Talk:Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine

Efficacy?

Re this I think we need to be extremely wary of reporting the efficacy figures. It's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim without available WP:MEDRS sourcing, and there is amply and growing sourcing suspecting the Lancet figures may be problematic. If mentioned at all I think we need to frame this by the doubts, though that represents a sourcing challenge. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This level of concern does not seem to apply equally to other competing vaccines whose data are also mostly based on primary sources. I think the previous text already had careful neutral wording ("they said it is" instead of just "it is"). In any case, would you provide these sources that arouse suspicion? I think it's worth mentioning them and writing about the controversy as well. The most interesting ones I know are this article and this article. The reported efficacy is not that different from the effectiveness seen in Argentina, though the data points are not the same. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Have good published sources raised such concerns about the other vaccines though? For this one we have a raft of such stuff from the more reliable end of things[1] and e.g. concerns on PubPeer[2] going to far as alleging outright fraud. I can appreciate the need to say something but in such a hot area we need to be really careful about stepping outside WP:MEDRS if it means we've giving a false picture. At the same time we shouldn't be too skeptical and should be aware politics might be in play. What to do? Help! Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Have good published sources raised such concerns about the other vaccines though? No, as far as I know. But PubPeer is not a published source, it is a forum. This article in The Lancet is better. It could be mentioned alongside the efficacy results to provide a complete picture with the proper criticism.

The BMJ response can also be mentioned, considering, however, that it precedes the results from Argentina by several months. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes the Lancet source looks suitable. I think we could probably just says what the result were, and what the concerns were/are for context, and leave it at that for now. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

How does the source citation 16 in any way correlate to the purported claim of typing errors currently in quotation marks in the efficacy section? The quoted text is not present. FrostedLilly (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, citation 37 FrostedLilly (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead

It would be helpful if the lead included key information including how effective and safe the vaccine is, what confidence we have in the assessment and why it has not been approved by the WHO. I came to this article after reading about a case where a nurse in Toronto received this vaccine and found it was not recognized by his employers.[3] It's not clear from the contents where this information is in the article.

While the lead says that there is "absence of robust scientific research confirming safety and efficacy," it doesn't say what the findings were in preliminary studies, whether those studies were properly carried out, or what additional information we have after extensive use of the vaccine.

TFD (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@TFD: The GRIEM who has published Phase 3 Trial of Sputnik V Results didn't share openly raw data of the research. This shady practice automatically makes the vaccine questionable. Take a look what Lancet says on that:[4]. Even Russian pharmacologists questioned this dumb move. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be useful to add. We don't know how effective the vaccine is. The current wording is, "Approval in early August of Gam-COVID-Vac was met with criticism in mass media and discussions in the scientific community as to whether approval was justified in the absence of robust scientific research confirming safety and efficacy." TFD (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind if you elaborate on that. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sputnik Light as vaccine booster with Pfizer

Is it really important to write about these speculations fueled by state-run Russia media? E.g. [5] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Spied

The Sun is not a reliable source, yet other outlets are reporting this story: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/13/russia-denies-claims-it-stole-covid-vaccine-blueprint.html tgeorgescu (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is a nightmare

Sorry for not being very helpful here, but this would easily make it to the worst article I have encountered in the past couple of years. Way too long, no useful structure, repetitions all over, and most of the sources outdated.

I cannot find any point of entry for improving the article, and have only one suggestions which is to completely rewrite it from scratch. --Muhali (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Combination vector vaccine

The link in the lead to "combination vector vaccine" goes to the category page for "Combination vaccines" like the MMR vaccine. To me those sound like two different things -- a combination vector vaccine being a vaccine that works in two ways, and a combination vaccine providing immunity against two (or more) viruses.

Can someone more knowledgeable on this topic clarify this and change the link as appropriate? 82.71.11.209 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)