Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 1

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

name of article[edit]

"BNT162b2" is a difficult name. So far as I can tell, there is no alternative name for this vaccine yet. I considered naming this article after the clinical trial, which is "Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals", but that name is challenging also. In addition, there are three clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov which are using this vaccine candidate, and all of them might be important. The one trial with 44,000 people is obviously the big and unusual one. If it turns out that this candidate advances then there could be an article for both this vaccine and the trials. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is now an active RfC to move below--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of vaccine candidate[edit]

It seems that "BNT162b2" is the name reported in many places. There are also other names for what I think are related drugs, which go by the pattern BNT162XX or I think BNT162. I am a bit unsure about the relations between these candidates and names, but I think they are variations of a similar vaccine candidate. If anyone can advise about what to call the vaccine candidate then post. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BNT162b2 is the drug candidate reported in the news today ("BNT162" is not). BNT162b1 (a truncated - shorter - form of the Spike protein containing the receptor binding domain) was less immunogenic in earlier studies. — soupvector (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soupvector: Yes, the news today was BNT162b2. Recently there were other sources about BNT162. The similar name made me think there was some other significant similarity. I was thinking that there was a "BNT162 vaccine series", and b2 was one of several vaccines in the group.
Would it be correct to change the name to BNT162b2, but then include other BNT162 information in describing research planning and finance? Or are these so different that only b2 information should be in this article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the scientific references are to BNT162b2; the marketing seems to skew toward BNT162 but this risks confusion with BNT162b1, which was less immunogenic (poorer antiviral responses) while being more reactogenic (higher adverse reactions) in older adults. Time will tell what term reliable sources will use - at this point, sadly, the article is largely dealing with the news cycle since we don't have reliable evidence of a safe and effective vaccine - just a press release. — soupvector (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should take care to stay precise here. BNT162 is not just a different name; it's a name for a group of vaccines (and also the name of the programme to evaluate them) of which currently two variants have been tested, namely BNT162b1 and BNT162b2. The latter one has emerged to be more promising (see [1]), thus has been examined in phase 3. We should become clear about what this article is supposed to be about, the whole group or just the b2 variant, or even split it into two articles.
There are phones and mobile phones and landline phones. Only because people sometime just say "phone" for convenience when talking about their cell phone, "phone" is still not an alternative name for a mobile phone. -- H005 (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Clinical Trials on Wikidata[edit]

We are on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia which presents text for humans to read. There are many projects related to Wikipedia which support it, including Wikidata. At Wikidata we have a collection of clinical trials data and are trying to present it for better public access. If anyone wants to join in curating datasets which could, among other things, support better access to information through Wikipedia, then consider commenting on the processes and workflows at WikiProject Clinical Trials or any of the other Wikidata WikiProjects. Thanks.

Check out this article's Wikidata complement at d:Q97154240. Check out a Wikidata-based profile of research around this drug in its Scholia profile. Scholia is a tool which, among other things, matches academic research papers to clinical trials to authors to research institutions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical trial with 44,000 participants[edit]

The main trial which is getting news attention is

Tibbs001 is the superstar who loaded ClinicalTrials.gov into Wikidata. This trial's entry is from August, as nearly all trials were in Wikidata from that point.

I am sharing the clinical trial here because so often in popular science reporting the journalists do not name or link to the clinical trial. The ClinicalTrials.gov entry includes the information which the United States government requires researchers to report, so seeing this is important for understanding some parts of the trial, such as how to match the research papers to the trials or what local news reporting came from regional study sites. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Can we get some images on this page if possible? Crookesmoor (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Name[edit]

May I suggest the name of this page should be "BioNTech/Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine". This seems to be the name used in most media I've seen. Jopal22 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure that refers specifically to this vaccine? JuanTamad (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. BNT162 is the only Covid 19 vaccine from BioNTech and Pfizer. Until 27 July, 2020 [2], there were 4 different versions of BNT162 [3], but the other 3 versions are not noteworthy enough to have their own pages, and are only relevant in that they led to this specific BNT162b2. However, I think we should continue using BNT162b2 (or perhaps BNT162) as the official name, because it is the closest we have to an official name for the vaccine. We should probably add the more common names in the first sentence, and create redirects for them. I'll give that a go, if nobody else wants to do it. Carl Kenner (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This came up at WP:ITN/C#(Banner updated) BNT162b2, where it was pointed out that the current article is the appropriate title per WP:NCMED:

    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).

    — MarkH21talk 03:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. But I believe we should include at least one of the unscientific or slang lay terms in the first sentence, because the article title itself will be unfamiliar to most readers. I had a go at adding the most common and most recognised lay term I've seen, but people may have other ideas for which lay terms we should list. Carl Kenner (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Albertaont, we were already discussing this here. Do you disagree that the Pfizer vaccine is more commonly used than BNT162b2? I would not have thought that was even slightly controversial. BNT162b2 is the official name, but it is very rarely used outside of scientific literature, and very few readers will recognise the term. You can easily prove this by Google searching "Pfizer vaccine" in quotes (8,470,000 results) and Google searching "BNT162b2" (947,000 results).
Your proposal, "BioNTech vaccine", might also be more commonly used than "BNT162b2", but I have no way of checking. I can prove it is much less commonly used than Pfizer vaccine though. A Google search for "BioNTech vaccine" returns only 2,730,000 results, and all of those appear to be false positives, because they all say "Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine" or "Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine" or "Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine" or "Pfizer, BioNTech vaccine". Your term "BioNTech vaccine" does not appear at all, in the first 10 pages (I didn't bother to check further than that) of search results for that exact phrase. Ironically, the name "Pfizer vaccine" does appear by itself many times when searching for "BioNTech vaccine". So I propose that we should not include BioNTech vaccine in the list of lay terms.
We could include Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (2,930,000 results) in the list of lay terms. But it is objectively less common that Pfizer vaccine. So the first line could say something like "more commonly known as the Pfizer vaccine, or the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
It is probably not going to be possible to provide a reference, because there probably aren't any articles saying "The Pfizer vaccine is commonly known as the Pfizer vaccine", because everyone already knows that. Obviously, I could add a reference to one of the 8,470,000 articles using the term if that would help. But it's the "BNT162b2" name that is controversial and people will want a reference for.
We do urgently need to include at least one lay term in the first sentence, because the readers will have no idea what the topic of the article is otherwise, and because readers won't be able to search for the topic on Google and easily find our article otherwise. There's probably a Wikipedia policy stating that we need to include a common name for articles with obscure official names, but I'm not the right person to find it.
Unless you have any better ideas, I'm going to check a few more lay names for this vaccine and see how common they actually are, then add back in whichever are objectively the most common. Carl Kenner (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I checked all the names for the vaccine, and how commonly they are used, so we can decide which ones to include as lay terms in the first sentence.
Most common names for BNT162b2
Search term Google Results
"pfizer covid 19 vaccine" 11,200,000
"pfizer vaccine" 9,840,000
"pfizer covid vaccine" 8,750,000
"pfizer biontech covid 19 vaccine" 3,060,000
"pfizer biontech vaccine" 2,820,000
"pfizer biontech covid vaccine" 2,560,000
"pfizer coronavirus vaccine" 2,270,000
"BNT162b2" 845,000
"pfizer biontech coronavirus vaccine" 616,000
"BNT162" 169,000
"biontech pfizer vaccine" 135,000
"biontech pfizer covid 19 vaccine" 111,000
"biontech pfizer covid vaccine" 45,100
-pfizer "biontech vaccine" 42,200
-pfizer "biontech covid 19 vaccine" 19,300
-pfizer "biontech covid vaccine" 16,400
"biontech pfizer coronavirus vaccine" 14,500
-pfizer "biontech coronavirus vaccine" 6,670
I propose the 3 bolded names be included in the first sentence. eg. BNT162b2, more commonly known as the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, or the Pfizer/Biontech Covid-19 vaccine is a... Carl Kenner (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
note that you've inadvertently "gamed" the results a bit - e.g. searching for your top-listed term with negation -biontech (as you did with -pfizer) reduces the returned pages by more than 10%. Not a huge shift, but I haven't tried them all. The list above isn't very rigorous. — soupvector (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really gamed the system, it's just that when you search for "biontech vaccine", none of the first 100 results (which is all I bothered to check) call it the "biontech vaccine", they all call it the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and Google is picking up the last half of the name. I believe adding -pfizer before it also excludes any mention of the word pfizer anywhere in the page, which definitely isn't what I want, but it's the best I could come up with to get any result at all for that term. I assure you, the name "BioNTech vaccine" is much rarer than the other terms, and it occurs in less than 1% of results for that phrase. Adding -biontech to the pfizer results would not produce a more meaningful result, it would just exclude all the pages that mention biontech outside the name.
I also tried other terms, but they didn't produce enough results to be worth listing, eg. pfizer sars-cov-2 vaccine, pfizer novel coronavirus vaccine, etc. Carl Kenner (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @CarlKenner: Regarding your list of Google Hits, see the second paragraph of WP:HITS. The penultimate or last page (after removing the similar pages filter) generally gives a better hit count (e.g. "pfizer covid 19 vaccine" yields 379 hits rather than 11.2 million). — MarkH21talk 15:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it yields 8,890,000. You're looking at the last page, but the instructions say the second to last page. Carl Kenner (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Pfizer homepage the official name for the US is Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and for European countries COMIRNATY --Rocket1 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2nd paragraph of intro highly partial against the vaccine[edit]

I have read the 2nd paragraph of the intro, which criticises the vaccine, and have read the references on which these statements are based. These references are not critical with the vaccine, and the paragraph extracts some parts out of context, and some statements are even false. For instance, the paragraph says "the preliminary analysis of BNT162b2 did not provide evidence of efficacy in elderly people or children". The word "children" cannot be found in any of the two references, and, about elderly people, the BBC article says that we don't know whether the vaccine "works equally well in high-risk elderly people". I think that this paragraph is not written with the intention of giving information, but with the intention of denigrating the vaccine. I propose to delete it or to rewrite being more faithful to what is said in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS20M (talk • contribs) 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@CS20M: Please, feel free to rewrite it.
You mentioned a fear of ill intent; I do not see this. It looks to me like someone proposed some content, and it all seems reasonable to me as a proposal. Your corrections and amendments are equally welcome, so please have a go at it. I think a lot of people would be grateful for every contribution that everyone makes here. If you experience trouble in editing then come back here to talk about it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I rewrote it trying to be more faithful to the text in the references. I think that the paraphrasing in the previous text gave it a tone much more critical than the references. --CS20M (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ultracold temperatures below −80 °C[edit]

I think the "ultracold temperatures below −80 °C" factoid is wrong. The BBC does report that number, but I think they got that wrong. More typically the number cited is "below -70C". NickCT (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's specifically the relatively novel mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and Moderna's candidate) that need ultracold storage to prevent degradation. -70C is the most reported temperature, per Reuters, and -94F in this report. Verifying at Metric Conversion, -70C = -94F. Zefr (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely novel. In the clinical sense at least.
Ok. Sounds like we agree about the -70C figure. I'll find a source. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also note ULT freezer for temperature range and STAT today, indicating -80C for BNT162b2 storage and the difficulty for US hospitals to buy or lease such expensive ULT freezers. Zefr (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox drug vaccine_type[edit]

Currently in the infobox, `| vaccine_type = [[mRNA vaccine|mRNA]]`, but that is causing "[[Category:Drugs that are a vaccine|mRNA?]]" to appear in the article. Should the type be just mRNA without the link? Chris857 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fixed it now. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that this is no longer a candidate, and is now an official vaccine[edit]

