Talk:BC-007

Coverage of activity against SARS-CoV-2

Currently the article cites this paper to claim:

In previous years, there were also discussions about combating viruses using aptamers. In 2020, these were the driving force for evaluating the aptamer BC-007 on its ability to control SARS-CoV-2. In this research, all tests showed proper and efficient binding to SARS-CoV-2-specific peptide structures, such as the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that BC-007 is most likely to be able to efficiently stop virus replication in vivo.

Reliable medical sources tells us that medical information needs to be backed up by reliable, secondary sources. The paper in question is an experiment (primary source) with conflicts of interest (four of the authors work for Berlin Cures, a company trying to commercialize this drug). They did find in-vitro activity against the virus's spike protein, but I don't see that as particularly special, since many, many drugs have been tested in this way. It's too speculative for an encyclopedia article to say it's likely a treatment for the virus.

At the very most, we might say:

In previous years, aptamers have been proposed as potential treatments for viruses. In 2020, an in vitro study found that BC-007 bound to several proteins on SARS-CoV-2, leading to a proposal to test it against COVID-19 in trials.

The Quirky Kitty (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The cited article is a peer-reviewed primary source, which always has to be weighted higher than a secondary source, which is common sense in science. The disputed conflict of interest was announced at the end of the peer-reviewed paper in the section "Declarations", so the article in question has no conflicts of interest, which is also common in science. Furthermore, the cited article does not claim that it is a drug treatment for the virus. The article claims that "tests showed proper and efficient binding [from BC-007] to SARS-CoV-2-specific peptide structures" so that based on "these findings, it can be concluded that BC-007 is most likely to be able to efficiently stop virus replication in vivo.", which means that it is possible with a high probability, but it is not guaranteed and human trials have not been performed yet. In addition, the research results are novel, so that a verification and validation cannot be expected yet. Regardless, it would make more sense to add further primary sources, instead of deleting peer-reviewed primary sources from the wikipedia entry, which anyway contains a lot of tertiary literature.

Further, it would certainly make sense to rename the section "Research" to "Ongoing research", as all research activities listed in this section are still ongoing.

--77.2.6.126 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means we want more refined, reviewed sources. So secondary sources are typically given more weight, and for medicine, secondary sources should be used whenever possible. From WP:MEDMOS:

Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge....Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results which do not hold in later clinical trials.

This paper, like many studies, is quite speculative (especially regarding its potential as a therapeutic). The Quirky Kitty (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

The article is under dispute due to a considerable amount of promotional content that likely could be known only by insiders to the publications and companies mentioned. AdNeizi and two IP editors (who may be work-related) have been notified to declare WP:COI. Until further clarification about COI and promotion, this is the neutrally-edited version. Zefr (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

A sock-puppet investigation has been requested for AdNeizi and the numerous IPs writing promotional and collaborative content for this article, WP:PROMO, WP:COI. Zefr (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr it is not acceptable to call the IPs a sock-puppet.

It seems to be that @Zefr has not read the references where the information was clearly taken from. There is no insider information in the article as @Zefr claimed. 95.114.2.140 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The neutrally-edited version is NOT neutral, because it contains references of Haberland, Wallukat, Becker, Kolter, Schimke, Müller, Bornholz, Werner and Wenzel who are shareholders, employees or former colleagues.

Further, the revised article was fixed defectively, lacking of important content and key points, especially in the sections History, Discovery and Research.

Addionally, most of the secondary sources/ references cited by Zefr are one-to-one replicas from press statements. 77.7.52.106 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Shareholders of Berlin Cures. 77.7.52.106 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added no sources to this article, but have been resisting the addition of considerable promotional insider information by IP editors and possibly AdNeizi, all of whom are suspected sockpuppets.

The article does indeed contain numerous sources by authors who are affiliated with the Swiss company, Berlin Cures, shown here, in the manufacture, clinical testing, and promotion of BC-007. Those sources have existed for some time, and were not inserted by me.

