Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Huasteca (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 13 April 2021 (→Squabble over POVs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

|topic= not specified. Available options:

References vs Further reading and request to restore CGPHA ref

Thanks, User:Alexbrn. I do understand the hair-trigger reaction on COVID-related subjects, as I indicated in my edit summary. As noted, I was unsure of the (perfectly respectable pre-print, carefully weighed down with warnings, etc.) ref I put it, and that source's compliance with WP:MEDRS when placed only in the "further reading" section, but can see the need to be very cautious. However, could you please restore the Canadian government's Public Health agency's announcement? That is at least as appropriate as the European Medicine Agency's communique - currently the only citation - even if added by an IP and not a registered user. Thanks. 49.177.61.250 (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We mustn't use unreliable sources for biomedical content, and Misplaced Pages doesn't do disclaimers. I've put the Canada stuff back. Alexbrn (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Kupferschmidt, Kai; VogelMar. 27, Gretchen (27 March 2021). "A rare clotting disorder may cloud the world's hopes for AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine". Science. Retrieved 2 April 2021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
2. Sue Hughes (2 April 2021). "AstraZeneca COVID Vaccine: Clotting Disorder Mechanism Revealed?". Medscape. Retrieved 2 April 2021. In the preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald University Clinic, Greifswald, Germany, report on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Normally, further reading sources need to be reliable - but in the case of COVID-19 the requirements are extra-stringent: see WP:GS/COVID19. While I am sure Greifswald is a fine fellow and it's a good impulse to include his calming views, remember it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to WP:RGW and I am sure you can see how, if we allowed editors to determine somebody was wise and their views needed including, that would descend into chaos ... even more than the COVID-19 topics already have  ! Alexbrn (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

And I can SEE there was no real consideration of the question I posed, just an automatic reflex - otherwise the CGPHA ref would not have been summarily deleted. No doubt all you old hands are sick of getting rid of the COVID-19 junk, and must be overwhelmed.

Also, no idea if what's-his-name is a good researcher or not, just trying to say he's demonstrably NOT a Dr McQuack from State Charlatan University of Shonkiness and Woo Practice. Again, not a plea to keep it in, just saying there's levels, and I'm aware of them. You can't really be asserting that WP:MERDS is that clear-cut, that all should be obvious from an initial, even careful, reading? It really is not. 49.177.61.250 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Automatic reflex is right - it's just a core feature of the way Misplaced Pages needs to have WP:Verifiably reliable content. I've no idea about the preprint's intellectual worth (not even having looked at it) but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - it does not directly have articles on topics, but contains merely summaries of what the top-most sources have said about those topics. Start at WP:5P if you're interested in the Project's aims. Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Unresponsive (to what I actually said, and asked). Again, I'm not interested in getting the ref IN, just explaining. I understand WP's aims fairly well. Also "automatic reflex" is understandable, but should consider WP:BABY which is kinda my point <ignored/> . 49.177.61.250 (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

With EHRA statement yesterday this article will need to expand to start or 'C' class. I've had a quick go at a couple of things, and may dip in and out for a couple of days. I've put a Template:Under construction with notready=yes so people can peer review stuff. I've added mostly UK references but they are fairly balanced on not uncontroversial I'm sure. We need to emphasize the rare events of blood blots here. To some extent I could compare having a AZ jab to putting a seat belt on in a car ... In some crashes wearing the seat beat would have killed me whereas I would have survived not wearing one; but in the vast proportion of crash senarios the seat belt will save me whereas otherwise I would have died. I'm keen to keep the AstraZeneca name out of first sentence in lede so as the describe the second, but to introduce it in the second, in case other similar vaccines have the same issue: see Adenoviridae#Vaccines. The way to treat this will become clear as things evolve. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC) And feel free to collaberativelty edit while Template:under construction is in place: (Template:In use is for temporary exclusive access if absolutely needed but I'd suggest best avoided here). Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

this link contains the 7 April EMA statement to update the article. Maybe better than a link to the youtube video of the meeting -- https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-ema-finds-possible-link-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-low-blood JuanTamad (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

