Talk:GamEvac-Combi

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Science & education Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.

Literature

@Alexbrn: Why? [1] --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these probably should not be used per WP:MEDRS "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" `a5b (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. They are unreliable sources for medical content per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A5b and Alexbrn: Then why the so-called "prohibited primary sources" are used here [2], for instance?--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles follow the WP:PAGs, not precedent. Lots of articles have problems, that is not a reason to make this one problematic too. Alexbrn (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Since you were also editing the Gam-COVID-Vac article, it is very strange to hear this from you --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:COMPULSORY to correct every article. Alexbrn (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. yeah--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Just another question for you: why are there the so called "prohibited primary sources" in the article about Bolton [3]? For example a memoir by Bolton "The Room Where It Happened". Thank you. --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Also you are putting "prohibited primary sources" in quotation marks, but you are only quoting yourself. Looks like trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy. Motin seems to fail at grasping the part of WP:MEDRS which requires editors to avoid original researchUchyotka (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GRLS

Russian drug registry has several records for GamEvac - [4] - ЛП-006175, ЛП-003390, ЛП-003389, with 3 in "actual" state. Clinical trials ru registry: [5] `a5b (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Is this vaccine notable enough to be described in the Wikipedia project? `a5b (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The head of the Gamaleya Institute said that Gam-COVID-Vac was based on this and MERS vaccines made by them [6][7]. Plus lots of other publications about the topic on the internet.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there peer reviewed publications about GamEvac-Combi? Wikipedia is not right place to repost russian state sponsored propaganda (or claims by officials) WP:NOTPROPAGANDA / WP:NOTPROMO. `a5b (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your words about propaganda does not cause anything but a smile --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there is one smile and zero peer reviewed publications? `a5b (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then what? --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such a claim as "zero peer-reviewed publications" was supposed to go before whipping out the word "propaganda", which I consider to be a profanity, an insinuation, even. Uchyotka (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]