| Revision as of 13:09, 17 March 2021 editBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,166 edits →Astrazeneca Propaganda: untrue← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:42, 30 May 2024 edit undo2400:1a00:baa0:cce4:6826:3adf:1705:98ff (talk)No edit summaryTags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
| (293 intermediate revisions by 89 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk page header}} |
|
{{Talk page header}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject COVID-19 |class=C |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject COVID-19 |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
{{Gs/talk notice|covid}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|covid}} |
|
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
== Data behind the vaccine == |
|
|
|
| age=720 |
|
|
|
|
|
| archiveprefix=Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine/Archive |
|
https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/ |
|
|
|
| numberstart=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| maxarchsize=75000 |
|
Where to add this? ] (]) 07:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
:It's not ] so not really useful for anything biomedical; maybe useful for something on the (mis)handling of the various announcements, but possibly at ] rather than here. ] (]) 11:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| minkeepthreads=5 |
|
::I don't think the causes for ] apply here. It is the very evidence quality, which is assessed. The author is ], integrally associated with Cochrane. ] (]) 15:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| minarchthreads=2 |
|
:::Yes, we need something rather better than an article in ''Wired'' for an assessment of evidence quality, especially in this subject area where sanctions are in effect. ] (]) 16:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| format= %%i |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Article title == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should we rename this one Covishield? ,] (]) 10:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:As of now, I oppose moving this article to "Covishield". From what I could gather, that name recently started to be referenced by Media in India (See <ref>{{cite news |title=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sii-s-covishield-approval-efficacy-cost-and-all-about-astrazeneca-s-covid-19-vaccine/story-2XrMT3hOEfuMhDOi4GViOK.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/covid-both-vaccines-get-final-nod-first-shots-to-be-of-covishield/articleshow/80088350.cms}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/drug-controller-general-approves-covishield-and-covaxin-in-india-for-emergency-use/article33485539.ece}}</ref>). If someone can find any source be the ] and/or ] with that name, please let me know, as I can't find any yet. Anyway, even if "Covishield" comes to be the commercial name of this vaccine, the page should be moved to have the name of the pharmaceutical name of the substance (See: (])), not the commercial name (See: ] for "Sputnik V" and ] for "Comirnaty"). ] (]) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist hide}} |
|
|
*No, per ]. ] (]) 03:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Too soon to move this page? New discussion on 05 January 2021 == |
|
|
There has been some traction (mainly in ]n media, from what I could find<ref>{{cite news |title=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/covid-both-vaccines-get-final-nod-first-shots-to-be-of-covishield/articleshow/80088350.cms}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/drug-controller-general-approves-covishield-and-covaxin-in-india-for-emergency-use/article33485539.ece}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sii-s-covishield-approval-efficacy-cost-and-all-about-astrazeneca-s-covid-19-vaccine/story-2XrMT3hOEfuMhDOi4GViOK.html}}</ref>) to start calling this vaccine by the name "'''Covishield'''". Even yesterday I opposed the adoption of that name, defending that the page should only be moved once the pharmaceutical name of the vaccine's active component(s) is established. I was now scrolling through AstraZeneca's press releases and I found this press release <ref>{{cite news |title=AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine authorised for emergency supply in the UK |url=https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-authorised-in-uk.html |access-date=5 January 2021 |publisher=AstraZeneca |date=30 December 2020 |quote=The UK has provided authorisation for emergency supply of '''''COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca'', formerly AZD1222''', for the active immunisation of individuals 18 years or older.}}</ref>; according to it, they themselves refer to their own vaccine by the name "'''''COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca'', formerly AZD1222'''". I can't find yet the ] for this vaccine, so I suppose it is not yet established/public. I propose that, before we move the page to any of the commercial names, we wait at least a few weeks for new developments, especially regarding the INN and/or the substance's official name. ] (]) 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist hide}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Half-first-dose issue == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering what happened with the issue of whether a first half-dose is better than a full first dose or not. I found the following that claims that the 90-percent efficacy rate for the first half-dose did not hold up under further analysis—the higher success rate may have been due to a longer gap between the two doses. ] (]) 13:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Would need ] (and then there's the question of what "better" means; better for an individual, or better for society?) ] (]) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-01-23T00:07:01.203291 | AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine (cropped).jpg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 00:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 95% effectiveness, if the 2 shots are separated by 3 months? == |
|
|
|
|
|
"2 min read. Updated: 29 Dec 2020, 07:23 AM IST |
|
|
|
|
|
Title: Efficacy of Oxford jabs at 95% if given 3 months apart: SII. |
|
|
|
|
|