People in the UK are officially being vaccinated with BNT162b2 as soon as the logistics can be organised. As such, it is no longer correct to refer to it as a "vaccine candidate". If you see it still being referred to as a vaccine candidate, please correct it. Something officially used to vaccinate people is correctly referred to as a vaccine. This has been well covered in the media and is not controversial. [4] [5] Carl Kenner (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably, the media and general public are calling it simply a vaccine, but the government processes enabling use of BNT162b2 are called "temporary authorisation" in the UK or emergency use authorization (EUA) in the US and other countries. For all the COVID-19 vaccine candidates, this issue will fall into technical WP:ACCURACY for using "candidate" or "vaccine". The temporary approval status is to rapidly address an emergency and authorisation for deployment based on preliminary trial results, but the full clinical research package, including safety data over months or years, will be incomplete for months/years to come, and safety problems may arise with this vaccine candidate and others receiving EUA. The date of vaccine licensure is impossible to forecast at present.
On 2 Dec, the UK government and MHRA released this document explaining the temporary approval status of BNT162b2, explictly stating that it is "not a marketing authorisation" and detailing throughout the document that safety concerns remain. Only conclusion of the Phase III trials scheduled for 2023, publication of main safety and efficacy results in a notable medical journal, submission and approval of a final clinical package, international scientific review, and licensure qualify a candidate as a "vaccine".
"Candidate vaccine" (with EUA or temporary authorisation) vs. "licensed vaccine" (marketing authorisation)? According to the FDA, they're different. It's a semantics issue, but one with a large difference in underlying scientific justification and regulatory status. Zefr (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting information that should be included in the article, but it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is still merely a candidate. The word "candidate" refers to something that may be chosen, but hasn't been yet. This has been chosen. The decision has already been made to vaccinate people with BNT162b2, and that vaccination will be carried out within days. This is an actual vaccination of at-risk people, not a clinical trial. Whether that decision was wise or not remains to be seen, but it has been made and is being carried out. Something used to vaccinate people is called a vaccine. This is not an article about a clinical trial (although I acknowledge this article may have been about that in the past) or a marketing campaign, so it's status in those regards is irrelevant to its status as a "candidate". Whether a vaccine is only being used to vaccinate a hundred people or a million people is also irrelevant, it would still be a real vaccine.
In case English is not your first language, here is the definition (from Simple English Wiktionary) of a vaccine: "A vaccine is a liquid substance that is given to a person so that they don't get a certain disease or illness, usually through an injection or through the mouth.", and here is the definiton of a candidate: "A candidate is one person or thing that may be chosen, especially in an election". Carl Kenner (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, CarlKenner, by your reasoning, the Russian Gam-COVID-Vac is no longer a candidate, but a vaccine? The same logic would apply to any vaccine candidate that any country decided to make use of, regardless of the degree of testing that had been conducted.
I simply disagree with your position. It assumes that the only thing that defines a vaccine is being used with an intention to treat. If we discounted the recognised process of licensing for medical products, we would legitimise heavy-metal containing "drugs" (as used in Aurveda), and any other crack-pot intervention, as long as it was administered as a treatment.
The system of multi-phase trialling protects us from that sort of nonsense, and your simple definition of vaccine is deficient in omitting any recognition of that process.
You have now reinserted a challenged edit, which is unsourced, without seeking a consensus here first, and I would have blocked you for that, if you had been aware of the Wikipedia:General sanctions #Community-authorised sanctions that apply to articles related to COVID-19. Please make sure you don't do that again. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WADR, RexxS, why are you threatening a user with blocking? Are you the ultimate arbiter of truth? I happen to agree with CarlKenner that this is a vaccine now. By all means, keep the verbiage that states it has not been fully licensed yet, but that's not an argument for continuing to call it a candidate. Adrian two (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adrian two: I pointed out that I would have simply blocked an aware editor who failed to conform to the high standards of behaviour expected from editors on pages related to COVID-19. Not only did they reinstate a challenged edit without seeking consensus, they made a personal attack in their edit summary. Neither of those are acceptable behaviours here, and although I am not an arbiter of the truth, I am authorised to be an arbiter of behaviour on pages under general sanctions. Any sanctions applied are for behaviour, not content, and I've dropped an alert on your talk page with links to the relevant pages. I accept that different editors may have different views on whether BNT162b2 is still a candidate, but that is to be decided by debate here, not by attempting to force your preferred POV into the article by edit-warring. I hope that's clear enough for you now. --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Maybe I'm misreading WP:GS/COVID19#GS where it states that "Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions [...]". English is not my mother tongue, but wouldn't the phrase "uninvolved administrator" exclude you, in this specific case? Adrian two (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adrian two: I understand your difficulties in understanding English, but when I wrote "I would have blocked you for that", I used a past conditional tense. At the point when I would have blocked, I had not commented here, and I would not have needed to. If you read WP:INVOLVED at little more closely, you will find that it states editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Note the use of the past tense there. I had no prior involvement with CarlKenner when I saw their edit-warring and their personal attack, nor had I commented on the issue at that point, and I would not have been "involved" if I had issued a block. Now that I have joined the content discussion as an editor, it would not be proper for me to act in an administrative capacity going forward, but any other admin uninvolved in the content dispute could still impose sanctions on CarlKenner if they repeated their action. Is there anything else you're having problems in understanding? --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To say this is an "official vaccine" is WP:OR, unless someone can even can even tell me what the heck it even means. The UK granted emergency use authorization, which is not something given to vaccines in wide distribution. That's also besides the further point that BNT162b2 wasn't even widely tested in the UK, its phase III trials were mostly in the US. Albertaont (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that the article should not use the phrase "official vaccine". As far as I know, nobody has used or proposed that phrase. "Vaccine candidate" was changed to "vaccine" when "vaccine candidate" ceased being accurate. Carl Kenner (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of the article that talk about its earlier testing should continue unchanged as the "vaccine candidate", if its talking about mass vaccinations or production, its fine to just call "vaccine" at that stage. It looks like largely thats what we are doing. Albertaont (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. ANY vaccine that has been chosen, is no longer a candidate. That's literally what the word "candidate" means. We have been calling things "vaccine candidate" for so long that we forgot what the phrase means. It was always intended to refer to something that MAY theoretically one day be used to vaccinate people, but also may not, depending on what countries decided. It isn't simply that it is used with the intention to treat, to be a "vaccine" something has to be used with the plausible intention of generating or providing an immune response to an antigen. If it was homeopathy or Ayurveda, I wouldn't call it a vaccine. But a recklessly developed, unsafe, poorly tested vaccine would still be a "vaccine", just not a good one. I haven't found any dictionaries that include licensing status or anything like that in the definition. Feel free to post any definitions you found for "vaccine" that define it differently. Carl Kenner (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

length of the rna sequence is missing[edit]

That seems weird… as the vaccine basically is just an RNA sequence with a bit of a modification to some nucleotieds… I would expect a simple info as this in the lead… also a link to the sequence somewhere in the references. I would have added it… but that simple info was hard for me to find 2A02:8070:D297:BD00:38E4:FF9B:F930:68DB (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding that info too. Carl Kenner (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ORF (the coding sequence) is from MN908947.3, with K986P and V987P substitutions to stabilize the prefusion conformation (no change in length); the part that seems to be proprietary is the untranslated regions, 5' and 3', basics described in Orlandini von Niessen AG, et al. 2014 and Holtkamp S, et al. 2006. I haven't seen explicit detailed description of the 5' and 3' UTRs of the vaccine RNA. — soupvector (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the entire Covid 19 genome. As far as I know, BNT162b2 only includes the full-length spike protein, with some changes. Carl Kenner (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the ORF is FROM that GenBank entry, specifically the Spike protein segment. — soupvector (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sequence length is 4,284 nucleotides. It is (somewhat) publicly available to members of the WHO community here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list the second person to get the COVID-19 vaccine?[edit]

Trillfendi and I have a disagreement on this, expressed here and here. Could others weigh in? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Trillfendi. I think this edit watered-down the facts slightly to bring it within question. However, the fact remains he was only the 2nd person ever to receive the vaccine and therefore the 1st man. That's what makes it noteable. History often records various gender-firsts and I see this as being no different. The unusual name aspect shouldn't distract from this. Perhaps a slight rewording to something along the lines of how it stood before the aforementioned edit - to refocus the facts back to 2nd person / 1st man, rather than name aspect? Thanks. -- Crep1711 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be undue. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd leave him out. If the second person, why not the third? Also, his actual name can cause confusion (it already has) and we have enough confusion anyway. However, at the end of the day it doesn't much matter either way. Thincat (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get molecular structure for this Tozinameran?[edit]

Can I get molecular structure for this Tozinameran? Please add it to the article. Rizosome (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The drug is basically the mRNA gene from the SARS-COV-2 genome encoding the larger spike glycoprotein of the virus. It consists of a sequence of 3821 nucleotide units, each of which contains dozens of atoms. I doubt that a structure formula of maybe a hundred thousand atoms will be helpful for any reasonable purpose.  --Lambiam 11:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in this article of the manufacturing of the Pfizer vaccine is severely incomplete[edit]

The vaccine is also being manufactured at a Pfizer plant in Portage, near Kalamazoo, Michigan. Both Portage and Puurs are former Upjohn facilities. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for links--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pfizer scientists[edit]

I don't understand why it is written that it is developped by bionetch only, as Pfizer scientists were involved in the development ( data analysis, testing, biochemistry etc).

https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2020/Pfizer-and-BioNTech-to-Co-Develop-Potential-COVID-19-Vaccine/default.aspx

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2081

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-pfizer-delivered-a-covid-vaccine-in-record-time-crazy-deadlines-a-pushy-ceo-11607740483


--Vanlister (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vial used in Margaret Keenan inoculation to be donated to The Science Museum[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/13/vaccine-vials-masks-welcome-to-the-first-covid-collection-at-londons-science-museum Notable enough to add? Mapsax (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?[edit]

'As of December 2020, no long-term complications have been reported.' Is this some sort of humor on the writer's part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the NHS source, which was last reviewed yesterday. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering there have been trials since May 2020, there is some indication of a lack of long-term complications. Large numbers of subjects weren't involved until August, but that is still four months ago. It will, of course, depend on how "term-term complications" is defined, but I don't think we can criticise the NHS source for their conclusion. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rare" vs "very rare" adverse effects[edit]

Whywhenwhohow changed[6] the incidence of serious adverse effects of this vaccine from "very rare" to "rare" citing MOS:PUFFERY. This is not puffery, but an important distinction. See here for how these terms are generally meant. Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help ... I get the message: BNF is only available in the UK: The NICE British National Formulary (BNF) site is only available to users in the UK, Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Could you quote the relevant portion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - It's odd they do that. The description of the frequency of side-effects are:
  • Very common – greater than 1 in 10
  • Common – 1 in 100 to 1 in 10
  • Uncommon [formerly 'less commonly' in BNF publications] – 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100
  • Rare – 1 in 10000 to 1 in 1000
  • Very rare – less than 1 in 10000
Of course, it's not 100% known the NHS and BNF are in accord (though almost certainly they are), but nevertheless there are gradations of language here which are not "puffery". Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the change—"very rare" here is a term of art, MOS:PUFFERY certainly does not apply. Also the change was not made by Whywhenwhohow but rather by an IP editor, 109.255.90.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).
Not in the diff[[7]] I gave it wasn't. Alexbrn (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, I do agree that the claim on "long-term effects" is absolutely useless at this point. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In some COVID vaccine related articles, I have seen edits that seek over-reach claims for the new vaccines. Even to the extent of deleting in RNA vaccines that they are new, and have no peer reviews, or long term record. While I understand the need to avoid anti-vaccine conspiracy edits (and given the importance of public uptake, there is a lot at stake here), we only degrade the quality of the articles by looking like a promotional vaccine article (if that makes sense). The weekly take up implies widespread public acceptance, so the issue is really only one of logistics and production, therefore I appeal that the articles are written neutrally and with clarity on what is known and unknown (unfortunately, there is stuff that is unknown, but versus the rising death count, is a very acceptable risk). Hope that comes out the right way. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Just follow good sources and all shall be well. The trouble we've been seeing across the COVID "suite" is removal of well-sourced content, and addition of poorly-sourced content. Alexbrn (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some may need a follow up of course. Also there are immediate adverse effects and those taking longer often difficult to trace back to the medical intervention like a vaccine. Well, I guess this one falls still under immediate: https://www.wionews.com/world/portuguese-nurse-dies-two-days-after-getting-the-pfizer-covid-vaccine-354526 105.12.6.59 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Emergency" versus "standard" authorization[edit]

This distinction is starting to lose its utility. Canada's authorization by interim order and the EU's conditional marketing authorization are not emergency use authorizations in the FDA sense of the term—they are formal approvals for marketing authorization, simply issued via an expedited rolling-review procedure and with conditions for enhanced pharmacovigilance. "Emergency" authorization is pretty much a U.S.-specific procedure, in that the drug remains formally unapproved by the FDA. I don't think it's useful to classify other countries' procedures as similar or analogous. Any thoughts? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work to use the word “Expedited” in the section heading, and then spell out that EUA, for example, applies to US, and so on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that works. (I mean, this will all be moot soon, so... This is why I hate editing current events.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that ... what a pain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, in the UK the approval comes under under Regulation 174 and is both temporary and conditional. The full text of the authorisation can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/conditions-of-authorisation-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine and contains two significant phrases: "MHRA may review and adjust these conditions for temporary supply ... This authorisation will be valid until expressly withdrawn by MHRA or upon issue of a full market authorisation by the MHRA." So it's pretty clear that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) makes a clear distinction between a conditional, temporary "authorisation to supply" and a "full market authorisation". Whether that turns out to be an important distinction, only time will tell, but it think we still need to accurately report the position. I agree with Sandy that "expedited" is a neat and concise summary, as long as readers have the opportunity to read the detail in the source itself. --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I re-jigged that section; can you add the MHRA where needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying really hard not to edit the article, in case I have to exercise some admin function, and I don't need the sniping from the peanut gallery about "INVOLVED". The paragraph in Tozinameran#Expedited looks fine to me. The infobox has a link to the actual text of the authorisation and the conditions, and I'd recommend just changing "Authorized for emergency use" to "Conditional and temporary authorisation to supply" if you want to be absolutely accurate. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And why such clutter in the infobox? Are we going to add every country to the infobox? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Commission CMA[edit]

The referenced RAPS article states the EU provided full approval. The statement by the EU president does not state that.

Today we add an important chapter in our fight against COVID-19. We took the decision to make available for European citizens the first COVID-19 vaccine. We granted conditional marketing authorisation to the vaccine produced by BioNTech and Pfizer.

The European Medicines Agency assessed this vaccine thoroughly. And it concluded that it is safe and effective against COVID-19. Based on this scientific assessment, we proceeded to authorise it for the European Union market.