German

The Gesellschaft für Thrombose- und Hämostaseforschung (German thrombosis and haemostasis research society) has issued the following guidance: https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/a-1469-7481 JFW | T@lk 12:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is from the UK haematology society: https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/guidance-produced-from-the-expert-haematology-panel-ehp-focussed-on-syndrome-of-thrombosis-and-thrombocytopenia-occurring-after-coronavirus-vaccination/ JFW | T@lk 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Given how dynamic this subject is, I am getting useful stuff on Twitter from Prof Michael Makris (Sheffield). JFW | T@lk 12:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's wise going with preprints; shouldn't we be a bit more cautious? Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There're interesting posts on twitter, but citing a twitter post doesn't seem like a good idea either. Twitter posts might be a source of good links to sources that can be used as a reference. JuanTamad (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I proposed a merge of this article into Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on its talk page - you can find the discussion here. Comments are welcome at that location. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-MEDRS information

As part of this merge proposal, I have removed biomedical information sourced to non-MEDRS (such as preprints/news articles) and have put it here for re-use if/when the articles are fully reviewed/better sourcing can be found. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• A German research team has demonstrated that the phenomenon is mediated by antibodies against the cytokine platelet factor 4. (preprint)

• Article now peer reviewed and published in NEJM. Yay! (Just in case anyone is looking here.) 49.177.61.250 (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Vogel (magazine article not a journal article)
  • The related disorder immune thrombocytopenia has been very reported iished in the United States following administration of the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines but the rate of occurrence is said by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be the same as expected in the unvaccinated population.
  • This phenomenon usually occurs after exposure to heparin, in which case the condition is called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.
  • Both conditions are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis.

Beyond that, the "regulatory response" section seems like it's duplicating content that, if it's not already in the main AZ vaccine article, should be there. I left it here for now as it seems to pass MEDRS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Greinacher, Andreas; Thiele, Thomas; Warkentin, Theodore E.; Weisser, Karin; Kyrle, Paul; Eichinger, Sabine (29 March 2021). "A Prothrombotic Thrombocytopenic Disorder Resembling Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Following Coronavirus-19 Vaccination". doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-362354/v1. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
2. Greinacher, Andreas; Thiele, Thomas; Warkentin, Theodore E.; Weisser, Karin; Kyrle, Paul A.; Eichinger, Sabine (9 April 2021). "Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination". New England Journal of Medicine: NEJMoa2104840. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2104840. Retrieved 11 April 2021.
3. ^ Vogel, Gretchen; Kupferschmidt, Kai (2021-03-26). "New problems erode confidence in AstraZeneca's vaccine". Science. 371 (6536): 1294–1295. doi:10.1126/science.371.6536.1294. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 33766863.

Dispute re VIPIT

My understanding from general reading is that the term vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia and associated name issue is twofold. The most important revolves around that it may encompass only a subset of the post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events under current consideration and the second is that the term may not be in widespread usage. I have a concern in this regard and my view may be incorrect, but I believe the concern is valid. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Possibly the most common use of "VIPIT" comes/originates from Canada: e.g. This: from Public Health Agency of Canada. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this term seems to be picking up steam (for better or worse). For example:

Suspected Vaccine Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia (VIPIT): THANZ Advisory Statement (check for weekly updates)

(From the Thrombosis and Haemostasis Society of Australia and New Zealand website.) 203.1.80.1 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The term is also used (by the UN) in a recent document here:
Interim Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Vaccine-Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia (VIPIT) following AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccinations. 9 April 2021
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/coronavirus_vipitguidance.pdf
--89.15.237.46 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That is an very useful document, and obviously contains very informative information and links to other information. My only issue is that given just the URL on a filesystem the author of the document and its provenance is a little unclear, yes it is on the UN website but as far as I can tell there is no information within the document (or stamps or certificates) so I think it probably needs document linking to it to give metadata about it authoritiveness otherwise if might for instance be a draft document requiring peer review. (Compare for example with a document it links to: ). I must point out I am not a medical professional/expert, but I will mull over things and other peoples input is important.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sry, don't have much further Information. It's from here:

COVID-19 Vaccination for UN Personnel, Section UN Healthcare Worker Resources --89.15.237.46 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And that PDF doc you link to, from the British Society for Haematology uses "VIIT" rather than "VIPIT", so it might end up being one of those dual or "multi-choice" terms. Good thought to have both versions in article - at least until one or other (or something else) ends up dominant.

In similar vein - no pun intended - here's some med journalism that uses both terms in the headline: medpageToday 49.177.61.250 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me the scientific community is discussing how to name the baby. Greinacher suggests VITT. - In the long run maybe it all could become a separate topic and the vaccinations were only the first instances where they observed this new pathomechanism. - For WP that means the name of the article could change over time and redirects and ambiguations would be usefull, e.g. for VITT. (Now there is only an article "Vitt" about a tiny german village, which certainly is not what most readers are looking for these days.)--89.15.238.63 (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Thrombosis and Haemostasis Society of Australia and New Zealand (8 April 2021) . "Suspected Vaccine Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia (VIPIT): THANZ Advisory Statement (check for weekly updates)". www.thanz.org.au. Retrieved 11 April 2021.
2. Hackethal, Veronica (9 April 2021). "From VIPIT to VITT: Thrombosis and COVID Vaccines". www.medpagetoday.com. Retrieved 11 April 2021.