AstraZeneca will soon release data showing that the effectiveness of its covid-19 vaccine rises to as much as 95% if the two shots are separated by about 2-3 months, said Adar Poonawalla, chief executive of Serum Institute of India (SII), the British company’s manufacturing partner". |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.livemint.com/science/health/efficacy-of-oxford-jabs-at-95-if-given-3-months-apart-sii-11609181643451.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I know 3 months is a too long time in this covid fight, or is it? With 1 months the efficacy is much lower, so why not wait for 2 more months? |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 14:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Is this a type of ]?== |
|
|
Per ], is this drug classed as a ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
I was not sure, but if it is, we should state it in the description (and update the DNA vaccine article)? ] (]) 20:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I would say the key point is "replication-deficient simian adenovirus vector" is not wikilinked or otherwise defined. replication-deficient->(Deficient in replication) simian->] ]->] vector->] .... not my area so I'm not touching it.] (]) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::@Britishfinance It is not a DNA vaccine but explaining that the mechanism is, as for DNA vaccines, to bring a DNA strand encoding the Spike into the cell nucleus, is a good idea. Adding an Adenovirus-vector section into the DNA vaccine article (explaining the same) is not a bad idea neither. ] (]) 13:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Production == |
|
|
|
|
|
The “Production and Supply” section doesn’t actually have anything about production in it. AFAIK the production is at a number of plants in India, Europe and the UK. Would be good to flesh that out. ] (]) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Involvement of Bill Gates Foundation == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article seem to indicate that Oxford reversed its original position on pricing the vaccine, on the urging of Bill Gates. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:More up-to-date. ] (]) 16:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== EU press briefing == |
|
|
|
|
|
Press briefing on EU recommendation for COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca<br /> |
|
|
Live broadcast - 15:00 - 15:45 CET<br /> |
|
|
Date: 29 January 2021<br /> |
|
|
This virtual press briefing will discuss the outcome of the evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca by EMA’s human medicines committee (CHMP).<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/events/press-briefing-eu-recommendation-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 05:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Useful link to Covax Oxford vaccine distribution == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to a useful page setting out Covax's vaccine distribution program with the help of the Serum Institute of India and SK Bioscience of South Korea. I don't have time to add relevant info to this page, but thought I'd share the link: |
|
|
https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/covid/covax/COVAX-Interim-Distribution-Forecast.pdf |
|
|
] (]) 14:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== South Africa stops rollout == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Rollout of AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine Halted in South Africa After Study |
|
|
Small clinical trial found that it doesn’t appear to protect recipients against mild and moderate illness from a fast-spreading new strain of the coronavirus"<ref>{{Cite news|last=Steinhauser|first=Gabriele|date=2021-02-07|title=Rollout of AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine Halted in South Africa After Study|language=en-US|work=Wall Street Journal|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/astrazeneca-vaccine-doesnt-protect-against-mild-and-moderate-cases-from-south-africa-strain-11612700385|access-date=2021-02-07|issn=0099-9660}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox vaccine type -: adenovirus vector or recombinant? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Anon IP's seem to be doing unsummarised edit wars on whether to to have vaccine-type as adenovirus vector or recombinant in ]. Have we have a consensus view please. Don't just edit it in, put reasoning and gain consensus here first please. Thankyou.] (]) 00:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Question, are there both adenovirus vector or recombinant is vaccine type or there different? ] (]) 02:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Quick passing comment (not throughly checked): The WHO report currently in the external link classifies the type as ''recombinant'' which is a standard type mentioned in ] (and covers a wide variety of vaccines). Adenovirus vector is I believe mentioned more widely(maybe not by ] sources though), and may not be straighforwardly wikilinked to/from ''recombinant'' from memory. ] (]) 11:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:WHO calls it recombinant here but my understanding is that it's both. "Viral vector" means that a harmless virus like Ad5 is used to deliver the vaccine material into the target cell. "Recombinant" means that the DNA of the viral vector has been modified to invoke an immune response against covid, rather than against Ad5. The Oxford vaccine uses a simian virus (the viral vector) to deliver a spike protein coding sequence (the recombinant DNA) to the target cell. I believe in the context of covid vaccines "viral vector" and "recombinant" may mean the same thing. ] (]) 18:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::@GA-RT-22 Yes, instead of discussing of the infobox, let's explain this into the #vaccine_platform section. ChAd is a DNA virus, following entry its DNA genes are ] to the cell nucleus to be transcripted into mRNA and translated by the cell's machinery. AZD1222 is replication defective: some essential adenoviral genes have been deleted and replaced by one coding for the spike, following entry of the *recombinant* virus its genes are transported to the cell nucleus thereby leading to the expression of the spike (eventually anchored onto the cell's surface, see ), at this point it is the same for all approved vaccines: presentation of peptides on MHC-I, activation of T-cells, and the slightly more mysterious (cytotoxicity & phagocytosis against spike-expressing cells?) presentation on MHC-II on antigen presenting cells, which is the most desired effect, eventually transported to lymphoid organs and leading to B-cells/Th-cells affinity maturation of antibodies. ] (]) 23:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Covishield in lead == |
|
== Nanoparticles? == |
|
|
Does it use nanoparticles? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:This page is not a forum to discuss the topic. It does insofar as a virus is a nanoparticle; ]. ] (]) 21:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: We're talking about nanoparticle lipids obviously. So, does it use nanoparticles? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::: The virus it uses as a vector is an ], which is ], meaning it doesn't have a lipid envelope (unlike enveloped viruses, like the ]). Which means the answer is no. ] (]) 13:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Verifiability issues == |
|
{{ping|Whywhenwhohow}} Hi, you reverted the inclusion of the market name '''Covishield''' in the lead, citing ]. Please could you indicate where in ] it indicates that common market names should not be included in the lead section - ] clearly states "alternative names may be specified in the lead" and that we should "use plain English" if possible. In almost all other cases (e.g. ], ], ]) articles include names that drugs are commonly marketed under. Thus, there is an imperative to include Covishield in the lead using both precedence and the MOS. ] (]) 00:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:The articles for many other Covid-19 vaccines mention trade names in both the lead and the infobox. Articles for some medications write this information in a separate paragraph, which may make sense if the name is not widely used in the Anglosphere. --] (]) 19:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's in category "Withdrawn drugs" but I can't find any sourced content in the article regarding its alleged withdrawal. (] · ]) ''']''' 04:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Blood clots (help!) == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Nothing about it here, and the implication is it's being used in parts of the world where the mRNA ones are tricky to store. ] (]) 05:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
Hi Wiki team, I found a link I think is the first mention of blood clots, the entire article is biased and probably not reliable, but may be the start of the rumours? Seems a non-western writer as well so motivation ?? |
|
|
|
:It has been banned in at least Australia. I'd assume the distinction between banned and withdrawn is to be made, as the manufacturer didn't make this decision. Moreover, I don't know how we treat that category when it has only been withdrawn from some markets (see ] for a similar instance for withdrawn from some markets and available in others). |
|
|
:That being said, perhaps the category should be reassessed now. ] (]) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Developer == |
|
https://laptrinhx.com/news/the-appalling-science-and-conflicts-of-interest-behind-the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-KlwKZpx/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should we change the developer from Oxford University to Jenner Institute? ] (]) 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Hope this may help in quelling the rumours ] (]) 12:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:What we have is fine. The link you provide is to disinformation. ] (]) 13:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Apparently withdrawn in EU entirely now? == |
|
==Astrazeneca Propaganda== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2024/20240327162288/dec_162288_en.pdf ] (]) 20:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
It would be good to have third party sources here and not make this entire article a Astrazeneca advocacy piece. Looks a bit ridiculous - borderline North Korean. ] (]) 21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:The article has over 200 references, only a handful of which are to AstraZeneca material, and for mundane claims so far as I can see. ] (]) 01:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::The section on blood clots in both the summary and under "suspensions" almost entirely mirrors the British propaganda getting pushed heavily on social media and other platforms the past few days. This wikipedia article barely mentions that the concern is actually extremely rare types of blood clotting (low platelet levels and/or CVST), and accepts the inappropriate categorization of the reactions as generic blood clots. However, the resulting emphasis on the expected prevalence rate of normal blood clots from various entities is completely irrelevant and highly misleading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ?? == |
|
::Since the correct data is publicly available with very little effort, the persistence in ignoring the relevance of the subtype of the clots from people who should know better is highly suggestive of deliberate propaganda. But perhaps if too many external sources are nonsense, Misplaced Pages is helpless to exclude it and must pretend that that nonsense is factual, relevant, and authoritative. ] (]) 09:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sound like conspiracism to me. Sources for "British propaganda" would be required, and ] for any medical content. Misplaced Pages needs to be careful not to reflect misinformation. ] (]) 10:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:You are free to add any content you want, but please remember to adhere to ]. Content that didn't follow the guidelines may be removed. ] (]) 01:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reuters says: . Big if true, I guess (?) <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
::: ] Literally all of the sources related to health concerns are Astrazeneca or British government sources. There is a very clear bias in this article. It seems systemic and deliberate to not just me. ] (]) 12:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Literally, incorrect. ] (]) 13:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
It's in category "Withdrawn drugs" but I can't find any sourced content in the article regarding its alleged withdrawal. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