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement by the EMA chair does. In fact, she specifically states that it is full marketing authorization despite the "conditional". Conditional, as I attempted to explain above but clearly failed, means an expedited rolling review process was used. It is neither emergency use (like the FDA) nor temporary authorization (like the MHRA decision). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Updated the article --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Cut and paste for revdel here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could someone please deliver a Discretionary sanctions message to the editor who is doing this; I don't know how that is formally done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see Alexbrn has now done that. I got caught in an edit conflict and reverted one small piece twice, only realizing it after the fact; not sure how to fix that now because of sourcing plus copyvio plus MEDMOS issues in the entire edit as I was trying to repair it. If I need to revert back in the unsourced pronunciation, I can do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have done the notification. I believe these are technically "general" rather than "discretionary" sanctions. To notify a user use {{subst:Gs/alert|covid}}. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alex; if you follow discretionary sanctions more closely than I do, do I need to revert my second removal? I did not see the interim edit. I hesitate to revert that as it contains a piece of copyvio. What do you think of the source ? At first, I couldn't get past the ads to see the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My general thought was that at most a sentence on the whizzy ideas behind the brand name was WP:DUE. I think now we just need to wait for the copyvio crew to sweep up before finalizing anything. Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they have done the revdels and the editor is indeffed for a long history. That was not a pleasant way to start my day, so I will leave examination of the source and what to re-insert to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dosage[edit]

Each dose is 0.3 ml. Each vial is 2.25 ml. Operating procedure is to administer 5 doses from a vial. If managed well, a vial may supply up to 7 doses (40% increase), as 7*0.3=2.1 . Preliminary info here, more should be available soon. TGCP (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This FDA Fact Sheet might be a better reference for noting that more than 5 doses may be obtained from one vial. — soupvector (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the FDA fact sheet says on page 3 "Multiple Dose Vial contains a volume of 0.45 mL" which is then topped up by 1.8 ml of saltwater to a combined volume of 2.25 ml, but the FDA sheet doesn't state the number 2.25 ml or that 7 doses are possible. Maximum recommended is 6 "After dilution, one vial contains up to 6 doses of 0.3 mL". Practice has occasionally been 7. The differences between vial text, FDA text and practice is notable, as the speed of vaccine rollout has a significant impact on infection rates towards herd immunity, death numbers and economy. TGCP (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purely anecdotally, I hear (in the UK) medics are happy to get 6 doses per vial. Whatever, we need some decent sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also anecdotally, the average in some hospitals is 6.3, as some vials could not supply the seventh dose, and vials must not be combined (as per FDA sheet). TGCP (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian Medicines Agency has released official guidelines. At least 6 doses per vial. And different vials should not me mixed (even from the same production lot). In theory 2.25ml/0.3ml=7.5 so they are basically saying to administer as many as possible but to discard the remaining half extra dose. [8] (in italian). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of math here is largely original research so this is just for context: note that it's not a simple ratio 2.25 mL / 0.3 mL = 7.5 doses, because the syringe is marked for the amount deliverable, not the amount drawn up (the latter is larger by an amount equal to the "dead space" in the needle & syringe - and of course we have an article about this). It's unlikely that most will obtain 7 doses, and it would be unfortunate to use anything but a reliable source when speaking about this - given risk of shorting the last dose - hence my reference to FDA guidance above. — soupvector (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the references above, 7 doses have been administered - the math merely describes how. Doctors disagree on the feasibility and even payment schedule. The sources are vague about the difference between deliverable and drawn up - which also depends on the type of syringe. "FDA is advising that it is acceptable to use every full dose obtainable (the sixth, or possibly even a seventh) from each vial" TGCP (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That FDA email reply was also stated in this FDA tweet from 17 December. TGCP (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated by AHA TGCP (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian source I reported states that "adequate precision syringes" are required for the administration of the vaccine. Depending on the type of syringe 7 doses are not out of the question. Sources state "at least 6" probably for this reason (syringes vary). Just to check the math for fun: the dead space in a syringe according to the article you linked is typically "as high as 84 micro liters in conventional syringes." so the 7th dose is possible with slightly more precise syringes as that maximum dead space times seven equals 0.588 ml. If by "precision syringes" they mean low dead space syringes then the 7th dose is definitely possible. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norway experience for people over 80-years old[edit]

Do people think these articles suitable/useful for the "adverse risks" section regarding the experience of the use of the Pfizer vaccine in Norway for people over 80-years old?

Given the current situation, I don't want to put up stuff that inadvertently scares people, especially if it is not fully clear what is going on? I do think the two articles are specific to the Pfizer vaccine, but they say that Pfizer is still looking into it (e.g. it is not a cert that the vaccine caused the deaths). Britishfinance (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original report from the Norwegian Medicines Agency is "Covid-19 vaccination associated with adverse drug reactions in elderly people who are frail". Statens legemiddelverk. 15 January 2021. Fences&Windows 19:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted several additions to the article related to "deaths" after vaccination of old and frail people being investigated. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS apply (especially with medical claims). We need appropriate sourcing for such claims. Ideally a review by an independent health authority (e.g. the European Medicines Agency) before we include it in the article to avoid misleading people with grave consequences. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, what Gtoffoletto says. Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - *entirely* agree as well (just now discovered this talk discussion) - if interested, more complete related references are here[1][2][3][4][5] for further review - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually the NMA source[1] is viable, but if this content is to be included it must be done with extreme care, since the concern is about people for whom death would not be unexpected in any event, with or without the vaccine. The concern seems to be that for such people already on the brink, even a mild adverse reaction from a vaccine might push them over the edge. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters[5] is now picking up the new guidance of the Norwegian Medicines Agency, and explain it well/clarify the specific nature of the guidance: Norway advises caution in use of Pfizer vaccine for the most frail. Given the Norweigan health agency has formally issued new guidance (MEDRS), and it is also repeated in Bloomberg/Reuters (not MEDRS, but very high-quality RS who are quoting from the health agencies), I think we should add this to the article? Perhaps in under "dosage" or "adverse effects" sections? Britishfinance (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - agreed as well - restored my "earlier edit", in part, to the "Adverse events section" as follows => "On 15 January 2021, medical scientists in Norway noted 23 cases of deaths in frail elderly patients shortly after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, and are further investigating the cases."[1] - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/del/ce the edit of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it seems to be significant. Question. What exactly "serious disease"(s) in elderly these sources are talking about? Just any serious disease? My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are old and terminally ill patients. Nobody knows if they would have died anyways and the Norwegian health agency has clarified: Among the 13 cases studied more closely so far, "these are all people who were very old, frail and had serious illnesses," said the director of the Norwegian public health authority, Camilla Stoltenberg."Regarding the cause of death there was no analysis," she also said. "The most important thing is to remember that there are 45 people who die every day in medical facilities in Norway. So it is not established that there is excess mortality or that it is related to vaccines.".[6] The relationship between the deaths and the vaccine has not been established. I think we need to be much more careful here to avoid alarmism and feed anti-vaccination fears. This is being investigated. We should not give the impression that any link has been determined between the deaths and the vaccine. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Indeed. Given that, I personally do not have objections to anything, like rephrase or even removing whole thing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: please consider those deaths have not been observed in many other countries around the world at the moment despite millions of vaccinations. This might simply be transparency by the NOMA leading to misinterpretation by the media. Norwegian medical agencies are back-pedalling at the moment. I've cleaned up the paragraph a bit to stick to MEDRS sources and to the facts. But this is a dangerous and slippery paragraph. I would remove it since this is just an investigation by one national agency and no conclusion has yet been reached. At least until a link has been established conclusively or other medical agencies release similar statements. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:MEDRS should consistently apply when dealing with medical claims or reports. Noxoug1 (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Staff (15 January 2021). "Covid-19 vaccination associated with adverse drug reactions in elderly people who are frail - 23 deaths associated with covid-19 vaccination of which 13 have been assessed. Common adverse reactions may have contributed to a severe course in elderly people who are frail". Norwegian Medicines Agency. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  2. ^ Torjesen, Ingrid (15 January 2021). "Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination". The BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.n149. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  3. ^ Taraldsen, Lars Erik (16 January 2021). "Norway Raises Concern Over Vaccine Jabs for the Elderly". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  4. ^ a b O'Regan, Eilish (17 January 2021). "HSE issues new advice on Covid-19 vaccine for very frail elderly who have serious disease after a number of deaths in Norway". Independent. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  5. ^ a b Staff (18 January 2021). "Norway advises caution in use of Pfizer vaccine for the most frail". Reuters News. Retrieved 18 January 2021.
  6. ^ "No link found after COVID-19 vaccine deaths - Norway Health Authority". euronews. 18 January 2021.
  • A couple of points. First, the minor one that per MOS:MED Wikipedia shouldn't use the word "patient" - yet this has roared back into this section. Secondly, it is true this risks playing into an antivax narrative -- this is why the Science-Based Medicine source was useful. It's not WP:MEDRS but is is excellent for reporting on vaccination propaganda. I don't think the current text, especially with its suggestive "yet", is quite right. Alexbrn (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree and I've removed the "yet". I would just remove the whole section but if we want to keep it any suggestion is welcome to avoid feeding novax fears. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is clearly a medical claim. Therefore, MEDRS does apply. None of this sources is good per MEDRS. This should be just removed. In addition, this is all undue. No any correlation has bee established at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is a MEDRS source, what does it tell, exactly? It tells that no correlation between the vaccination and any specific medical conditions was found. It provides no detalis and tells nothing about any scientific studies. This is something strange given that such cases were not reported in other countries. Hence this is clearly "undue" on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument that this is WP:UNDUE has some merit. Text that has been removed for a credible reason should not really be restored without consensus, according to the general sanctions governing this article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly. And what is the text under discussion? The Norwegian Medicines Agency is investigating whether common adverse reactions ... No certain connection between the vaccination and the death of those frail patients has been established. If no correlation was found, why that should be included? My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. I think we should just remove it. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - yes - agreed as well - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy - Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Seems Germany ("39 deaths (29/10) after Pfizer (BBNT162b2) vaccination")?, besides Norway, is now reporting similar experiences with the Pfizer vaccine? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed by the EMA in their COVID-19 vaccine safety update: No specific safety concern has been identified for vaccine use in frail elderly individuals. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/covid-19-vaccine-safety-update/covid-19-vaccine-safety-update-comirnaty-january-2021_en.pdf -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. Britishfinance (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 December 2020[edit]