There is considerable evidence of promotion of BC-007, possibly by editors in the sockpuppet investigation. This is the BC-007 pipeline, the advertising for which appears to be the purpose of several editors for this article. Zefr (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see substantial promotional insider information?

Most of the cited publications are peer-reviewed articles. In my opinion, they have a higher reputation/ standing than newspaper articles, replicated from press statements one-by-one from journalists with a layman's understanding.

The pipeline of BC007 is widely known among Long COVID sufferers. But what is the argument to point on the pipeline?

Calling editors who have deeply explored a topic sockpuppets is a harshness offending. Have you spended a lot of time and looked into the aforementioned references in that much depth? 77.178.43.254 (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of promotion for BC-007?

Which criticized content can be known only by insiders? 77.9.119.62 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Adneizi and the IPs have added a lot of material to the article, much of which has a positive bias. Some of the IPs are the likely same person, but I thought nothing of it since IPs often change for non-nefarious reasons.

It's possible that someone here works for the company, but it can't be proven. Notably, the IPs are from Germany and they seem to have deep knowledge of this subject. But also, sometimes people write promotional-sounding content simply because they like that they're writing about. I made this mistake once (see "Promotional Tone"), cleaned up the articles I wrote, and became better at writing topics with neutral wording in later years. And being falsely accused of making COI edits is an awful feeling. It's worth noting that enthusiasm for BC-007 is very high in some circles, because it's the most well-known long Covid drug candidate and many people with LC are severely ill and desperate for a treatment to be discovered.

I dislike anything that can be classed as "drama", so the issue I care most about is removing promotional material from the page. We need to give a neutral overview of the facts and events without presenting a drug company's hypotheses as fact. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Which content has a much positive bias? How do you define a bias? How do you prevent a negative bias?

Have you read and understood all the references? Do you have the necessary background to be able to understood the statements taken by the authors in the references? And are you be able to shorten the statements without prejudice? 77.178.106.52 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Responsibility for providing citations (WP:BURDEN)

The english wiki policy states clearly:

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source [...]

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[d] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[e] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. [...] "

Reliable sources (WP:SOURCE)

The english wiki policy states clearly:

"A cited source on Wikipedia [...] has four related meanings:

- The work itself [...]

- The creator of the work [...] and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for..").

- The publication [...] and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical facts").

- The publisher of the work [...] and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").

[...]

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

[...]

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. [...]" 95.114.105.222 (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The behavior of Zefr deleting whole chunks of content without discussion and thus censoring them is unacceptable. In my opinion, his account should be banned permanently. 95.114.68.191 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All the points criticized by @Zefr are nothing more than a series of unproven charges and accusations. Not a single one has been substantiated. Instead, large parts of the article were deleted without asking the editor and without discussion with other editors. This is willful and deliberate destruction of legitimate Wikipedia work of others (vandalism).

For example, the frequent use of the name of a substance is criticized as promotion and therefor the whole section was deleted. Using repeatedly a substance name in a research report is common sense and demonstrates a stringent and consistent writing style. Scientific reports should convey clear and, best of all, unambiguous statements, they are not poetry or prose where varied formulations are important. Even if the name of the substance is used 50, 100 or 500 times in a research report, it does not say anything about the context in which the term is used. Each individual usage must be examined to determine whether advertising/ marketing/ promotion is actually being carried out. Simply stating observable facts is neither advertising or marketing nor promotion. Advertising/ marketing/ promotion is the lavish praise of a commercially available product and an invitation to purchase or use that product. In contrast, fundamental scientific findings or observations are not commercially available products that could be promoted. Further, scientific work is about making new findings public and motivating other scientists to examine the new obtained findings and to confirm or refute them. 77.4.23.179 (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

A few things that should/shouldn't be covered

I noticed that when Zefr deleted all the promotional material, there are a few things they deleted that I'd prefer to keep, and a few things that were kept but probably should be deleted. I will go ahead and make these edits, but one at a time so they can be reverted piecemeal, and recording my reasoning here.

In research before 2010, it was observed that autoantibodies against GPCR-AABs are involved in pathogenic mechanisms of several diseases, especially in cardiovascular diseases.

Going to significantly tone this down. It's not backed by a secondary source but removing it entirely will make history unclear. There is further material in History and discovery that is not backed by secondary sources.

Under Research I will re-add the text about trials that I wrote. I think it's important to explain that a drug is being researched, without hyping it or implying it will work. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The english wiki policy states clearly:

Responsibility for providing citations (WP:BURDEN)

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source [...]

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[d] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[e] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. [...] "

Reliable sources (WP:SOURCE)

"A cited source on Wikipedia [...] has four related meanings:

- The work itself [...]

- The creator of the work [...] and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for..").

- The publication [...] and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical facts").

- The publisher of the work [...] and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").

[...]

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

[...]

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. [...]"

95.114.105.222 (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

At least currently, I didn't opt to remove any content. In fact, I re-added a few sentences I wrote earlier but were removed. I did, however, change the wording of some things to better match the level of certainty in the source. Plus writing cleanup that doesn't really affect the text's meaning.

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy for medical information is considerably stricter: WP:MEDRS

In general, if something is published in a study, not an overview like a review or a guideline, it's not really confirmed. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The statement "In general, if something is published in a study, not an overview like a review or a guideline, it's not really confirmed." seems to be a slight misinterpretation.

Wikipedia policies for medical informations are not more rigorous. The policy (WP:MEDRS) states: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognized standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies." The statement is clear: There is no prohibition for non-ideal sources. It is allowed to cite also non-ideal sources.

The changes of Zefr should be reversed, completely. He is encouraged to disclose details of where the claimed promotion takes place in the article by announcing the false referenced parts. 95.118.16.3 (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS also says:

Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis).

So primary sources should only be used when necessary, and text based on them should portray that it's the findings from a study. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Please be carefull about what is biomedical information (WP:MEDDEF, WP:BMI) and what is general, not biomedical information (WP:MEDDEF, WP:NOTBMI). Especially paragraph "Biomedical v. general information" states, that one must distinguish exactly what is biomedical information and what is general information.

For instance, a biomedical information would be:

The research group observed that the rats had symptom X with high evidence, so they treated them with drug Y and the rats got cured.

A general, historic information would be:

The research group observed that the rats had symptom X, so they began a study to investigate treatment options with drug Y, funded by a research fund Z. 95.114.23.186 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The behavior of Zefr deleting whole chunks of content without discussion and thus censoring them is unacceptable. In my opinion, his account should be banned permanently. 95.114.68.191 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Spreading of Misinformation, Misstatements and Falsehoods

After the revisions of the last days, the article about BC007 contains a couple of misinformation, misstatements and falsehoods.

One example is the statement: "Since 2021, a project supported by the University of Erlangen and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research[28] led to initiation in July 2023 of a Phase II clinical trial using people with long COVID, and sponsored by Berlin Cures.[29]"

The project "disCOVer - diagnosis Long-COVID Erlangen" is not supported by University of Erlangen, it is carried out at University of Erlangen. "disCOVer" is funded by an initiative of the Freistaat Bayern. During the project "disCOVer" four patients got BC007 as part of a compassionate use treatment with unexpected good results. The project "disCOVer" has been finished. Berlin Cures was never project partner of "disCOVer". [1][2][3]

The project "reCOVer - Forschungsvorhaben zu Spätsymptomen von Covid-19 (Long-Covid) Erlangen" is a follow-up study of the project "reCOVer" and is funded by German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). During the project "reCOVer" it is planned to perform a phase IIa clinical trial titled "reCOVer - Prospective, explorative, randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over phase IIa clinical trial to investigate safety and tolerability as well as potential clinical effects of BC007 in patients with post-COVID syndrome", registered under Eudra CT number 2022-001781-35, using BC007 to treat Long COVID sufferers. Berlin Cures is not project partner of "reCOVer". Recruitment of human participants is outstanding.[4][5][6]

Berlin Cures started an own phase II clinical trial titled "BLOC - A prospective, double-blind, randomised, parallel group, placebo controlled, multicentre, Phase II study to investigate the efficacy, GPCR autoantibody neutralising effect, safety, and tolerability of BC 007 in participants with long COVID" under Eudra CT number 2022-003452-14. Recruitment of human participants has started at the end of June 2023/ beginning of July 2023.[7][8][9][10]

As it turns out, some (text) editors (e.g. @Zerf) do not read the references. Instead, they imply conflicts of interest where there are none, while they themselves spread misinformation, false statements and falsehoods. This deliberate misconduct by some must be brought to an end, permanently. 77.4.100.225 (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Under the Research subheading, COVID-19, I removed mention of the ongoing preliminary studies you discussed. As with any Phase II drug trial, these studies have a high risk of failure, so it is not worth mentioning them until/unless a positive outcome is achieved. Meanwhile, they are just news, which is content not useful to include in the encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS.

I placed a WP:COI notice on your talk page (and for the several other IPs and AdNeizi commenting on this article) where you can reveal the extent of your affiliation with this compound and/or Berlin Cures. Your hostile attitude suggests you feel deeply invested, as also appears to be the case for IP user 95.114.68.191.

Assume good faith. Editors are here to state clear facts supported by reliable sources. BC-007 is in the very early stages of drug development and is likely a decade away from regulatory approval, if successful through Phase III trials. Berlin Cures (which has no Wikipedia article) is a startup company far from having products approved and marketed. There is not much encyclopedic content to provide for BC-007 or Berlin Cures. For comparison, see the successful German biotech company, BioNTech, for its history of commercialization. Zefr (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it normal to not mention ongoing trials at all? While Wikipedia is not news, I think providing some coverage of the phase II long COVID trial is important because long COVID research is a topic of considerable public interest, and the BC-007 trial itself has received significant media coverage. We can agree that details of no long-term importance, like the trial's design or the developer's hopes that it will work, don't belong here.

I'm taking a more inclusionist view here. I see that you discussed your edits here instead replying to the discussion I started, but no worries. The voluminous discussions here have been hard to follow and removing promotional material is the most pressing priority. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there an independent WP:MEDSCI source for the BC-007 trial? There is this minireview by Haberland and Müller, but both are executives of Berlin Cures, making the source dubious with likely bias (and promotional, with BC-007 mentioned 30 times in that publication).

Let's not be persuaded by the start of an early-stage Phase II trial, media attention and WP:RECENTISM. Long COVID is a constellation of disorders - it seems unlikely there will be a magic bullet of one drug to minimize or cure it. Zefr (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at WP:BMI, the policy seems to be unclear about whether simply saying a trial's being conducted is medical information. But in my opinion, it's more akin to the example of a non-medical claim in WP:MEDRS. Nonetheless, I will look around for a reliable review that mentions BC-007. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The policies are clearly stating what is biomedical information (WP:BMI) and what is not biomedical information (WP:NOTBMI).

Biomedical information is: "...

Biomedical research

Information about clinical trials or other types of biomedical research that address the above entries [= attributes of a disease or condition, attributes of a treatment or drug, medical decisions, health effects, population data and epidemiology] or allow conclusions to be made about them. Other information about research, such as funding information, is not biomedical."

Non-biomedical information is: "...

Commercial or business information

   Which company invented it or owned it, whether it is currently for sale, how profitable it is, how many units were sold last year, marketing methods, any criticism of the company (such as disease mongering) that is not itself a biomedical claim, who the competitors are, almost anything about money, etc.

Economics ...

Beliefs ...

History

   Pretty much anything involving names and dates, especially founders and inventors, but also obviously outdated medical practices, such as historical diagnostic tests ... and outdated treatments ...

Society and culture

   ... public funding for research or treatment...

Legal issues ...

Notable cases

   If the patient is still alive or is recently deceased, ...

Popular culture ...

Etymology and definitions ...

Training ...

Regulatory status

   Whether a substance is legal or illegal or available only by prescription has significant practical effects on the everyday practice of medicine, but it is medico-legal information, not biomedical information.

Medical ethics ..."

So, almost all information about studies with the exception of the exact methods and dosage as well as the exact findings is non-biomedical information. The reasons that led to a study is "commercial or business information" and is usually of historical significance. 95.118.51.137 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The coverage on long COVID a few days ago was:

In 2021, Dr. Bettina Hohberger from University of Erlangen administered BC-007 to four patients with Long COVID and GPCR-AABs as part of a compassionate use program. This led to the university and Berlin Cures announcing a phase 2 trial, which commenced in July 2023 with results expected in early 2024. If results are positive, a further phase 3 trial would be required before approval.

Which after some discussion and requesting secondary sources, you eventually changed to:

BC-007 is among several drug candidates being investigated to possibly treat the multiple disorders of long COVID.

While I prefer the first text, thank you for keeping some discussion of LC research. I think this is the best compromise we can reach without additional editors entering the discussion, so I'll agree to that and stop re-adding the same material. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Before vandalism, the section "Research" covered:

In 2018, a phase I clinical trial has found that BC-007 is a well-tolerated aptamer, with no serious adverse events reported.[46][1]

As of 2020, a phase IIa clinical trial for heart failure with the presence of certain autoantibodies was in progress.[1]

In previous years, aptamers have been shown capability for diagnosing and treating various viral infections.[47][48][49][50] In 2020, these insights were the driving force to evaluate the aptamer BC-007 on its ability to control and confine SARS-CoV-2.[51][52] In experiments using BC-007 in-vitro, tests showed proper and efficient binding to SARS-CoV-2-specific peptide structures, such as the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein.[52][53][54] Based on these findings, the authors concluded that BC-007 is likely to be able to stop virus replication in-vivo, what has to be investigated in further studies.[52] In addition, it has been shown that BC-007 does not interfere with some highly specific neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.[55] As further outcome of those experiments, a patent application was filed for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections and its prevention using BC-007.[56] In this among others, an inhalative administration in form of a nasal spray during acute symptoms was considered.[57]

In 2021, Dr. Bettina Hohberger from University of Erlangen administered BC-007 as part of a compassionate use to four patients with Long COVID syndrome and GPCR-AABs.[58][59][60] Auspicious results were published as case report[61] and press release[62][63][64][59] as well as in public media.[58][60][65][66][67][68] In this context, a patent application was filed using the aptamer BC-007 for treating, curing or preventing of disease symptoms associated to Long COVID due to a SARS-CoV-2 infection.[69] Consequently, University of Erlangen and Berlin Cures GmbH announced plans for further trials.[58][60] Accordingly, the University of Erlangen focused on a single-center, randomized, controlled, cross-over phase IIa clinical trial, registered under EudraCT number 2022-001781-35,[59][70] while Berlin Cures GmbH decided without further ado to conduct a randomized, parallel group, placebo controlled, multicentre phase II study, notified under EudraCT number 2022-003452-14.[71] The last one commenced in July 2023 with results expected in early 2024.[60][58] If results are positive, a further phase III clinical trial would be required before drug approval.[72][73]

This former state should be used as starting point for discussions.

First, there is the question of whether everything related to the Phase I trial should be moved to section "History", since this trial has already been completed and is therefore a historical fact.

Second, the question arises whether everything related to the Phase IIa study on heart failure should also be moved to section "History", since this study has already been completed. Pending is just the publication of the study results; there is no written information about planning of a Phase III trial. Consequently, this Phase IIa study is also a historical fact.

Third, the information about BC-007 in context of COVID-19 is well written and contains business and historical facts which are referenced precise and clearly.

Fourth, the information about BC-007 in context of COVID-19 is also well written and contains business and historical facts. All aspects are clearly described and referenced. The only question that needs clarification is that of the mention of the physician and therefore the question of data protection and personal rights. 77.7.70.179 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Update

By August there were numerous, including anonymous, changes to the article. A lot of information got mixed up. I work for Berlin Cures and tried to correct, structure and update the BC-007 information. Hereby, I would like to make a meaningful contribution, but if the changes are not appropriate, please simply revert. --178.83.72.71 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The typical approach for an editor with a COI is to first make specific proposals on the talk page, allowing other editors to evaluate, discuss, and make article changes. This revision removed the early history review and primary research which impressed as overkill for content already adequately summarized in the article for such an early-stage drug candidate.

The BC-007 pipeline shows relatively slow progress for this candidate in its primary target (heart failure; last results in 2018) and in long Covid (Phase II ongoing now, no results). The article should represent peer-reviewed results when published. Otherwise, the material provided read like news and promotional background possibly derived from the investors brochure for Berlin Cures. Zefr (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

International non-proprietary name according to WHO

According to the WHO naming convention, the international non-proprietary name for ARC183 (synonym: BC007) is Rovunaptabin. The international non-proprietary name has to be added to the article and the parameter table.

References:

International Nonproprietary Names for Pharmaceutical Substances (INN), WHO Drug Information, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2023, https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/international-nonproprietary-names-(inn)/pl129.pdf

https://gsrs.ncats.nih.gov/ginas/app/beta/substances/923323ab-769a-4065-3d98-782906c68f75

https://www.medchemexpress.com/rovunaptabin.html 95.115.77.148 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Removement of officially-authorized documents of historic significance

Why are officially-authorized documents such as patent applications and granted patents that are of historical importance removed from the references? 77.7.51.3 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

First, you should disclose whether you have a conflict of interest with the company, Berlin Cures. I'll place a WP:COI notice on your talk page.

The article is well-sourced with publications that adequately describe the BC-007 technology for encyclopedia users to review, and the Berlin Cures website is in the External links section. Patent applications are non-notable unless granted by a national body. For BC-007 - which seems to be struggling over years through preliminary clinical trials - it is reasonable to conclude that at this early stage of drug development, even a granted patent is WP:UNDUE. The launch of a Phase III trial would elevate BC-007 as a serious candidate.

Wikipedia is not a forum for a research-stage company to detail its assets, WP:NOTCV. Zefr (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Why should someone disclose a conflict of interests when he or she has no conflicts of interests? Have you ever heard about private usage of Wikipedia?

Why is in the article a link to the website of Berlin Cures? A link to a company website is no advertising - are we stupid? A link to the company website is clearly advertising.

Why is there a link to the website of Berlin Cures? A link to a company website should not be advertising? A link to the company website is clearly advertising. 95.114.9.218 (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Replacing proprietary substance name by international non-proprietary name

I propose to rename the whole article about the substance BC-007, due to the fact that the international non-proprietary name is Rovunaptabin. BC-007 is the internal drug name of the company Berlin Cures, so that it can be concluded that the use of the internal drug name is advertising. To overcome this critical and problematic situation, all instances of BC-007 within the article have to be replaced by the non-proprietary name Rovunaptabin, excluding the section "other names" but including the article headline. 95.117.85.160 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

As the name, BC-007, is in the literature and public news, it seems unnecessary to rename the article to rovunaptabin per WP:WEIGHT. For a comparison, the article for the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine having the brand name Cominarty was not renamed.

In the lede, I bolded the name rovunaptabin which is searchable and redirects to the BC-007 article. This is sufficient for an early-stage drug candidate. Zefr (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)