References

A few references browsed over a day of two before I lose them: It doen't automatically mean they will be used in the article. The WHO COVID-19 vaccines page is worth a watch while the WHO statement from 19Mar21 is worth a . This BSH guidance note is of some interest 3apr21 which this news article on 5apr21 is perhaps useful towards timeline: . Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Characterising clinical features, incl. similarities to HIT

Scanty literature atm, and this one does not meet WP:MEDRS. Noting this case series report here, though, for when it progresses to fully peer reviewed (when it may be useful - possibly?) There is also this Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research guidance. I hope this is in order for me to put here. No nuisance or other problem or insult meant.49.177.61.250 (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Cooke herself in the 7 April 20221 meeting actually used words at 8m or 9m in to the 8m meeting acutally used mentioned similarites to HIT and as a plausible explanation but I'd have to recheck the transcript and context before adding it. Its on my todo list to look at but so is a lot of other stuff.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Djm-leighpark. Hope you did not think I was talking about this article when I said "scanty literature". Only because it's a new and rapidly developing situation, there is little around of WP:MERDS quality anywhere yet, making it all the harder to expand the page. You are doing an amazing job - adding to article quality with useful info, (along with other editors, too) very quickly. Thank you. 49.177.61.250 (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@49.177.61.250: Thanks for complementary comments, and thank you for your contributions. At times I find attempting to contribute to this difficult and overwhelming and I have sometimes prepared contributions for an hour before electing the result was not in a fit state to publish! I have RL stuff again to do today but I understand WHO are likely to do a briefing on the subject today and that may influence the next contributions I make.10:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Greinacher, Andreas; Thiele, Thomas; Warkentin, Theodore E.; Weisser, Karin; Kyrle, Paul; Eichinger, Sabine (29 March 2021). "A Prothrombotic Thrombocytopenic Disorder Resembling Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Following Coronavirus-19 Vaccination". doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-362354/v1. Retrieved 2 April 2021. EDITORIAL NOTE: This study summarizes the clinical and laboratory features of 9 patients who exhibited blood clotting events following vaccination with AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222). The researchers suggest that these events resemble a known disorder – heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) – which is treatable if identified promptly. At the time of this posting, the World Health Organization maintains that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue. The authors disclose conflicts of interest, including personal fees from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
2. Oldenburg, Johannes; Klamroth, Robert; Langer, Florian; Albisetti, Manuela; Auer, Charis von; Ay, Cihan; Korte, Wolfgang; Scharf, Rüdiger E.; Pötzsch, Bernd; Greinacher, Andreas (1 April 2021). "Diagnosis and Management of Vaccine-Related Thrombosis following AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccination: Guidance Statement from the GTH". Hämostaseologie. doi:10.1055/a-1469-7481. Retrieved 6 April 2021.

9 April 2021

I'm currently doing a slow refactor of the article and there is some duplication of stuff at the moment. I expect "Regulatory response" and "Observations" sections to be reworked and out of it to at least describe the syndromes with the best information available and also go into explaining the benefit-risk/age which seems especially neatly put by MHRA/wintoncentre. I'm trying to keep the "history" section in the "background" as a brief easy to read timeline of how the reports led into the possible side effect without getting overly stuck into detail. Thanks to people who have contributed and who have corrected my errors. I will be re-working the lede when I get the chance; always keeping the emphasis on the rareness of this event and benefit/risk ratios. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, thanks for your work on this - if consensus is to keep this as a separate article I think your work has been good at trying to make it as little of a POVFORK as possible. My recommendation (which I would do if I had more time right now) is that the "responses" could be condensed into one section - nobody really cares (encyclopedically speaking) whether it's a "regulatory" response or a "deployment" response, they just care what the responses are. I think it's likely best to wait on the lead to see if this is merged or not - because if it's not, this article will require great expansion to be complete before the lead can begin to be discussed (as the lead summarizes the body, and if it's not merged the body is seriously lacking in comprehensiveness). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Thankyou for your comments, it does not mean that I agree with all of them. A power cut from the Drayton boyos which caused me to lose a new section called "Event characteristics" this morning with from past experience risk of brownies and spikies this afternoon (actually there weren't any) by the same boyos has sort of scuppered my plans for the day. The article as it stands has multiple issues: the title will need either Covid-19 or e.g. AstraZeneca in it at some point for starters, I think with recent events Covid-19 is more generic whichever way thing develop, but in the event the rest of the title is also perhaps open to change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts are that "Regulatory response" will eventually morph into "Regulatory status"(possibly under a different name) to give the status for handling the event. I tend to agree most people coming to this article will want to know "where are we?" status viewpoint, fewer will wish to know the chronological history unfolded though it i actually of some significance in my opinion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Denmark changes guideline for intramuscular injection