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: Moved to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. As RM closers, we are supposed to weigh arguments based on WP:AT, MOS and related policies, and I must say that those are strongly in favor of the move.
The argument that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE name of the subject, and that "Tozinameran" is an obscure generic name rarely used even in medical sources, has not been substantially refuted. Many opponents vaguely appeal to WP:MEDTITLE as an argument for Tozinameran, but again, its provision that scientific or recognised medical name that is 'most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, seems to be disregarded. And last, I don't think that the argument that there are several variations of "Pfizer/-BioNTech [COVID-19] vaccine [for COVID-19]" is particularly persuasive – each of those is equally WP:RECOGNIZABLE. No such user (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tozinameran → Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine – Tozinameran is a really obscure name that barely returns any hits in google. We should move it per WP:COMMONNAME. Vpab15 (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support: form my understanding Tozinameran is the name of the immunological agent for active immunization anti-SARS-CoV-2 (basically the spike protein). This article is about the proprietary vaccine. When was this move done? Was there consensus? This is definitely not a common name... This seems like a mistake unless I'm missing something. I'll tag Soupvector for some expert advice. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:NCMED says "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)" ... so where would that lead us? Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexbrn: FDA calls it exactly Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine in their approval letter [9]. I think we should fix this. Tozinameran is not even mentioned there and elsewhere. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, just looking. I've found example of the UK DSHC calls it "Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine", and NHS England "COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech)". So these informal names seem inconsistent. The international name appears to be "BNT162b2", which seems to get used frequently in recent PUBMED inclusions too. Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The move was made by Fvasconcellos here [10]. I don't see any discussion though. I don't think this is appropriate. From my understanding: many vaccines will use "Tozinameran" (the main "ingredient" or the spike protein from the virus basically) but this article is about the specific vaccine by this producer and is clearly extremely notable by itself. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, looks like it was correct before. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would revert to the previous name (can that be done easily?) or move to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. But I would strongly oppose the current page name. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree on the revert. I don't think we should use an informal name as that's contrary to the MOS (likewise we don't say Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine) - that should be a redirect. (I think we'll need admin assistance for this as it's a rename over a redirect) Alexbrn (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC); amended 14:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would echo Gtoffoletto, but in reverse order of preference: rename to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, as proposed, or revert to the previous name BNT162b2. Adrian two (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Tozinameran' is the INN for the vaccine candidate BNT162b2 from BioNTech+Pfizer. The names are synonyms for the same drug. My sense is that we tend to name articles about drugs using the INN, but I am not the most experienced WP editor here. — soupvector (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is correct. Tozinameran is not the name for the active immunological agent against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein; it is the name for the specific modRNA construct made by BioNTech that simulates the spike protein. No other vaccine will use it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MEDTITLE, articles on drugs should be named after the INN. Most vaccines do not have one; this one does. All other modRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 will have one as well; they are all listed here. Per FDA's UNII as well, as linked in the Drugbox, tozinameran is the preferred name. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Per WP:MEDTITLE, articles on drugs should be named after the INN". That is not what MEDTITLE says. It says we should use the "scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". Medical sources do not use INN for the vaccine as shown in a comment below. Vpab15 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Fvasconcellos and soupvector on the INN, and am concerned that Wikipedia should avoid any push to add drug companies to drug names based on RECENTISM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification soupvector and Fvasconcellos. I guess the name is fine then. Was the name only recently assigned? That's probably where the confusion originates... to clear things up: I also see abdavomeran and ganulameran as other anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. They seem to be other candidates of the BNT vaccine (BNT162b1 and BNT162b3). They will not be used? What about the other vaccines by other companies? Will they receive a INN also? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • They will indeed. The Moderna vaccine and the University of Washington replicon RNA vaccine, for instance, have already been assigned INNs (they shouldn't be used in articles yet because that would be original research, though). The names were originally published this October. Health Canada appears to be using them consistently thus far, but other agencies such as the FDA were already doing rolling/accelerated review with the vaccines before the INNs had been assigned, which probably explains the fact that the FDA labeling does not use the name tozinameran. Conventional attenuated-virus and adenoviral vector vaccines such as the Sinovac and Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine respectively will probably not have INNs; only those based on synthetic constructs will. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fvasconcellos: Very interesting. Thanks for the details! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand that correctly, only some of the vaccines will have INN. In my opinion that is a very strong reason not to use INN for the title. Is this the only wikipedia article about a vaccine that has its INN as the title? Vpab15 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The official WHO policy is that peptide vaccines, recombinant vaccines, and mRNA molecules used for active immunization (such as the Pfizer vaccine) are assigned INNs. "Natural" vaccines are not. Here is the relevant recommendation. We have other vaccine articles with the INN as the title, such as Adegramotide, a peptide vaccine. If there is an INN, then that should be the article title, as per current guidelines. If there is no INN, we default to WP:COMMONNAME. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link to Adegramotide. I think we are creating an artifical distinction betweek vaccines that will only confuse the reader. I am not sure what we gain from using INN for vaccines since it is hardly used in other wikipedia articles or elsewhere — I am referring to vaccines only. Vpab15 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we are using exactly the same mechanism for deciding the article title for vaccines as we do for any other medical article: if there's an INN name, we use it, and you won't be able to quote exceptions to that. --RexxS (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As general background, one of the things that's odd about naming vaccines is that they haven't ever been generic products. Small molecule drugs are the same no matter who makes them, but each vaccine is unique (also some other biologics). All of them are separately and individually licensed and correctly known by the brand name – they're "iPhones", not "smart phones". If we get more than one, we'll need a separate article (e.g., "COVID vaccines") for the group. If we get more than one vaccine of the same type, then we could create an article for the type (e.g., "RNA-based COVID vaccines") in addition to the individual names of each individual product.
    So that's the previous approach: Gardasil is not Cervarix even though they're similar in contents. Now for the major caveat: There's a chance that this rule will not apply to mRNA vaccines. Unlike the traditionally complex and variable live or protein-based vaccines, mRNA can be reliably reproduced in other labs. I don't know where we will eventually end up, but for the moment, I think this page is in the correct place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support move it per WP:COMMONNAME...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I think we have a pretty strong consensus to keep the current name and follow WP:MEDTITLE. Maybe we should include the result in the page consensus as this is bound to come up again given the particularities of the case. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has only been two days, let's wait a bit more please. The support for Tozinameran is far from unanimous. Vpab15 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move – per WP:COMMONNAME. At very least, these pages should redirect to each other, as they are synonyms. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. per WP:MEDTITLE which is clear-cut. Furthermore, the proposed new name is not "the" common name, but one of many informal names that was used for the vaccine prior to it receiving an international designation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep as is, and close immediately. For the reasons cogently stated above by User:Fvasconcellos, User:WhatamIdoing, and WP:MEDTITLE. The advantage of using the INN is that it avoids battles over article titles based on local product branding. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    INN didn't apply to vaccines until this one, so we are in uncharted territory. This is the first vaccine widely used that has an INN name. But the INN is hardly used at all and it is not the most recognisable alternative by any means. Also, let's give other editors the chance to participate. I don't understand the rush to try to close it after only two days. Vpab15 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I obviously oppose for the reasons stated above, but let me once again clarify that INN has applied to vaccines since its inception. This may be the first widely used vaccine to have an INN, but it is not the first one by any means, and won't be the last, especially with the impending approval of other recombinant and modRNA vaccines. (We have articles on others, which are currently at the INN, and articles which aren't at the INN but should be). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move – because of WP:COMMONNAME. It should follow the name that it is generally known by, and the Tozineramen name is too general due to different vaccines also including the same spike protein DTLT (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)DTLT[reply]
  • The rationale behind "tozinameran" is literally the opposite. No other vaccines will contain the substance named "tozinameran"; several others will encode (or contain) the same spike protein. That's the whole point of a nonproprietary name. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, but suggests an auto direct for the name "Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine". It’s too clunky of a name, and someone is going to want to change it back to the current name later on. EpixAndroid (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"someone is going to want to change it back to the current name later on". Agree, as it happens in pretty much all RMs. So not really relevant here. Vpab15 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, but also suggest a redirect for the name "Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine". Per WP:MEDTITLE, we should use the proper regulated name. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move as per WP:MEDTITLE, for the reasons stated by EpixAndroid and the fact that 'tozinameran' is much easier to pronounce. 2600:1700:7869:200:2CE5:5A1B:E305:BEA0 (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this article should be reverted to previous name due to fact that despite per WP:MEDTITLE, Tozinameran has really obscure name and there is rare for reliable source to use it and we tend not to use Original research for naming the article. I rather suggest that Tozinameran, "Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine", "Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine" to be auto direct as BNT162b2, the previous name of this article. 36.65.40.44 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move as this is a legible and unique name for the vaccine. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Why should we confuse our readers by adding a title that barely anybody outside of the scientific community knows about when there is a clear, overwhelming name which is used in the media right now and has been for the course of this pandemic? WP:COMMONNAME, a policy which has been discussed countlessly over the course of the 20 years of Wikipedia, should override WP:MEDTITLE, which, according to its own page, has not seriously been discussed as a policy since 2004.
  • Now, even assuming my reasoning about WP:MEDTITLE is incorrect and it is in just as strong of a standing as WP:COMMONNAME, this title brings forth the possibility of WP:IAR, which is made to bypass these technically correct squabbles about policy which doesn't actually help our readers, which is our job as editors. This article title as it is right now (and BNT162b2, which is far worse) is, quite simply, making Wikipedia into a closed-off, confusing medical journal instead of an encyclopedia which actually gives knowledge to our readers. Thanks, SixulaTalk 14:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This vaccine was developed by BioNTech, should come first in the name. Even in Europe, this is referred more as the BNT/Pfizer vaccine. Albertaont (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Albertaont: so you support moving to something related to Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine or do you prefer the present name? Thanks, SixulaTalk 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Present name. Thanks, Albertaont (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Apparently it's also called "Comirnaty" now. Perhaps that is another point in favour of the netural "Pfizer/BioNTech" name? —ajf (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Comirnaty" is a proprietary name, and there could be many of these in different regions. That's why WP:MEDTITLE states that we use the International nonproprietary name (INN). There is only one INN and that's "Tozinameran". --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the change, it's exactly what the FDA and all media sources call it. It's also the WP:COMMONNAME. comrade waddie96 (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supportas per WP:COMMONNAME.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Pfizer's own website uses the proposed name: https://www.pfizer.com/products/product-detail/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine —ajf (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, their marketing department is playing a blinder. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, and if we don't do that, at the very least add a forest of redirects from the more general names (it's startling that the proposed name is a redlink). This feels like a case where our standard naming conventions are going to confuse rather than serve the reader, given that the vaccines seem to be near-universally referred in general use by their "producer" names rather than the technical one. The guidelines are sensible, but they should also have exceptions where necessary. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sort of illustrates the problem: there is no single "common name". While Pfizer's marketing folk have been astute in getting their name "first" in the name there (which Americans seem to like), by all usual measures BioNTech should have prominence. In other parts of the world it is sometimes called the "BioNTech vaccine"[11]. This mess is why we have non-proprietary international standard names. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether BioNTech "should have prominence" over Pfizer or not is completely subjective. Luckily we have WP:COMMONNAME, which makes it easy to decide the title when one of the possible names is the most widely used by a large margin. That is Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in this case. Vpab15 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this cuts both ways - while we can quibble about exactly what we could pick as the perfect form of the "common name", "Tozinameran" isn't it. An approximation to what people call it - pick one or the other, or use a slashed form - seems more useful to the reader than a term they definitely don't use and are very unlikely to encounter. For example, the term is used nowhere (that I can find) on gov.uk or nhs.uk, despite those being two weeks into an incredibly highly publicised vaccine campaign. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, can I ask participants to respect MOS:INDENTMIX, please?
    Oppose move: The policy WP:Article titles #Explicit conventions clearly states:

    Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine).

    WP:MEDTITLE requires that

    "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)

    and for drugs (including vaccines), it recommends the International nonproprietary name, which in this case is "Tozinameran". Any argument against complying with Wikipedia policy needs to have a very strong basis on which it is made; and COMMONNAME has already been shown to be subordinate to MEDTITLE. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately the next sentence from WP:Article titles #Explicit conventions seems to undermine that argument: "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". I think there are very few benefits of using an obscure name when the most common one is perfectly good and immediately recognisable. Vpab15 (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vpab15: I'm sorry you're having such a problem with your indenting. Perhaps WP:Colons and asterisks may be more understandable if you found MOS:INDENTMIX too difficult?
        I don't think you're reading the guidance correctly. There are obvious benefits of using a non-proprietary scientific name as an article title because it avoids all of the advertising inherent in epithets like "Pfizer vaccine" or "BioNTech vaccine", not to mention the nonsense above about which company name comes first. There are perfectly good redirects available from slang, lay and proprietary names, so nobody is unable to find the article if is located at the scientific name. By your reasoning, we would have the Myocardial infarction article at Heart attack, but we don't. --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not agree at all that the proposed name is slang. It is used by many reliable sources. Yes, there are benefits of using the technical name. If this was going to be read by medical professionals only I would not object to the name. Since it is going to be read by the general public, the most obscure name of all the alternatives doesn't seem the best option. Regarding heart attack, I was able to find multiple medical sources using it (eg. [12], [13] ), so it seems another case of using the most obscure name for no reason. Vpab15 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't have to be slang to be inappropriate. We treat lay terms in the same way. Are you now trying to claim that "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine" isn't even a lay term? It certainly isn't the scientific name, not to mention clumsy. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and the general public is perfectly capable of understanding an INN name. We have our article on Atorvastatin, not at "Pfizer–Warner-Lambert cholesterol drug" for good reason. When we use the scientific name, we have a defined, sourced name, not a series of arguments about whether it should be "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine" or "BioNTech-Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine" or "Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine" or "Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine" or "Pfizer vaccine" or "BioNTech vaccine", ad nauseum. Redirects can deal with the slang and lay terms and there's no need to insult the intelligence of our readers. As for your objection to Myocardial infarction, attempts to move it to a lay term have always failed, so there are plenty of reasons for using the correct term instead of slang. Those outcomes are what is documented at MEDTITLE, and that's the governing policy here. --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is just a straw man. Atorvastatin is widely used by most reliable sources, medical or otherwise. "Pfizer–Warner-Lambert cholesterol drug" is something you just made up that nobody uses. INN might be a good guideline for some cases, but we shouldn’t follow it blindly. This is the first vaccine that is widely used that has INN. I strongly object to start using INN for vaccines without any discussion just because it is used for other drugs. This has never been discussed before so there is no consensus either way, let’s not pretend otherwise. Regarding slang, wikipedia says "members of particular in-groups prefer over the common vocabulary of a standard language in order to establish group identity, exclude outsiders, or both". It seems to me that Tozinameran is the slang term here. Vpab15 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. WP:MEDTITLE has been raised multiple times already, but my other concern here is that "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine" is a subjective title and not a COMMONNAME. I have seen many different informal names in use by reliable sources, such as "Pfizer vaccine", "Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine", "Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine", among others. The best option I believe would be to redirect all these variations to "Tozinameran", which should be a definite, uncontroversial title. As long as we make user navigation easier with redirects, I don't see a proposed alternative title that would be better than the current one. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 05:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • All alternatives are subjective. You first pick your favourite and then find some guideline to support your choice, like we all have done here (/sarcasm). Again, I do not agree the proposed name is informal when it has been used by multiple reliable sources, including the regulators ([14] [15]). Yes, there are a few alternatives used, but the most common one is "Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine" by far. What all what you call informal names have in common though is they all are much more common than "Tozinameran". Vpab15 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If "Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine" is the "most common" name, why are you proposing to rename the article to something else? Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Vpab15: You need to stop trying to project your biases onto other people. Every experienced medical editor picks the name according to the policies and guidelines that we have agreed, and I strongly resent your snide assertion that we do otherwise. Your own anecdotal examples don't even agree with each other: FDA uses "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine"; MHRA uses "Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19", then "Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine", then "Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine". How do those four different phrases form a sensible basis for deciding on an article title? What all these informal names have in common is that they are inconsistent by their very nature, unlike the INN name, which is fixed, and that's why we use it. --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, which is part of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. WP:MEDTITLE is a guideline, and I suspect most applies when there is not a clear COMMONNAME distinction, but it does not overrule policy. Tozinameran is an obscure name and most definitely nowhere near an acceptable, commonly recognisable name for this title. As such, support move per policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, just my 2c. I also find RexxS's argument above convincing, particularly the heart attack example. A suitable discussion closer will be able to evaluate the strengths of the arguments based on precedent (I don't really know where the line is drawn). But I do feel we would not choose a far more obscure name when the difference between the technical name and commonly recognisable name is so great. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, MEDTITLE does overrule COMMONNAME because WP:AT (1) states that it "is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right)" (which includes MEDTITLE); and (2) explicitly mentions MEDTITLE as an example of "In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine)." You can't just quote COMMONNAME as policy when that policy acknowledges that exceptions like MEDTITLE exist. It is wise to remember that policies and guidelines describe practice on-wiki, not prescribe it.
    You make a good point that "tozinameran" has little currency in sources to date, but it has only been assigned as the INN very recently, and take-up may take time. I think the argument would carry far more weight if there were a single lay term, but the plethora of combinations of "Pfizer", "BioNTech" and "COVID", along with hyphens, slashes and dashes seriously undermine that argument. It is true that any combination would be more recognisable than "tozinameran" because of the amount of lay news coverage right now, but in the long term, we know we'll have to have the article at the INN name, because that's what we've always agreed to do. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Move per WP:MEDTITLE. Putting several redirects in, is probably the best to find it. It is absurd to put a common name for technical concept. It is not a person. All trade journal, papers, articles and monographs will refer to it by its INN name. scope_creepTalk 18:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the exception where No Original Research is applied. Wikipedia should be pioneer for using the original research name Tozinameran than any other sources. The title is eligible per WP:MEDTITLE. 36.68.186.36 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia doesn't pioneer, it reports. Thanks, SixulaTalk 15:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Comirnaty per WP:MEDTITLE as brand name instead of the INN name "COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)" which is not clear, per Official Journal of the European Union. Hekerui (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was hardly WP:COMMONNAME because no one actually knew what to call it. So then we used BNT162b2, until the name was changed. A similar thing happened to VOC-202012/01/Variant of Concern 202012/01 recently and it's all because the public doesn't know what the hell to call something when science is still figuring it out. Arguably coronavirus could be the WP:COMMONNAME of COVID-19 even though we swiftly corrected in what it was called. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Move per WP:MEDTITLE and the convincing "we don't have an article at 'heart attack'" argument. - Cyberflag1 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Move. Current name is concise. New name is not. Personally I think we have a problem with verbose titles for many of our COVID-19 articles. If I can't easily type it from memory, then the title is too complicated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:MEDTITLE requires that

