysis of its phase 3 trial data.
 * 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.

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, which is backed by citations to third-party specialist medical sources - which is precisely what Identifying reliable sources (medicine) asks for. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * @, 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)
 * @, 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)

Issues with revert

 * Please point me to the "norms" that allow you to violate WP:NOTNEWS. The precise time when a company thought their interim trial data to be available, is non-encyclopedic.  It might have become significant if something extraordinary happened (for example, large delay or way too rapid) and media covered it extensively. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And, The plasmids here are coded with the instructions to make the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Vaccination gives the code to cells in the recipient’s body, that begin making the spike protein of the virus. Seriously, is this encyclopedic language? Your audience are 16 year old high school kids? Not even mentioning that a news-daily is not WP:MEDRS. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * please help regarding wp:disrupt editing. Run n Fly (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging more editors for a third point of view . The user is engaged in mass removal of contents leading. Run n Fly (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * you seem to edit ignoring notices at the end of paragraph that says . The WP:RS is temporary till the peer-review WP:MEDRS is available which is allowed in vaccines. Here WP:MEDRS is applicable for making bio-medical claims only. Run n Fly (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop canvassing users. How a vaccine works is a biomedical claim. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , That's why its tagged with which will be replaced and with a notice Do not remove until WP:MEDRS is available at the end of Technology section Run n Fly (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How do we help a reader by imparting dubious information drafted with childish (and technically, wrong) language?
 * We use MEDRS to not bother with poor medical journalism in mainstream press. You need to show how excepting the policy, even if temporarily, is a net positive move. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

what's the "dubious information" at the explanation of the workings of the vaccin? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , We are following the same pattern for all vaccine. There is no "dubious info". It may that one person is unable to understand. That does not mean everyone is unable to understand. What is your say? Run n Fly (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems helpfull/relevant to me. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Then it should be kept. So, I would request to restore it. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This needs a long note, sourced from MEDRS. I am also interested to know that are following the same pattern for all vaccine. A few examples will be helpful. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See Covaxin says As an inactivated vaccine, Covaxin uses a more traditional technology that is similar to the inactivated polio vaccine. Initially, a sample of SARS-CoV-2 was isolated by India's National Institute of Virology and used to grow large quantities of the virus using vero cells. From then on, the viruses are soaked in beta-propiolactone, which deactivates them by binding to their genes, while leaving other viral particles intact. The resulting inactivated viruses are then mixed with the aluminium-based adjuvant Alhydroxiquim-II please note that the NIH reference is for adjuvant only
 * See EpiVacCorona that says In the vaccine all peptides are conjugated to a carrier protein, which is an expression product of the chimeric gene. This chimeric gene was created by fusion of two genes originating from different organisms, namely a gene encoding a viral nucleocapsid protein and a gene encoding a bacterial maltose-binding protein (MBP).The fusion chimeric gene expressed in Escherichia coli. The sequence of the chimeric protein is available from the patent. The genetic construct of the chimeric gene also includes a short genetic fragment encoding a polyhistidine-tag, which is used to purify the chimeric protein from E. coli lysate. After the purification, the protein is conjugated with three peptides in a way that only one variant of the peptide molecule is attached to each protein molecule. As a result, three types of conjugated molecules are created: chimeric protein with attached peptide number 1, the same protein with peptide number 2, and finally the same protein with peptide number 3. All three types of conjugated molecules are included in the vaccine.
 * Its very unfortunate that a editor who is not involved in WP:COVID-19 project is making major changes without following the norms.
 * I would again request to restore the "Technology" section. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have edited in Covid-19 areas. So, stop with this passive-aggressive posturing about norms, project etc. USer:ToBeFree might like to take note.
 * It is interesting that you found only two (of the hundred and one articles about vaccines, we have) and even then, half of one's text is tagged with citation needed. Still, they are drafted in an encyclopedic language without wanting to come off as pop-science books written to interest grade-fivers. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you want to find more visit individual vaccine pages at COVID-19 vaccine. You will surely find many. I have listed only a selected so that we do not deviate from the subject under discussion. Run n Fly (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you found only two (of the hundred and one articles about vaccines, we have) and even then, half of one's text is tagged with citation needed. Still, they are drafted in an encyclopedic language without wanting to come off as pop-science books written to interest grade-fivers. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you want to find more visit individual vaccine pages at COVID-19 vaccine. You will surely find many. I have listed only a selected so that we do not deviate from the subject under discussion. Run n Fly (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The info in question:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As suggested in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, consider improving before removing.

Per WP:MEDSECTIONS, information about administration goes into Medical use, not Authorizations. If the section is missing, just create it.

This is surely not irrelevant. It may be slightly inaccurate, as the source is not a medical source, but it is in WP:RSP. If we have nothing better, that's initially ok, as is the case of the technology descriptions of many other COVID-19 vaccines. If the text seems oversimplified, then use your knowledge and improve it. Maybe simply linking to DNA vaccine allows a more succinct description of the mechanism. Per WP:MTAU, the text should be accessible to the general reader near the top and can get technical further in.

This source is actually not in WP:RSP, a better source is needed. It is not irrelevant since articles such as Oxford–AstraZeneca and Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines are filled with a history of announcements. But this is not describing a trial nor reporting trial results. So, if a better source is provided, I think this information should go under History per WP:MEDSECTIONS, but not under the Clinical trials subsection.

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Very informative and clear explanation. Can you go forward and make the necessary changes per WP:BOLD and improve the article? Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not going to make the change because of WP:3RR warning at my talk-page Run n Fly (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD specifically refers to the "BRD" cycle, which has long been exceeded. "Being bold" has already happened, and now a discussion exists. Continuing to "make the necessary changes" at this point wouldn't be "bold", it would be edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Okay, hope the discussion reaches to a conclusion soon. Run n Fly (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" is about article deletions, not article content removal, and it's just an essay. You mean WP:PRESERVE, part of the editing policy. At the moment, WP:ONUS justifies keeping the material out of the article until a consensus is reached here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:AADD is also about content removal, but WP:PRESERVE applies as well. We have two opinions for preserving and one against. I think trying to edit too soon will make warring worse, so it's better to stay cool and wait a bit. I'll do that when the discussion stabilizes. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fernando Trebien I agree mostly.
 * I have never said that the vaccine-mechanism is irrelevant or it does not belong at the article. I have said that the language is too simplistic (to the point of being inadvertently dubious) and comes off as pop-science books written to interest grade-fivers. I will re-draft the section.
 * Thanks for the pointer to WP:MEDSECTIONS. The information is shifted to a new section along with an accompanying foot-note.
 * I still disagree that all these routine announcement matters. (WP:OSE) But, I am willing to drop the ball on this locus if others feel this to be vital information.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice. Regarding the announcements, I think the situation of the pandemic is special. I can foresee this information being removed in the future (also for "major" vaccines such as the ones I mentioned), but it seems somewhat relevant in the present. If it is moved into the History section, then the reader can easily decide whether they want to skip the section altogether. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's a better source. Article in medical journal Vaccine. It's still not MEDRS because it's primary, but it is written by experts rather than lay people. From the sounds of it, the vaccine developers wrote this paper. Up to you guys if you want to use it or not, I have no opinion yet. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree, we shouldn't have press releases and primary sources written by the company itself as sole sources in this article. I'm not sure if I want to mess with it, as I can't find any other good sources. If Businesswire press releases are not WP:RS for other Wikipedia articles, then they shouldn't be acceptable for COVID19 vaccines, no?--FeralOink (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't, but if we don't, then there is no other source. When information is scarce but needed, I think it's more about how it's reported. I just checked the articles about the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the Novavax vaccine and they have 16, 23 and 7 references to the companies' websites, respectively. Except for Novavax, most of them could be replaced by secondary sources, but sometimes it doesn't make much sense, for example when you're narrating the history and mentioning a date when the company announced something important. In this case, not only is the primary source the most reliable source, but secondary sources can just echo what the company has said and sometimes express opinions about it. Most of the content of the COVID-19 vaccine article also depends on primary sources. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this opinion —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2021
Please add this peer-review publication of phase-II results at last paragraph of "Phase I and II trials". 42.106.203.255 (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Request active editor 42.106.201.207 (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2021
ZyCoV-D has received authorization from Drugs Controller General of India. . Please update. 1.186.77.18 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, change




 * Request last active editor . Thank you. 42.106.201.83 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Joshua Issac. 42.106.201.83 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please change


 * as it has been updated in the sidebar. Thank you.42.106.201.83 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Thanks everyone for the help. 42.106.201.83 (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2022
Under Phase III trials sub-section, please replace with as the WP:MEDRS in the end paragraph. Thank you. 45.64.208.9 (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lemonaka (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong date "6th august 2021"
Wrong date "6th august 2021" should be changed to "6th august 2020"(regarding fase II) 80.208.65.77 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)