Aspiration before i.m. injection

As a precautionary measure to ensure that the vaccine might not accidentially be injected into bloodvessel, the Danish SSI (Statens Serum Institut) has changed its vaccination guidelines on March 18th as follows:

Usually one does not need to aspirate before injecting a vaccine. However, in connection with the investigation of a possible association between the injection of covid-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca and the occurrence of rare but severe cases of blood clots and bleeding, SSI recommends, for the time being, on a precautionary principle, to aspirate before administration. This applies to all the approved covid-19 vaccines, both for injection into the deltoid muscle, but also for the alternative option of injection into the vastus lateral muscle, if injection into the deltoid muscle is not possible. (Google translation, text danish) source:

https://www.ssi.dk/vaccinationer/injektionsteknik/intramuskulaer-injektion-beorn-og-voksne

--89.15.236.166 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Would be interesting to know whether it all starts with injection into a bloodvessel, and that could be avoided so easily. (Most countries don't recommend aspiration. But the sole reason for this is reduction of pain in child-vaccination.)--89.15.236.166 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments and interesting. I have have not examined in depth but at a glance it may be possible this could be included if not given any WP:UNDUE weight and as a statement of fact of an approach. Speculation about whether these events correlate to injections into a bloodvessel is not really for here, and I assume the investigations are considering that. Silly question: Am I correct in understanding the recommendation is to have the injection in the backside rather than the arm .... and the thoughts of that outcome having the UK Prime Minister having his backside done live on TV is ... well ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Squabble over POVs

@Berchanhimez and Huasteca:: Regarding: "None of the agencies found a confirmed causal link between the vaccine and these incidents at the time, but were listing them out of an abundance of caution.". If you want to continue your spat please sort it or take it to WP:ANI rather than continuing it on this article. @Huasteca: To be quite clear wheter you are right or wrong I am of the opinion you are on ultra thin ice ignoring the covid general sanctions you have been made aware. @‎Berchanhimez: The phrase "but were listing them out of an abundance of caution" as written reads to me as more of a WP:OPINION rather than sourced from the articles (and it may have been sourceable from each of the three articles but in my opinion that wasn't a great way of putting it) and while not perhaps your intent to lay ‎WP:GOADing bait that perhaps what happened. I'd suggest both of you leave that as it is and hopefully a third party neutral will sort it or I may rework that paragraph at some point anyway( either as it comes up near the top of my todo list or as i am reviewing the three sources for some other reason). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, if you can think of a better way to make clear that's what they were doing (and each clearly stated that's why they were doing so), please do. Per WP:NPOV we cannot state one part of something without clarifying the viewpoint they had on the issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark That is what I did. In the face of a barrage of personal attacks on the noticeboard, I stopped editing this article altogether. The aim was to get me blocked or topic banned as they stated clearly themselves from the beginning, presumably by goading me into responding rudely. I didn't, which made them more furious. Anyhow, good luck dealing with this and trying to WP:AGF.--Huasteca (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible "further reading" sources

Just putting a few cites here, as the come to hand, that might be useful at some point.

• Statement from International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis
• The BMJ News 49.177.61.250 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• THANZ advisory statement cited above. 49.177.61.250 (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (9 April 2021). "Statement from the ISTH on Reports Indicating Blood Clots Associated With the AstraZeneca Vaccine". Retrieved 11 April 2021.
2. Dyer, Owen (1 April 2021). "Covid-19: EMA defends AstraZeneca vaccine as Germany and Canada halt rollouts". BMJ. pp. n883. doi:10.1136/bmj.n883. Retrieved 11 April 2021.