    "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)

    and for drugs (including vaccines), it recommends the International nonproprietary name. None of the article's medical sources, nor any that I have seen, refer to the subject of the article as 'Tozinameran'. If there is no 'scientific or recognised medical name' that is used, the 'lay term' has the same weight as a 'scientific or recognised medical name' which is not used, so WP:COMMONNAME must apply. Doodle77 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked three core journals mentioned at WP:MEDRS: New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The results for Tozinameran are zero matches. None whatsoever in any of the three ([16] [17] [18]). They use the company names to refer to the vaccines ([19] [20] [21]). WP:MEDTITLE says "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". That is clearly not Tozinameran. MEDTITLE just suggests INN as one possible standard that might be helpful. It is not a sacred text that we need to follow blindly even if medical sources are not using INN for the vaccine. Vpab15 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the brand name of the drug and is the name that is being used in the medical field. The current title is an actual, precise name for this article's topic, while the proposed title is just a description. An actual name is preferable to a descriptor title. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that almost nobody in the medical field is using Tozinameran as has been shown above. Vpab15 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. proposal contains multiple names, thus creates the issue on ordering the names -- e.g. "Pfizer-BioNTech" (more common in US media) vs "BioNTech-Pfizer" (more common in EU media). Current more technical name does not have that issue. --Voidvector (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really a problem if there are two variants of the proposed name? Both of them are much more widely used than the current name and would leave the reader in no doubt as to the topic of the article. It just makes no sense to choose Tozinameran which is the most uncommon of all the possibilities. That is a logic I really do not understand. Vpab15 (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because introducing variations create further renaming politicking down the road. Current name does not. I would however support simple "BioNTech vaccine" as they are the creator. I would not support "Pfizer vaccine" as it would also be problematic -- They are only a distributor/investor. There are other distributors/investors, namingly "Fosun." --Voidvector (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really struggling to understand that. This move request shows a lot of editors have problems with the current name going against many Wikipedia policies, including WP:MEDTITLE. Nobody is opposing the request because they'd like it to be in the inverse order (ie. "BioNTech-Pfizer"). It looks a bit disingenuous to me. Vpab15 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:MEDTITLE literally says

            For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction.

            and

            Use the nonproprietary name when referring to a drug in medical articles. Wikilinked instances of the name may be followed by the proprietary name in parentheses: "trastuzumab (Herceptin)".

            It is pretty clear what the name should be per MOS. Since the proposal deviates from MOS, it has to be superior in order for it to make sense. My position is it is worse because the proposed name is permutable and politicizable. By repeating you don't "understand" my position doesn't change that fact. Also accusing me of "disingenuous" is ad hominem. (I likewise think you might be a paid Pfizer troll, but that would be ad hominem if I used it in the argument.) --Voidvector (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep as is, close - I just argued against moving these pages to the commercial names on Talk:AZD1222 and that's why I came here today. ACLNM (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The EMA Comirnaty EPAR lists COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside-modified) as the common name. The UK MHRA Information for UK healthcare professionals states the name is COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 concentrate for solution for injection. The US name is Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine

A Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) has been granted in the EU for the product COMIRNATY COVID‑19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) (Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine in USA) for active immunisation to prevent COVID‑19 caused by SARS‑CoV‑2 virus, in individuals 16 years of age and older. During the initial pandemic stage, COMIRNATY COVID‑19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) may also be distributed with the packaging with the name Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine.

— https://www.comirnatyglobal.com/
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine or something like this, because it is the title under which people know this vaccine. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support moving to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine. We need a general name. Oppashi Talk 06:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per comments above (especially Fvasconcellos and RexxS) it appears to be pretty clear that Tozinameran is compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. It's more encyclopedic than brand names and there's no margin to endless discussions regarding capitalization, dashes or spaces, order of words, etc... I'd also prefer BNT162b2 over brand names. Feelthhis (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

well, in sheer numbers neither is really ahead(by too much), but consider what a reader(in laymans terms) is going to identify with...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if we assume that both names are equally used by medical sources (a very big "if" considering the INN "tozinameran" is hardly used by any medical source) we should also consider the average wikipedia reader. Vpab15 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that a significant number of !votes that oppose the move base their argument on two false statements. The first one is that we must use INN per WP:MEDTITLE. This is not true. MEDTITLE simply says "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". It then suggests it might be useful to use an international standard, one of which is INN. The other false statement is that "tozinameran" is widely used in medical sources (it is not) or that the proposed name is only used in the media but not in medical sources. The truth is "tozinameran" is hardly used in medical sources and the proposed name is much more common both in medical sources and the general media. From a previous comment:

I checked three core journals mentioned at WP:MEDRS: New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The results for Tozinameran are zero matches. None whatsoever in any of the three ([22] [23] [24]). They use the company names to refer to the vaccines ([25] [26] [27])

. Vpab15 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it an issue for the lay user? All of the suggested variations of the name of this article redirect to the article. The argument about what a reader is going to identify with could be used as backing to rename the article about paracetamol to acetaminophen since many Americans are unfamiliar with paracetamol. Assuming that the INN becomes more common in the published literature will there be another discussion to rename the article to the INN if it gets renamed to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine now? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English encyclopedia for a global audience. Paracetamol is the common name on my side of the globe and many other regions and is also the INN name. So it makes sense to use that title even if Americans (4% of the world population) are not familiar with it. Is there any region in the world where tozinameran is commonly used? Assuming the INN becomes more common in the published literature, another move request can then be done and decided based on the use of the INN name at the time. Right now the INN name only appears in an obscure list and nobody is using it, not even medical sources. Also worth considering the nutshell summary at WP:MEDMOS: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients." Vpab15 (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with User:Whywhenwhohow's position on this. If we are going to deviate from using INNs for titles of articles on drugs, vaccines, etc., there is a strong argument to be made in favor of acetaminophen as the far more common term in published English sources (according to Google Ngram Viewer). Plus acetaminophen is more memorable, easier to pronounce, less ambiguous, and less easily confused with other drugs and other medical terms than paracetemol. Which is kind of important for an analgesic that's so widely used. It's to avoid such edit wars that WP:MEDTITLE went with the INN in the first place. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can avoid edit wars if we all just agree with you. Vpab15 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can avoid edit wars if we defer to people with a lifelong interest in health sciences who actually know what they are talking about — to call out the obvious, you didn't bother to give a substantive reply above because you have none after I explained why your analysis of paracetemol is flawed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think we should rename paracetamol to acetaminophen because that is the common name in your part of the world, please go ahead and start move request. If you have some evidence that tozinameran is the common name in any part of the world, please share it. The same if you find it commonly used in medical sources. Otherwise, we'll have to change the name per WP:MEDTITLE. Vpab15 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a recent media post ....The CDC confirmed it “is aware of a reported death in Florida of an individual [medical doctor] who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine about two weeks before passing away,[28]...the 'layterm' is used Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name is fine Machinexa (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No change needed Machinexa (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BNT162b2 or tozi.. seems fine Machinexa (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 22 January 2021[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine → Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine – most sources use hyphen, not dash. Vpab15 (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Whywhenwhohow (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DASH states that a hyphen should be used in compounded proper names of single entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whywhenwhohow (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whywhenwhohow: But Pfizer and BioNTech are two different companies that worked together to make this vaccine, therefore the article title should use a dash. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DASH clearly states: "In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash". I think you got that from MOS:ENBETWEEN and not MOS:DASH. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: An example in MOS:ENBETWEEN is "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people". The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is a single product named after two companies. Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whywhenwhohow: Isn't the vaccine's name BNT162b2? This is just the common name of the vaccine. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: That was its name during development and is still used in some countries.[1] The name "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine"[2][3] is used except where they trademarked the name "Comirnaty".[4] For example,

A Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) has been granted in the EU for the product Comirnaty COVID‑19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) (Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine in USA) for active immunisation to prevent COVID‑19 caused by SARS‑CoV‑2 virus, in individuals 16 years of age and older. During the initial pandemic stage, COMIRNATY COVID‑19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) may also be distributed with the packaging with the name Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine.

— https://www.comirnatyglobal.com/

Global Information About Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine (also known as BNT162b2)

The approval status of the Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine varies worldwide. In countries where the vaccine has not been approved by the relevant regulatory authority, it is an investigational drug, and its safety and efficacy have not been established.

— https://www.cvdvaccine.com/

In the EU and Switzerland, BNT162b2 received Conditional Marketing Authorizations under the name COMIRNATY.

In the U.S., BNT162b2 is authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) as "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine".

In the UK, BNT162b2 is authorized under a temporary authorization for emergency supply under the name "COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2".

— https://biontech.de/hcp-hub
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "BioNTech HCP Hub". BioNTech.
  2. ^ "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine". Pfizer.
  3. ^ "Global information about Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19". Pfizer.
  4. ^ "Comirnaty COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine". Comirnaty Global.
  • Support. This was moved to dash without discussion. Almost all sources use a hyphen instead of a dash. Vpab15 (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most sources would obviously use a hyphen because an en dash is hard to type. And isn't this the job of a redirect? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:DASH or, more specifically, MOS:ENBETWEEN. "Pfizer-BioNTech" (as opposed to "COVID-19") is not a proper noun or single name, it is a compound of two names that do not modify each other, thus the en dash is used. Sources don't use Wikipedia's MOS so they are not given precedence to applying the MOS. The existing redirect with the hyphen fulfils its purpose. IceWelder [✉] 11:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: Exactly my point, the MOS was probably being misconstrued. How come no one ever noticed this thing? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Oppose I closed the previous RM and executed this one as a WP:RMTR some 4 hours ago. I really expected a courtesy ping to discuss this before escalating to full RM. Anyway, MOS:DASH says that Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound: [...] the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme (developed by Seeliger and Donker-Voet). This is exactly what we have here, since Pfizer and BioNTech are two distinct companies. On the other hand, we have Hewlett-Packard Voyager series with a hyphen, since Hewlett-Packard is a single entity. Thus I deemed the HueMan1's TR request as uncontroversial. No such user (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close per comments above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per above editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. But we could just move the article to Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close per MOS:DASH and comments above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. ~ HAL333 02:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. 2young2bameh (talk) 4:52, 25 January 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.

Israeli data (Jan 28)[edit]

Israeli data of 2nd dose recipients after 7 days, involving of 250,000 subjects, more or less aligns with Pfizer's own smaller sample-sized data.

It shows a 92 percent (and rising) efficacy rate, with a 0.027 percent reinfection rate.

To put that in perspective: that's a total of only 66 cases. Half of whom had preexisting conditions, and with all (without exception) having experienced, at most, very mild symptoms requiring no hospitalization.

My source (Hebrew): https://www.davar1.co.il/278776/ (Davar, Jan 28).

El_C 19:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that it is estimated about half of Israeli's recent caseload (7,500 new daily cases as of yesterday) involves the UK variant.
My source (English): https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/coronavirus/1611573149-israel-health-officials-deeply-concerned-uk-covid-19-variant-running-wild (i24 News, Jan 25).
El_C 21:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great news. It would be great to find some WP:MEDRS sources reporting this new data so that we may include it in the article. Did the Israeli Health Agency release any information? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto, I'm not familiar with an Israeli Health Agency — I presume you mean Ministry of Health (Israel)...? Anyway, the answer is no. The data was collected and published by Maccabi Healthcare Services (involving their patients only). El_C 02:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gave this another glance. It was easy enough to search, I just put the HMO's name (מכבי שירותי בריאות) alongside 248,000 (number of patients in the sample). Now I see that this has been mentioned by many Israeli news sources today. They all cite the same Doctor to have released the data. Her name is Anat Aka Zohar and they all call her head of the Information and Digital Health Division (of said HMO) — a division which, "digital" as it may be, does not have a website, a page on https://www.maccabi4u.co.il, or any online presence that I was able to discern, whatsoever. But I digress! El_C 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why not search in English, too? Looks like The Jerusalem Post just posted the story a few hours ago: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israel-shows-promising-results-from-pfizer-vaccination-campaign-657051 — likely the The Times of Israel (etc.) will soon follow suit, as well. El_C 03:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks El_C: to clarify I wasn't referring to a specific "Israeli health agency" but to any "official" source for the data that we may use in accordance to WP:MEDRS. I don't think news reports would not be suitable for such a claim unfortunately. If you follow those news outlets and any such source is linked in those articles please let us know! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the official source is the aforementioned HMO. It has released the "preliminary results" of the study to the press yesterday. Yes, I know about the MEDRS requirement (I did help create WP:GS/COVID19), which is why I noted it here on the talk page rather than on the mainspace. Anyway, as predicted, here is the Times of Israel in tow: https://www.timesofisrael.com/vaccine-found-92-effective-in-israel-in-first-controlled-result-outside-trials El_C 14:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you didn't know about MEDRS. I'm just making sure everybody else reading this knows about it. If you, or anyone else, spot anything directly from the HMO (or other official source) please share! Great news in any case. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

important?[edit]

Not unexpected since the vaccine provides effective immunity, not sterilizing immunity. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tozinameran is NOT the "active ingredient" of the vaccine. It is the INN name of the vaccine.[edit]

Whywhenwhohow you have introduced this statement in the past and reverted my edit correcting this. However this information is incorrect. In your commit message you stated: "The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine contains the active ingredient tozinameran/BNT162b2. The other ingredients are excipients. https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/auspar-bnt162b2-mrna-210125.pdf" However the link you posted does not support your statement (which is incorrect – I made the same mistake in the past and was corrected by more experienced SME). Tozinameran is the INN name for Comirnaty. Source: https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB15696 and WHO https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/druginformation/issues/WHO_DI_34-3_PL124-SpecialEdition.pdf I am reverting once again. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gtoffoletto: Please provide a MEDRS source that provided the correction -- corrected by more experienced SME. The WHO Drug Information, the Health Canada PI, and the TGA AusPAR identifty tozinameran (or BNT162b2) as the active ingredient.

The description in the WHO Drug Information for tozinameran states that the INN is for the mRNA immunological agent.

messenger RNA (mRNA), 5'-capped, encoding a full-length,

codon-optimised pre-fusion stabilised conformation variant (K986P and V987P) of the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, GenBank: MN908947.3) spike (S) glycoprotein, flanked by 5' and 3' untranslated regions and a 3' poly(A) tail; contains N1-methylpseudouridine instead of uridine (all-U>m1Ψ).

immunological agent for active immunization (anti-SARS-CoV-2)

— https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/druginformation/issues/WHO_DI_34-3_PL124-SpecialEdition.pdf

Health Canada states that tozinameran is the active ingredient.

Product description

Brand name: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
Company name: BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH
Ingredient: tozinameran
Status: Authorized By Interim Order

Date of approval: December 09, 2020

— https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine/product-details

The AusPAR states that BNT162b2 is the active ingredient.

Submission details

Type of submission: New biological entity
Product name: Comirnaty
Active ingredient: BNT162b2 (mRNA) (Pending decision on the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) and the Australian Approved Name (AAN).)
Decision: Approved for provisional registration
Date of decision: 24 January 2021
Date of entry onto ARTG: 25 January 2021

ARTG number: 346290

— https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/auspar-bnt162b2-mrna-210125.pdf

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FDA label states

Each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine contains 30 mcg of a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2.

Each dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine also includes the following ingredients: lipids (0.43 mg (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 0.05 mg 2[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 0.09 mg 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and 0.2 mg cholesterol), 0.01 mg potassium chloride, 0.01 mg monobasic potassium phosphate, 0.36 mg sodium chloride, 0.07 mg dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and 6 mg sucrose. The diluent (0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP) contributes an additional 2.16 mg sodium chloride per dose.

— https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=908ecbe7-2f1b-42dd-94bf-f917ec3c5af8
The EMA EPAR states

Name: Comirnaty

Agency product number: EMEA/H/C/005735
Active substance: Single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA produced using a cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2

International non-proprietary name (INN) or common name: COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside-modified)

— https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty
The UK information for recipients states

6. Contents of the pack and other information

What COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 contains
• The active substance is BNT162b2 RNA.
After dilution, the vial contains 6 doses, of 0.3 mL with 30 micrograms mRNA each. This vaccine contains polyethylene glycol/macrogol (PEG) as part of ALC-0159

• The other ingredients are:

— https://www.cvdvaccine.co.uk/files/Information_for_UK_recipients_on_PfizerBioNTech.pdf
Please provide a MEDRS source that shows that tozinameran is the name for the complete assembled vaccine as opposed to just the active mRNA ingredient.
(edited) --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whywhenwhohow: in addition to the ones provided above you can see this: https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/vaccines/who-recommendation-covid-19-mrna-vaccine-nucleoside-modified-comirnaty® 1 which links to https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/documents/TAG-EUL_PublicReport_BioNTech_DEC20.pdf that states precisely: Tozinameran is the International nonproprietary name of Novel COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Nucleoside Modified) - Comirnaty®. The vaccine has only one active "ingredient": a strand of ModRNA codenamed BNT162b2. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gtoffoletto: Tozinameran (BNT162b2) is the one active ingredient in that vaccine as well as all of the others.

The composition of Novel COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is given in the table below.

Name of Ingredients: BNT162b2 DS
Reference to Standard: In-house
Function: Active ingredient
Concentration (mg/mL): 0.5
Amount per vial: 225 μg

Amount per dose: 30 μg

— https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/key-resources/documents/recommendation-emergency-use-listing-eul-covid-19-mrna-vaccine-nucleoside

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whywhenwhohow: that's not what the source you provided says. The vaccines all have different proprietary ModRNAs. They are not identical and they are not all called tozinameran. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gtoffoletto: How so? Why would the modRNA be different? Where do you see that they are different other than the names/descriptions? It they are different then tozinameran can't be the INN since it describes a single entity. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion has ignored that "tozinameran" is both the INN and the active ingredient—in fact, it is the INN of the active ingredient. For the purposes of the INN system, only the active ingredient (or, at most, a countersalt or counterion) matters. The Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (or Comirnaty, or whatever else we want to call it) is the only extant formulation of tozinameran. For Wikipedia's purposes, they are one and the same. The excipients and inactive ingredients are described in a separate section, not in the article title or the lead.

Also, per WP:PHARMMOS, if the page title is not at the INN, the INN should be present in the lead, bolded and described as such. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Fvasconcellos. I also went to compare the two EMA assessments for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines just to doublecheck and they do describe the active ingredient differently [29][30]. They are both based on the Spike but apparently with slight proprietary modifications and optimisations. So I expect each sequence would have its own INN. But this is not my area of expertise. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they would. The Moderna vaccine does NOT contain tozinameran. Its active ingredient has no INN yet. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have you here Fvasconcellos a couple of questions out of curiosity: why don't the other vaccines seem to have INNs yet? Is tozinameran definitely confirmed or just proposed? I read somewhere there was a standard confirmation period to allow for objections. Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's still proposed, but as stated in WP:PHARMMOS pINNs carry the same weight as rINNs. Other vaccines probably won't have INNs, as I stated in the Move discussion:

The official WHO policy is that peptide vaccines, recombinant vaccines, and mRNA molecules used for active immunization (such as the Pfizer vaccine) are assigned INNs. "Natural" vaccines are not. Here is the relevant recommendation. We have other vaccine articles with the INN as the title, such as Adegramotide, a peptide vaccine. If there is an INN, then that should be the article title, as per current guidelines. If there is no INN, we default to WP:COMMONNAME. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fvasconcellos: WP:PHARMMOS is not a guideline. WP:MEDMOS, in WP:MEDLEAD, suggests Avoid cluttering the very beginning of the article with pronunciations or unusual alternative names; infoboxes are useful for storing this data. Most readers access Wikipedia on mobile devices and want swift access to the subject matter without undue scrolling. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as one of the original contributors to both PHARMMOS and MEDMOS I am fully aware of that. The lead is now less cluttered, with fewer words, than when it (erroneously) described "tozinameran" as the active ingredient. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fvasconcellos: Previously you wrote "tozinameran" is both the INN and the active ingredient and now you write (erroneously) described "tozinameran" as the active ingredient. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory/conflicting information[edit]

The information about required emergency authorization appears to be incorrect and may be WP:OR. The article opens with

It is both the first COVID-19 vaccine to be authorized by a stringent regulatory authority for emergency use and the first cleared for regular use.

and continues with contradictory information claiming that emergency authorization is required

Emergency authorization is required as its Phase III clinical trials are still ongoing: monitoring of the primary outcomes will continue until August 2021, while monitoring of the secondary outcomes will continue until January 2023.

There is no source provided to justify the requirement that emergency authorization is required. According to the COVID-19 vaccine#Authorized and approved vaccines section the vaccine has full authorization in multiple countries. Thoughts? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In most major jurisdictions, Covid vaccines are only authorized under "emergency use authorization" because their full clinical trials have not finished (which take years, not months in the US and EU). Only after the full trials are done, can the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine be freely sold and marketed as a normal drug/vaccine direct to the public (with Pfizer-BioNTech taking liability for their performance) in a drug store etc. Until then, it is only made available under EUA terms and conditions. Britishfinance (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is a major jurisdiction? How does your comment align with the non-emergency authorizations that have been granted (e.g. AU, EU)? What is the WP:MEDRS source for your comment? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
US and EU (and even the UK). If you look at the official health authority authorizations for the vaccines in these jurisdictions, it is all under emergency authorization (I don't have the source to hand, but wanted to answer your question). Clinical trials take years not months, and emergency use is the only basis under which these vaccines can be approved. Obviously, the scope of use usually for everybody over 18 (i.e. widespread use), but the legal authorization is emergency. Britishfinance (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you state may be valid but it doesn't address the conflicts in the article (regular/full approval vs required EUA). In addition, the European Union granted conditional marketing authorisation, Australia granted provisional approval, and other countries granted non-emergency authorization. If the point is that the approval processes were accelerated due to the pandemic then the wording should be changed to state that instead of stating that EUA must be used. Reliable sources should be provided. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was pretty cluttered and unclear. I've cleaned it up a bit taking this discussion into consideration and removing outdated information. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unintelligible table[edit]

I cannot understand the table, which contains weird and ungrammatical labels. What is the meaning of: "After dose 1 to before dose 2" and "Dose 2 to 7 days after dose 2". Theoretically I could try to find it in the sources, but what is the role of Wikipedia then? There is something like readability, right? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that's ungrammatical, nor how it's not understandable. Maybe it's just me, but "efficacy after dose 1 to before dose 2" (with the word efficacy implied by the fact the table is about efficacy and those are all in the "efficacy endpoint" column), pretty clearly means the efficacy in the time period between dose 1 and dose 2, etc. I also can't think of any way it could be improved... it's already straightforward enough if you ask me. The dose 2 one could potentially be improved to something like 7 days following dose 2 but anything else would be too wordy imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Berchanhimez: Although I am not a native English speaker I understand perfectly the (plain English) phrase: "in the time period between dose 1 and dose 2", but "to before" sounds very bad to me. Why not replace "to" with "and"?
According to Google Search:
"after the first dose to before the second dose" => 3,890 results
"after the first dose and before the second dose" => 31,200 results
So, maybe my language intuition is not bad? Anyway, thank you for your response :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not - and I never intended to suggest it wasn't. I agree that changing it to "and" would be better - it's possible I understand "to" in that context more because of my line of work, but Wikipedia is for everyone, and I agree that the change is appropriate and will make it shortly. Thank you for the suggestion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: Wow, I am so impressed, thank you :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

269 deaths in Germany after patients had received the Comirnaty vaccine[edit]

German federal medical agency Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) reports 269 German deaths that have occured between several hours and up to a month after patients had received the Biontech vaccine Comirnaty, source: [31] (page 7). The PDF is in German. Here: [32] is an English summary or overview of all the PEI reports in regards to COVID-19 vaccine safety where also this German PDF is linked from, but unfortunately, the deaths are not mentioned in the English summary, only the total number of undesired side effects that include deaths. I thought this death count could be noteworthy for the article. The report states that most of these 269 deaths were due to prior conditions that suddenly worsened several hours to up to a month after vaccination. It also reports the deaths of *ALL* those vaccinated against COVID-19 as "between 33 and 101 years of age", but does not give details on age of deaths specifically in relation to Comirnaty. --2003:EF:170E:7F88:EDBD:5F97:F87D:8194 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is the type of "scare tactic" that anti-vaccine proponents use to try and scare people into thinking that it means more than it does - which is absolutely nothing. As people put it - if you tell a million random people to read the Wikipedia article on this vaccine, some of them will inevitably die within the weeks following them doing so. That does not mean it should be recognized as connected to the vaccine any more than saying "hundreds of people who used Google within the last month died within a few hours to a month after using Google". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an "anti-vaccine scare tactic" to mention official reports by federal agencies on statistically significant occurances? This is not "anti-vaccine propaganda", it's about informing the public, medical authorities, and patients about differences between various vaccines against the same disease. The same report states that those 260 deaths occurring after Comirnaty vaccinations stand next to 1 death that occurred after Moderna vaccination. --2003:EF:170E:7F88:EDBD:5F97:F87D:8194 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you say yourself, they report the deaths of everyone vaccinated, not specifically in relation to the vaccine. This is a statistic that is not encyclopedic and not in line with Wikipedia's purpose which is to present encyclopedic information, not just lists of statistics that you think are "significant". The Pfizer vaccine was authorized first, and there have been much more Pfizer doses administered in the EU (including Germany) than Moderna, which would also need examining in a statistical analysis. And yes, it is an "anti-vaccine scare tactic" to cherry pick statistics taken out of context or that are benign in the grand scheme of things and hype them up as if they're significant. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"China, Hong Kong and Macau"[edit]

@Whywhenwhohow: What's next, "the UK, Scotland and Wales"? Esiymbro (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esiymbro: There were no reliable sources or edit summaries provided with any of your changes. See WP:OR and WP:RS. Please remove your change until discussed and resolved here. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.fosunpharma.com/en/news/news-details-3820.html

https://www.fosunpharma.com/en/news/news-details-3801.html IsaacChong1234 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

The pronunciation provided in the press release ("toe zi na' mer an", "koe mir' na tee") is very bad. It's not clear "an" is supposed to have reduced /ə/ or full /æ/, or "mir" is supposed to have /ɪər/ or /ɜːr/ (I assume the latter). I'd like to know if there's a clip of someone from Pfizer or BioNTech saying it (e.g. an executive being interviewed or a commercial with narration). Nardog (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[The inside story behind Pfizer and BioNTech's new vaccine brand name https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/pfizer-biontech-select-comirnaty-as-brand-name-for-covid-19-vaccine] 2600:1000:B011:B634:A8D3:C53E:D1B6:F267 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly where I got the pronunciation in the press release from. It doesn't have any clips, does it? Nardog (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine name[edit]

I suggest it’ll be the best if we change this page name from only Pfizer-BioNTech to Pfizer-BioNTech/Fosun-BioNTech since there are different names/ partners in different regions. IsaacChong1234 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! We try to have on Wikipedia the shortest name that is unambiguous and precise for the subject - which the current name is. Many medications are produced under multiple generic/brand names and by multiple companies around the world - but barring the need to disambiguate it (i.e. clarify it) from another similar subject, we don't include all of them in the title of the article or the header of the infobox. The vaccine was researched by Pfizer and BioNTech, hence why they're in the title - which is also what it's called primarily in most of the world (at least right now). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search shows a plethora of evidence that the vaccine Fosun-BioNTech is manufacturing and distributing in China is this same vaccine, thus I've readded that name to the lead and infobox, as that article redirects here. Pinging User:WMSR to discuss here if they feel it should be removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fosun is distributing the Comirnaty vaccine manufactured by BioNTech.[1][2] --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but many news and websites are referring to it as the Fosun-BioNTech vaccine when referring to the vaccine being distributed in China. This has lead to a redirect being created, which means we should prominently feature the name redirected from early in the article (or at least the infobox, but I believe both) and bold it per WP:R#ASTONISH which says the following: Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term. That's why I readded it - it's verifiable and a plausible redirect, thus it should be included in the first couple paragraphs (and as an alternate name in the infobox) and bolded. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IsaacChong1234 Thanks for the updates and the sources. The name of the vaccine distributed by Fosun is Comirnaty according to the sources.[3] Fosun-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not the name of the vaccine. Please remove that name. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whywhenwhohow, the name of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is also Comirnaty - but both are referred to by other names, and in fact the Pfizer-BioNTech name is the most common, thus it's the title. News organizations such as Reuters and others are calling it not Comirnaty but the Fosun-BioNTech vaccine when referring to the vaccine used in China (and territories). As such, the name meets the criteria for an alternate name, and per WP:R#ASTONISH should be mentioned and bolded within the first two paragraphs of the article as a redirect to this article - in addition to including it in the infobox. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanhimez Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is the name of the product in many parts of the world.[4][5] BNT162b2 is the code name, COVID‑19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside-modified) is the common name, and the active ingredient has the pINN tozinameran. Comirnaty is the brand name of the vaccine used in parts of the world including the EU, Switzerland, and China. Fosun-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not the name of the vaccine anywhere. Claiming it has that name is original research (WP:OR) since there are no reliable sources (WP:RS) that show that it is the name of the product. The redirect page should be deleted until such time that usage of that name is validated by reliable sources. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whywhenwhohow at least Reuters is calling it the Fosun-BioNTech vaccine, and many other news sources refer to it as the Fosun vaccine. I provided one link to Reuters above, and a link to a google search - which can confirm its use in other reliable sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Berchanhimez I don't know why Reuters uses that name since Hong Kong calls it Comirnaty.[6][7]. Referring to it as the Fosun vaccine doesn't mean that that is the name of the vaccine. Fosun is the local vendor for the vaccine. The Reuters article doesn't state that the vaccine is named Fosun-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. It uses Fosun Pharma-BioNTech which refers to the partner vendors. That is different from the formally named Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine where Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine appears on the vaccine vials. In any event, some sources refer to it as Fosun vaccine and Reuters referred to it as Fosun Pharma-BioNTech vaccine but the article is using the name Fosun-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The name Fosun-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is still not validated and Fosun Pharma-BioNTech vaccine as an official name is a reach that is not accurate. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't list only "official" names, we list alternative names - and while it started from original research by IsaacChong, it was done in good faith as the user was trying to add something that they themselves observed was a common name for the vaccine in their part of the world. I think Fosun needs to be added as an alternative name to the infobox and should be mentioned (and likely bolded) in the first couple paragraphs, regardless of if it is Fosun-BioNTech or Fosun vaccine or some other form of the name. Furthermore, it's also technically called Comirnaty in the United States and elsewhere as the brand/trade name assigned by Pfizer, but that doesn't mean it isn't referred to by another name more frequently and thus that other name is used. Maybe this is just me wanting to overcompensate for unconscious US-centric bias by adding it, but I don't think it's an overcompensation to add one sentence about it when it's verifiable that Fosun is used to describe it over Pfizer in that part of the world - which the Reuters article verifies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


No I took this vaccine in Hong Kong and it’s call the Fosun-BioNTech not Phifzer-BioNTech IsaacChong1234 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps I think it’s also a good idea if we just refer to this vaccine elsewhere expect in the first paragraph/introduction as the BioNTech vaccine, not Pfizer-BioNTech or Fosun-BioNTech since some region BioNTech is partnered with Pfizer and some with Fosun. IsaacChong1234 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaacChong1234: Adding content to Wikipedia based on personal experience is original research -- "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source". See WP:OR and WP:RS for more details. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BioNTech and Pfizer shared the development costs equally,[8] they also provided the clinical testing data and result to the WHO for emergency use listing.[9][10] Fosun just bought the agency for China market. --Uranus1781 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "BioNTech and Fosun Pharma Receive Special Import Authorization in Macau for COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine". Fosun Pharma (Press release). 25 February 2021. Retrieved 15 April 2021.
  2. ^ "BioNTech and Fosun Pharma Jointly Announce the Arrival of the First Batch of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in Hong Kong and Macau". Fosun Pharma (Press release). 27 February 2021. Retrieved 15 April 2021.
  3. ^ "BioNTech and Fosun Pharma Receive Authorization for Emergency Use in Hong Kong for COVID-19 Vaccine". BioNTech (Press release). 25 January 2021. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
  4. ^ "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine". cvdvaccine. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
  5. ^ "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine- bnt162b2 injection, suspension". DailyMed. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
  6. ^ "About the Vaccines". HK COVID-19 Vaccination Programme. 17 April 2021. Retrieved 19 April 2021.
  7. ^ https://www.covidvaccine.gov.hk/pdf/COVID19VaccinationFactSheet_Comirnaty_ENG.pdf
  8. ^ "Pfizer and BioNTech Profiteering Exposed – More than Enough is Enough". healthgap.org. Health Global Access Project. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
  9. ^ "WHO issues its first emergency use validation for a COVID-19 vaccine and emphasizes need for equitable global access". WHO. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
  10. ^ "Interim recommendations for use of the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2, under Emergency Use Listing". WHO. Retrieved 20 April 2021.

Please fix internal contradiction: "part of" vs "full length"[edit]

In the vaccine technology section it says "BNT162b2 vaccine is based on use of nucleoside-modified mRNA (modRNA) which encodes part of the spike protein". A little later it says "codon-optimized gene of the full-length spike protein of SARS-CoV-2". Please fix this internal contradiction. It can hardly be part of the protein and full length at the same time. Many thanks for this very detailed article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.95.220.51 (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will check sources to fix this. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. [33] the vaccine includes the full-length spike protein per sources -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Missing further/later development section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Norwegian deaths[edit]

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)[reply]

Adverse Effects source needs update[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I think 64% really refers to (asymptomatic) infection.[1] 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)[reply]
More details in the NYT article.[2] --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I think it's better to wait for data from more controlled studies. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kottasová, Ivana (7 July 2021). "Pfizer vaccine protection takes a hit as Delta variant spreads, Israeli government says". CNN. Retrieved 8 July 2021.
  2. ^ "The world is worried about the Delta virus variant. Studies show vaccines are effective against it". The New York Times. 6 July 2021.

Any informations about Taiwan purchases available?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The bioRxiv preprint article[1] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nicolai, Leo; Leunig, Alexander; Pekayvaz, Kami; Anjum, Afra; Riedlinger, Eva; Eivers, Luke; Hoffknecht, Marie-Louise; Rossaro, Dario; Escaig, Raphael; Kaiser, Rainer; Polewka, Vivien; Titova, Anna; Spiekermann, Karsten; Iannacone, Matteo; Stark, Konstantin; Massberg, Steffen (29 June 2021). "Thrombocytopenia and splenic platelet directed immune responses after intravenous ChAdOx1 nCov-19 administration". doi:10.1101/2021.06.29.450356. Retrieved 11 July 2021. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Requested move 3 July 2021[edit]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I see. Alright. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Calidum 18:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [34] -- Calidum 13:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    No wonder, because AZD1222 is not an INN for that vaccine. — kashmīrī TALK 08:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Jesus Christ, you’ve made your point. Please kindly stop bludgeoning the discussion. -- Calidum 22:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you made your point, too? — kashmīrī TALK 22:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​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)[reply]
  • oppose per WP:COMMONNAME--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support per WP:MEDTITLE. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Berchanhimez. Zoozaz1 talk 03:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:COMMONNAME.Run n Fly (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @Alexbrn, Soupvector, Gtoffoletto, Doc James, and Shibbolethink: for help Run n Fly (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Per wp:commonname—blindlynx (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose for the moment, per WP:COMMONNAME. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME Abrilando232 (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per very clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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[1] published last month in The New England Journal of Medicine, whose text alternates between using "BNT162b2" and "the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine". Yet another paper[2], 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)[reply]
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.

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2021[edit]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Magnetism[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Problematic wording in the first sentences of the LEAD?[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Per Wikipedia policy 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)[reply]

@DavidCWG: please go through the discussion Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine#Requested_move_3_July_2021. 2402:3A80:6EC:4EEA:C965:CC18:764C:C847 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021[edit]

Please change "it's" to "its" in the first sentence.

The Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (INN: tozinameran), sold under the brand name Comirnaty,[3][5] is an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine developed by the German biotechnology company BioNTech and for it's development collaborated with American company Pfizer, for support with clinical trials, logistics, and manufacturing.[20][21] Joelvontreifeldt (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you — LauritzT (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine for children 5-11 y/o[edit]

"Specific populations" new information:

Pfizer has conducted a clinical trial of 2200 children aged 5-11, announcing that it has generated a "robust" response and is safe. They expect to submit the to the FDA and other US health agencies soon. Tanaya001 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks ! Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues, approved vs authorized and two different vaccines[edit]

  1. It seems this article use the words approved and authorized without distinction, while these are two different things, at least for the FDA. For example "It is authorized for use in people aged twelve years and older in some jurisdictions". Authorized is basically the emergency authorization while approved is the final approval. [3]
  2. The Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine are actually TWO legally different vaccines with "certain differences". One is approved while the other is just authorized. This was the info I came to the article to read about, but found nothing about it.
    1. How is Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) related to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine? The FDA-approved Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA), made by Pfizer for BioNTech and the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine under EUA have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns
    2. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness. [4][5]
    3. This has caused some legal challanges regarding mandated vaccination since one is approved and the other is just authorized. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.160.99 (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shimabukuro, Tom T.; Kim, Shin Y.; Myers, Tanya R.; Moro, Pedro L.; Oduyebo, Titilope; Panagiotakopoulos, Lakshmi; Marquez, Paige L.; Olson, Christine K.; Liu, Ruiling; Chang, Karen T.; Ellington, Sascha R.; Burkel, Veronica K.; Smoots, Ashley N.; Green, Caitlin J.; Licata, Charles; Zhang, Bicheng C.; Alimchandani, Meghna; Mba-Jonas, Adamma; Martin, Stacey W.; Gee, Julianne M.; Meaney-Delman, Dana M. (17 June 2021). "Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons". New England Journal of Medicine. 384 (24): 2273–2282. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2104983. Retrieved 11 July 2021.
  2. ^ Goldfarb, Jillian L.; Kreps, Sarah; Brownstein, John S.; Kriner, Douglas L. (8 July 2021). "Beyond the First Dose — Covid-19 Vaccine Follow-through and Continued Protective Measures". New England Journal of Medicine. 385 (2): 101–103. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2104527. Retrieved 11 July 2021.
  3. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/Health/approved-authorized-covid-19-vaccines-words-matter/story?id=77554910
  4. ^ https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna
  5. ^ https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
  6. ^ https://www.theepochtimes.com/approved-version-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-still-not-available-in-us_4046513.html

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2021[edit]

73.141.181.50 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine in the United States 5 and older instead of 12 and older.

 Not done This is not yet true, it still requires the ACIP to weigh in and the CDC director to approve it. Come back when that happens — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

95.6% into estimate 96% efficacy[edit]

So I was wondering that the additional efficacy rate 4 days ago. Can you explain that booster shot efficacy rate? [35] Abrilando232 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief mention to this result. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy in 75+[edit]

According to the "Vaccine efficacy against confirmed symptomatic COVID‑19" table, "Age ≥75" group, the 95% CI for efficacy includes negative numbers, which is impossible. Someone please fix this. --Isabela31 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the source. The data is from Table 10 in the source. This is what the source report is showing: a probability whose CI includes negative values!

What is the Wikipedia policy on this, if a citeable source is obviously wrong? --Isabela31 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it obviously wrong? Confidence intervals cross zero sometimes, it is generally a sign that the data set is small, which certainly seems to be the case for the 75 and over group in that paper. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the quantity in question cannot be negative, neither its point estimate or its CI or any of its distribution can be negative. This quantity cannot be negative. Putting a probability on negative values for this quantity is an obvious error. Someone used an incorrect calculation that did not account for the fact that the quantity cannot be negative. Garbage in garbage out. Isabela31 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it's not "obviously" wrong, but just "wrong according to Isabela31". Better seek consensus on what's what. Alexbrn (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Efficacy can be negative, that would mean that the vaccinated group was getting sick more than the control. But it is usually just an artefact of small sample sizes. We have a little bit of text on this at Vaccine efficacy, though it could use a source. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I commented here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quantity (efficacy) can be negative; it is possible for a treatment to actually increase the risk. Many treatment candidates actually do, and many are simply not effective. The central estimate and its confidence interval ignore all other factors, so although you may be correct in saying it is "obviously wrong" because you are considering various other factors (how the body works, how mRNA works and how vaccines work, the fact that it works for other age groups, and so on), this number only considers events (case counts) and nothing else, so it is not reasoning about data, just a description of data. It helps reduce uncertainty, the complexities of the immune system are not fully understood, it give many surprises. And because the central estimate is quite high, I think that this is just a case of under-sampling. -Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2021[edit]

There is a typo "judrisdictions" needs changing to "jurisdictions" — qaisjp(talk) (contribs) 18:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

heart attack and sudden death[edit]

too many cases https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/report-two-more-deaths-from-heart-failure-following-pfizer-vaccine/


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58380867 https://www.lareb.nl/media/aluowkda/signals_2021_cases_fatal_outcomes_covid_vaccine.pdf https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/127337216/covid19-myocarditis-was-probably-due-to-vaccination-says-board-reviewing-mans-death — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achezet (talk •

contribs) 10:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Updated Dec. 28, 2021[reply]

As of December 16, 2021, VAERS has received 1,947 preliminary reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 years and younger who received COVID-19 vaccines.Most cases have been reported after receiving Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, (mRNA COVID-19 vaccines) particularly in male adolescents and young adults.

Achezet (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC) [1][reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

talk

    • Heart attack is not blood clotting. Take a rest and read before posting, thank youAchezet (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Heart problems despite multitudes of evidence.

Myocarditis Occurring After Immunization With mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781600

Achezet (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a "Myocarditis" section. Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn

  • I've been cleaning up and fixing typos, I wanted to say lack of sources but in fact you are correct, my fault. Fixing typos and adding good sources consumed a lot energy so I'm gonna rest and breathe, hoping I did add necessary and/or useful information. Thank you kindly!Achezet (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the adverse effect myocarditis in the brief introduction[edit]

There is no mention of myocarditis as there is for ‘extremely rare blood clots’ in the AZ vaccine article, any chance we could rectify that error for the sake of balance please?Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • if I may add my opinion, I'd suggest leaving it as is and trying to balance Moderna-COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer-COVID-19 vaccine and others as we might get to the point of having a balanced, nicely edited and useful information in general. We could achieve this with bits of improvement on all pages, little by little. I do believe we can reach that goal.Achezet (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December Pfizer study - Data issues[edit]

This could be discussed in the adverse side effects however after the broad analysis of Pfizer trial it might appear they didn't follow several safety protocols during December 2020 published trial. December trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

The point which might be of interest is the group who received their vaccine vs placebo. 4% of subjects were aged 75 and above: while 77.8% were age 16 to 64. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: 804 (4.4%) vs placebo 812 (4.4%).[1] Achezet (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.fda.gov/media/153713/download FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS ADMINISTERING VACCINE (VACCINATION PROVIDERS) REVISED: DEC. 16, 2021

DHL[edit]

Hello everyone, would it be okay if under the section Logistics the sentence In late 2020, DHL entered agreements to deliver the vaccine manufactured by BioNTech and Pfizer.[1] appears? Thanks in advance, with best regards. --2003:E0:7732:1AB2:104B:7C68:15FA:F0A (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Miller, Joe. "DHL boss lambasts lack of 'foresight' in vaccines rollout". Financial Times. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

"Data integrity issues"[edit]

I've moved the following text here, which was earlier in the top-level COVID-19 vaccine article:

While concerning, as far as I am aware this does not seem to invalidate the overall results of the trial, and still less does it influence the overall issue of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, and it shouldn't be given excess importance.

-- The Anome (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. I was wondering about this as well. Should we add this to the article or should we wait for more information? Mrconter1 (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. It has been addressed. Mrconter1 (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— "The report was enthusiastically embraced by anti-vaccination activists"

This report was discussed by CDC, Financial Times and worldwide organizations concerned about the data. It's not a matter of anti or pro-vax battle. 1ozieje (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thacker, Paul D. (2 November 2021). "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial". The BMJ. 2021 (375). doi:10.1136/bmj.n2635. Retrieved 3 November 2021.

You should have discussed this sentence here before deleting it.

While concerning, It's not about being concerning or not. It's about presenting all relevant information.

as far as I am aware this does not seem to invalidate the overall results of the trial, and still less does it influence the overall issue of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, The quote does not question the overall results or efficacy.

and it shouldn't be given excess importance. One sentence is not excess importance. If you want to lower its importance, move it from the lede to a section.

Deleting material simply because someone with whom you disagree (the "anti-vaxxer" boogieman) might agree with it is not appropriate and is clear WP:POV. This article should present all facts about the vaccine. Isabela31 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 November 2021, The BMJ published a piece by journalist Paul D. Thacker alleging there has been "poor practice" at Ventavia, one of the companies involved in the phase III evaluation trials of the Pfizer vaccine.[1] The report was enthusiastically embraced by anti-vaccination activists. Commenting on Thacker's work in Science-Based Medicine, David Gorski wrote that his article presented facts without necessary context to misleading effect, playing up the seriousness of the noted problems.[2]

The report was enthusiastically embraced by anti-vaccination activists. This sentence is irrelevant and unsourced. It should be deleted on both counts. Even if it was sourced, it would be irrelevant. Its only purpose is to tell the reader to be skeptical of the previous sentence, making it WP:POV.

Science-Based Medicine is not WP:MEDRS. The blog post from the website is not WP:MEDRS. The sentence has no place in this article and should be deleted. Isabela31 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This sentence is irrelevant and unsourced" ← false. The question of an investigative journalist over-egging stuff is not a WP:MEDRS question and SBM is a perfect source for independent commentary on journalistic crankery. Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn Isabela31

The report shows bad practices and people care whetever it is embraced by anti-vaccination activists or flat-earthers, etc.. Imagine if positive results were `embraced by pro-vaccine activist`. This is not a war between factions as far as I'm concerned. Achezet (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thacker PD (November 2021). "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial". BMJ. 375: n2635. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2635. PMID 34728500. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported
  2. ^ Gorski D (8 November 2021). "What the heck happened to The BMJ?". Science-Based Medicine.

Why has this been placed in the "specific populations" section? -St.nerol (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add to adverse event[edit]

From: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

"The risks and outcomes of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are unclear."

"Long-term outcome data are not yet available for COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis cases."

"This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination."

This isn't in the article. It's one thing to say they made what appeared to be a full recovery initially, but it's another thing to say five years from now, nobody had heart issues. It's too early to say that yet. It's encouraging that the vaccine myocarditis seems different than viral myocarditis, but that's not how long term follow-up works. Currently the Wiki article just says it's mild and people recover and doesn't mention the long term unknowns... that's platforming COVID-19 misinformation. 2600:1012:B025:4EAF:84C2:37CB:D37A:94CD (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Profits under Trump (Before COVID-19) and Unfair practice[edit]

Ithink it is worth adding some information about Pfizer wealth during Trump presidency

  • Under Trump Administration, Pfizer Doubled Profits

https://restorepublictrust.org/under-trump-administration-pfizer-doubled-profits/

  • Corporate donors to Trump inaugural revealed

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/317591-corporate-donors-to-trump-inaugural-revealed

  • PFIZER USING ITS TRUMP TAX CUTS TO ENRICH SHAREHOLDERS WHILE HIKING DRUG PRICES FOR CONSUMERS

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issue/pfizer-hiking-drug-prices/

  • Pfizer Posts $11 Billion Gain Thanks to Trump Tax Cuts

https://fortune.com/2018/01/30/pfizer-11-billion-tax-gain-tax-law/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkeetAlababa (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SkeetAlababa: Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, so we don't add content to articles just because they paint the subject in a negative light. None of the sources look particularly credible, and if no coverage of this exists in reliable sources, then adding it to the page would be inappropriate. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2022[edit]

The information is completely false according to the actual companies findings that were published recently. I will be stopping my donations to you monthly if they’re not updated immediately. 2600:1700:B7B0:7140:E5DF:5068:CD03:7EDE (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 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) 00:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are referring to Pfizer's | Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports released as part of the FoI case in the US (https://phmpt.org/). I am surprised that this document, and the larger cache of FoI documents, is not mentioned in the main article at all. Seems a highly relevant source of information for anyone interested in this particular drug. Frade (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful. We'd need secondary sources as the original document is easy to misinterpret (and in this way has become a holy document among the antivaxxers.[36]) Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think secondary sources are needed. All is needed is a discussion of the FoI case, which is significant in terms of public transparency and the accountability of public agencies. Frade (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably belong at COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultracold storage requirements[edit]

The storage requirements have been updated several times and but much of this article hasn't kept up with those revisions. For example, I don't think this snippet is true anymore:

Low-income countries have limited cold chain capacity for ultracold transport and storage of a vaccine. The necessary storage temperatures for the vaccine are much lower than for the similar Moderna vaccine. The head of Indonesia's Bio Farma Honesti Basyir said purchasing the vaccine is out of the question for the world's fourth-most populous country, given that it did not have the necessary cold chain capability. Similarly, India's existing cold chain network can handle only temperatures between 2 and 8 °C (36 and 46 °F), far above the requirements of the vaccine.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indolering (talk • contribs) 02:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pfizer vaccine documents[edit]

This article should mention the court order in January 2022 from a Texas judge to release, at the ratio of 55,000 pages per month, of documents pertaining to trials and licensing of the vaccine. These documents will be completely released by the end of summer. Here's a link from Reuters:

[37] 187.16.142.63 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to tell us more about insane US bureaucracy than the vaccine. Alexbrn (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vaccine development[edit]

I keep hearing that there are "tweaks" being made to optimize the vaccine for new variants as well as the original strain, but I did not see any mention of that. Surely there should be a new section. I saw "Further development" as a sub-section under "History" - but that seems to be a misleading sub-heading and did not help. Maybe this should be an entirely new section "Ongoing development."
Enquire (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pfizer and BioNTech Submit Application to U.S. FDA for Emergency Use Authorization of Omicron BA.4/BA.5-Adapted Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine
"The application follows guidance from the FDA to include clinical data from the companies’ bivalent Omicron BA.1-adapted vaccine and pre-clinical and manufacturing data from the companies’ bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted vaccine to address the continued evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Pending authorization, the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine will be available to ship immediately."
--Myosci (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actualization[edit]

(In spanish, sorry) Bueno, ahora que han salido estas declaraciones en el Parlamento Europeo ¿Van a agregarlo al artículo también? ¿O esto es más bien publicidad para la compañía Pfizer? Armando AZ (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, youtube is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Armando AZ: There's a decent translation site like www.deepl.com. To check whether the translation is stable one should re-translate it. For example this text in Spanish and it's re-translation:
Hola Armando AZ: Hay un sitio de traducción decente como www.deepl.com. Para comprobar si la traducción es estable hay que retraducirla. Por ejemplo este texto en español y su re-traducción:
Hi Armando AZ: There is a decent translation site like www.deepl.com. To check if the translation is stable you have to re-translate it. For example this text in Spanish and its re-translation:
--Myosci (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: Youtube shouldn't be off-limits per se. This youtube video is about the questioning of an Pfizer executive before the European parliament. This artice from www.abc.net.au gives a critical response on the context. The video is too short to be fair but a longer unedited youtube video that is backed up by a second source (like www.abc.net.au) could be sensible.
Youtube no debería estar prohibido per se. Este vídeo de youtube trata sobre el interrogatorio de un ejecutivo de Pfizer ante el Parlamento Europeo. Este artículo de www.abc.net.au da una respuesta crítica sobre el contexto. El vídeo es demasiado corto para ser justo, pero un vídeo de youtube más largo y sin editar que esté respaldado por una segunda fuente (como www.abc.net.au) podría ser sensato..
--Myosci (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Estoy de acuerdo Armando AZ (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since then, reliable sources have appeared talking about the subject, from media such as the Lynnwood Times or 20minutes, to even Fact Checkers:

- https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2022/10/11/covid-transmission-221011/

- https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5068655/0/polemica-ejecutiva-pfizer-eficacia-transmision-vacunas-covid/

- https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-pfizer-transmission-european-parliament-950413863226 Armando AZ (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to bivalent[edit]

Please link the first instance of "bivalent" to bivalent vaccine. Doctroid (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Omicron" is wrong.[edit]

The mention of "Omicron", in the table of effectiveness, and no doubt many mentions in the article, is outdated, wrong, and misleading. It should say "BA.1", or "Omicron BA.1". The various variants of Omicron, are about as different to the original Omicron variant (BA.1), as BA.1 is different from the non-Omicron variants. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is completely outdated. There are at least 3 different types Comirnaty batches. The one against the original strain. The charges with bivalent vaccine against the original strain and Omicron BA.1, and a third one with bivalent vaccine against the original strain and Omicron BA.4/5. The table doesn't show the effictivenes of either of the two updated bivalent vaccine variants against any of the many subtypes of Omicron. Kwinzman (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine/Archive_1&oldid=1223701256"