Suggest change of citation style.to Havard

As the article was not created by myself I did not select the citation style, though I've extended the article heavily myself. I've used Vancouver system to keep consistency with In an edit this evening I found it really heavy going not having key sources listed in order at the end of the article (and in fact I think I may have mixed the EMA/PRAC references from 7April2021 up at one point though they do have a high degree of compatibility. Per WP:CITEVAR I am suggesting switch to Harvard citation with WP:SFN short referencing which can be good for more precise within source location identification which assists WP:V. The style will compatibility mix standard referencing though that would have to be resolved longer term, short term at C-Class its not too much of an issue really. The Astute may notice I've already used Harvard once to precisely note a two different points in an AV media. A slight If disadvantage can be not too many people are familiar with the style and I understand it may not work so well with the visual editor. It does however reduce clutter in the text, more important if one is not (like me) using the visual editor. I tend to keep the source citations is last1,first1,...lastn,firstn|date|title to keep the order easily mappable to the sfn paramet order. If anyone really objects please let know per WP:CITEVAR. If I hear noting I will probably do it in a few days. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I prefer Misplaced Pages's citation templates with CS1 (Misplaced Pages style), but I am okay with Vancouver style given it's a simple extra parameter in CS1 templates. I do not support any other method of citations in articles overall, thus I don't support citations with SFN referencing, as I feel those are harder for readers to understand. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Obviously I have to take that as a blocking action. You will perhaps forgive me on the additional work I may thus have to do which may impact on my RL of family RL an article you are attempting to squash and have a COI on makes me wonder if you are just saying this for hounding or disruptive purposes but I AGF that is not the case. If you are going to place what now seems like empty, smary and pontificating words "I hope you will continue to contribute" on user talk pages in future please be aware it may show like a pattern if who then continue to nip at peoples heels. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, I'm not saying it to attempt to be disruptive - I recognize that per WP:CITEVAR there are at least half a dozen vastly different forms of citations used in Misplaced Pages and that there is no consensus that one should be forced - but I think that Harvard citations and SFNs are much harder for readers to understand - and the CS1 templates (even if the parameter is used to form Vanc style) are easy to use with multiple gadgets (ex: WP:REFTOOLBAR which allows citing with just a DOI or similar identifier) to enable them to be added. I'm not attempting to "squash" anything nor do I have any COI aside from a real life interest in the topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark I haven't looked at this article, let alone commented on its talk page in days. So I find someone telling me I'm on ultra thin ice over a conversation I'm not involved in is a little bit over the top. Huasteca (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Huasteca: Please express you concerns, mitigations, and defence at WP:ANI. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark:What concerns? I have no concerns. As I said I'm not actively involved in this article anymore. Huasteca (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Huasteca: That's good news. Since all this you started here is worlds off topic from the thread.--89.15.239.212 (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reluctantly per WP:CITEVAR  Not done. I'll redact further comments. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think we all need to remain calm. In my experience, although other referencing systems have their advantages (particularly for non-science articles) in practice for a newish article that is likely to grow, like this one, plain old inline/CS1 is what newly-arriving editors will use, so it's best to stick to that to avoid the extra work of dealing with reconciling their changes. And don't even think about the Visual Editor. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

re: Section Outcomes

That gives me the idea that (with greatest care of course!) something should also be said about therapy. (No MD lets the condition run its course without intervention.) Greinacher et al. made some first suggestions. University Greifswald releases
And what about the urgent warning against giving Heparin without prior testing, which could be fatal? - I think this Contraindication is already established knowledge now for the syndrome (cf. flowchart Greinacher et al. see ref #8 already in the article), and a much stronger statement than: "... has recommended against ...", → article section Regional and national responses.)
Of interest for WP would also be what had been tried and what were failures. - But all this is a very touchy business of great responsability and care: only firstclass verified sources must be used (with the restrictions of WP gudelines for med. articles). - Perhaps the section then will turn out to become Outcomes and Therapy? --89.15.239.212 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The section naming this article will compliant with is Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes per WP:MEDSECTIONS. So some stuff here may go into e.g. "Treatment" or possibly "Prevention". But needs very good WP:MEDRS and needs to be very balanced. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. (And please excuse me, I'm not so familiar with the WP styles.)--89.15.239.212 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Gesellschaft für Thrombose- und Hämostaseforschung (i.e. Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis; Germany, Austria and Switzerland) provides its statement (treatment recommendations) here (also in english) with updates as matters evolve, cautioning readers explicitly to observe the issue date. (Please note: Though it's reliable, this is only additional info for experts here. Not yet for the article.) --89.15.239.212 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class COVID-19 articles
• Low-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• Stub-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Stub-Class pharmacology articles
• Low-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions