This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

COVID-19 Start‑class 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Start‑class 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pharmacology Start‑class 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on 2021-04-05. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was No consensus.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• A German research team has demonstrated that the phenomenon is mediated by antibodies against the cytokine platelet factor 4.^[1] (preprint)

• Article now peer reviewed and published in NEJM.^[2] Yay! (Just in case anyone is looking here.) 49.177.61.250 (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.^[3]
  • This phenomenon usually occurs after exposure to heparin, in which case the condition is called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.^[3]
  • Both conditions are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis.^[3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possibly the most common use of "VIPIT" comes/originates from Canada: e.g. This: [1] from Public Health Agency of Canada. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.)^[1] 203.1.80.1 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [2] ). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[2] 49.177.61.250 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could we say that consensus has been reached to keep both names (VIPIT and VITT) for the time being and remove the tag "disputed"? --89.15.236.207 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Djm-leighpark Anyways, since I was dragged back into these articles, the official EMA position is as follows: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/dhpc/direct-healthcare-professional-communication-dhpc-vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_en-0.pdf

The causal relationship is now "plausible" not "possible" or "cannot be ruled out". It also exceeds what is expected in the general population. I have edited the lead accordingly. Huasteca (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This change that says: "although such adverse reactions are very rare, they exceeded what would be expected in the general population" seems to go a bit further than the sources cited in support.

Maybe I am looking at the wrong one, but they mostly say something on these lines:^[1]

The data suggest there is a slightly higher incidence reported in the younger adult age groups and the MHRA advises that this evolving evidence should be taken into account when considering the use of the vaccine.[Emphasis added]

so I just don't see that the sources allow us to state unequivocally, and baldly, a causal relationship. All the sources I can see are much more cautious - evidence is suggestive, and perhaps strengthening, but nothing so definitive yet.

A "plausible causal relationship" is mentioned, with attribution, in another section already, anyway: "causal relationship" is "plausible but is not confirmed", so it may be redundant to repeat it here, and, I believe, possibly less balanced and probably not as reflective of sources.

And this addition: "Early reports indicate the outcome is fatal in a proportion of cases, for example the UK MHRA reporting regards ADZ1222 to 31 March 2021 recording 19 deaths out of 79 cases in the context of 20.2 million doses administered." was already covered too, with those statistics directly quoted with the cite.

I am quite worried that the emphasis and tone of these edits is not warranted. Could these changes please be reconsidered? 49.177.64.138 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and I will be fixing this shortly. User:Huasteca: "plausible" means virtually the same as "possible", just with the added condition that for something to be "plausible" it must be "reasonable" (whereas something can be "possible but not reasonable" if it hasn't been disproven). Plausible does not mean what you try to say it does, and the sources you use still do not support the edits you're making. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it even more precisely, in the summary the EMA says "is considered plausible". (Meaning that is their expert opinion as things stand.) - I think it's best to cite it exactly so. We should not add our judgement, stressing it to the one side or the other. --89.15.236.207 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[3] This edit is blatant POV pushing by say hi! directly contradicting and blatantly distorting the content of an EMA communication. This is getting serious and we need admin intervention here. I rarely request such things but I think a topic ban is in order here. Huasteca (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your verbatim quote from the source: "Although such adverse reactions are very rare, they exceeded what would be expected in the general population." is fully OK with me and should be kept in the article. Perhaps there was some confusion, since you left it without quotationmarks before. But on the other hand, that's no excuse either for the other contributors to push back before even having it compared with the ref. --89.15.236.207 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:89.15.236.207: I don't think there was any confusion and I gave up on assuming good faith from certain editors here. Changing "Although such adverse reactions are very rare, they exceeded what would be expected in the general population" to "Although such adverse reactions are very rare" (followed by a full-stop) is a blatant willful manipulation of sources to push for a certain POV. There is no room for confusion or mistake in this case. Its systematic - this is why I took this issue to a POV noticeboard in the first place. Huasteca (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh indeed, I failed to see this. That's really strange. - But I hope you can see that my intention is WP:AGF and fairness on all sides, calming down the somewhat toxic atmosphere. --89.15.236.207 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the correct wording in the lead should be, just that I was hoping we could reflect the sources collectively when introducing the topic, in giving an overview. Delineating the specifics of the different sources, including direct (and full) quotes is an excellent way of being faithful to the source, but I was thinking the ideal is to have the lead summarise all the authoritative views. If that's not how it should work, then I'm sorry to have raised it. I only put my comments here for discussion.

And some of that direct summation of various individual sources was already in the body of article, so it seemed restating it at the top was giving it an over-emphasis. Anyway, I hope it's all worked out in a way that doesn't cause editors stress. (FWIW it's (to me) very scary here. It is hard to clearly understand what is actually going on. If I have sparked any hard feelings in or problems for anyone, please accept my apologies. Best wishes. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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^[1]
• The BMJ News^[2] 49.177.61.250 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This^[3]
• THANZ advisory statement cited above. 49.177.61.250 (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC) addition 49.177.64.138 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I prefer Wikipedia's citation templates with CS1 (Wikipedia 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Huasteca: Look. I'm fucked doing with this article at the moment. totally fucked. I'm fucked by working on a article that's an AFD under MERGE clothing. Absolutely fucked. Totally fucked. I'll self enforce a fucking 12 hour wikibreak. That will fucking stop people to calm down and take a self enforced fucking wikibreak until I've "calmed done" so the lead section can be fucked about with. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctantly per WP:CITEVAR  Not done. I'll redact further comments. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

I advise caution in the exact wording of VIIT and VIPIT at the start of the lead section. The emphasis on these acronyms may be WP:UNDUE, may fail WP:MEDRS in the nature of the surrounding wording giving not confirmed causal link to my knowledge at this time, and it may be that, the association with the immune system is likely probable but not totally confirmed (my words), and VIIT/VIPIT may not include every event within scope. Now I'm not a medical expect but I'm looking for say WHO adoption and contexting of these terms before we and making specific assertions in the lead sections. I have no objection to noting further down in the lead section to avoid WP:SURPRISE from a re-direct. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my latest edit, the only reason was to give exactly what the sources say. (Of course I don't doubt your knowledge about the WP rules, and I did not want to take sides stressing any opinion. That's for sure. So I leave it for others to decide.) - Jfdwolff seems to have the best experience about the topic and I would appreciate any good advice. - Afaik it is already a well established fact that an immune reaction (i.e. the presence of anti-PF4 antibodies) causes the condition → Section Causes, but what exactly is the trigger for this unfortunate immune reaction remains still very much unclear and is now the focus of research. (The hot topic is this: Clinicians had seen such syndrome caused by heparin before, but here it is NOT.) --89.15.237.230 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also re these anti-PF4 antibodies. - UK guidelines by the British Society for Haematology say ("Management", p. 2) as #1: Give intravenous immunoglobulin urgently as this is the treatment most likely to influence the disease process.^[1] (My comment: Reason is, to get the pathogenic antibodies out of the way. As section → Management already in the article. Which is correct.) - So, both for diagnosis and treatment, the association with the immune system seems quite a bit more than merely plausible, I would say. - Although, as I said before, I'm open-minded and don't push my informed opinion. (I just think it's always best to let it frankly be known, so as to avoid any controversies or suspicions.) --89.15.237.230 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a source can be provided that thrombotic risk is increased in the absence of thrombocytopenia and anti-PF4 ELISA then a distinction should be made in the introduction. Alternatively, VIPIT and VITT should be mentioned in the current context. JFW | T@lk 15:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Management guidelines just released: https://isth.informz.net/ISTH/data/images/ISTH%20VITT%20Guidance%20on%20Letterhead.pdf JFW | T@lk 15:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News page on the ISTH website: https://www.isth.org/news/561406/ JFW | T@lk 15:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formal outputs from the ISTH SSC: doi:10.1111/jth.15341 JFW | T@lk 21:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information: Greinacher, Andreas; Selleng, Kathleen; Wesche, Jan; Handtke, Stefan; Palankar, Raghavendra; Aurich, Konstanze; Lalk, Michael; Methling, Karen; Völker, Uwe; Hentschker, Christian; Michalik, Stephan; Steil, Leif; Schönborn, Linda; Beer, Martin; Franzke, Kati; Rangaswamy, Chandini; Mailer, Reiner K.; Thiele, Thomas; Kochanek, Stefan; Krutzke, Lea; Siegerist, Florian; Endlich, Nicole; Warkentin, Theodore E.; Renné, Thomas (20 April 2021). "Towards Understanding ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT)". doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-440461/v1. Retrieved 20 April 2021. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Conclusions: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine constituents (i) form antigenic complexes with PF4, (ii) EDTA increases microvascular permeability, and (iii) vaccine components cause acute inflammatory reactions. Antigen formation in a proinflammatory milieu offers an explanation for anti-PF4 antibody production. High-titer anti-PF4 antibodies activate platelets and induce neutrophil activation and NETs formation, fueling the VITT prothrombotic response.

Note: this is a pre-print paper. --89.15.238.41 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related News: https://idw-online.de/en/news767147 --89.15.238.41 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no further worries. I'm out of here, and I mean it. Bye! --89.15.238.41 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment by 89.15.238.41 is likely in the context of this this edit - Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I think we have reasons to be cautious with this preprint. Other hypotheses have also been aired: on the BBC PM programme last week a science journalist called Kai Kupferschmidt discussed the theory that negatively charged DNA in the vaccine was responsible (analogous to the negatively charged heparin in bona fide HITT). Another concern is that EDTA is used clinically in the treatment of heavy metal poisoning, but I could not find evidence that it caused genuine thrombocytopenia (although it can cause platelet clumping and falsely decreased platelet counts in the laboratory). JFW | T@lk 19:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case this might be of some use for the article I am placing refs about some recent post-vaccination events in Aus. This initial news media report gives an overview, or this one.

• The TGA convened a Vaccine Safety Investigation Group (VSIG) meeting to review three newly reported cases of suspected thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. This is their statement.^[1]
• In reviewing these recent cases, they base their level of certainty regarding any link between the event and vaccine on the WHO's "internationally accepted method" of assessment.^[2]
• Updated ATAGI statement^[3]
• Regarding the naming of the syndrome discussion, and what its settled label will be: possibly worth noting that these Australian agencies seem to be going with "TTS" for the moment. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "better source needed" tag on a sentence in the lead, saying, Maybe we should not generalise and use a UK Medical Society instead? The source cited - and used again in the Management section - is from British Society for Haematology. What do others think? Can we remove this tag? I'm not quite clear on the tagging Editor's meaning - could always find more medical societies' guidance on not using Heparin, but don't want to add lots of sources saying the same thing, just for the sake of it. Or maybe something else is meant by this ... 49.177.64.138 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the formal ISTH international guidance, doi:10.1111/jth.15341. I have added the reference under the name "ISTHSSC" so it can be cited elsewhere in the article. JFW | T@lk 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. International guidance even better, and will be useful for article elsewhere, too. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although following it to the letter will put huge demand on imaging services. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, and please correct me if I'm wrong, these have only been associated with adenovirus vector vaccines for COVID-19 (as opposed to other vaccines such as mRNA). I'm not "officially" proposing a move at this time, but it may be better to replace the "post-vaccination" part with something such as "Adenovirus associated" or something like that - because as the article states right now: it "has been consistently reported" after administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors - which leads me to believe that, while only observed in humans after COVID-19 vaccines, it's not the vaccines that are the problem so much as the technology. Furthermore, could a more concise way of saying "embolic and thrombotic events" be formulated, such as "clotting disorders" or similar? My goal here is not to delete/remove the article, because it's clear now that this is a notable topic in and of itself - not just related to vaccines - but I think the title could be improved. On a side note, I'd like to thank all of the editors who've worked on this article and bringing it to the level it's at. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have info for Russia's Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine & China's Convidecia (Only just coming on stream in quantity?). Apart from Pfizer/Moderna/J&J/Sputnik V/AZD1222 and CoronaVac (inactivated) have anything else been deployed at comparable scale in Quarter 1 of 2021 (especially anywhere there they are anywhere on top of keeping their data) ? A report a while back from the UK MHRA did identify Pfizer vaccinated persons with rare clots but well below the AZ levels and perhaps indistinguishable from background. I haven't looked at the latest UK MHRA data ... though that is basically Pfizer/AZD1222 only (Maybe Moderna too but likely too early). I am sure its important to track EMA and WHO language very very carefully on this and see what they are saying in totality to ensure we have the right scope - I haven't being doing that for a few days.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035564 JFW | T@lk 13:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The almost complete omission of necessary context regarding the benefits of vaccination throughout this page make it a piece of ammo for misinformation-based vaccine hesitancy and anti-vax disinformation, because it stresses a slight risk while holding silent on the great benefits of vaccination.

As it is, this page discusses only the risks of vaccination, and omits to mention that the risks of coagulation from pandemic COVID-19 are many-fold higher. This lack of necessary context misdirects the attention of persons needing to weigh the benefits, as well as the costs, of vaccination, by denying those who read this article and stop reading the information most salient to a vaccinate/don't vaccinate decision.

This page should, near the beginning, lay out and document the recommendation of scientific, governmental, and world health bodies regarding the desirability of vaccination.

This page should followup and explain those recommendations, and how they are based on giving due weight to the risks of non-vaccination, including hyper-coagulation, caused by COVID-19 and risked by those failing to get vaccinated. These risks should be shown as ongoing into the future for the un-vaccinated individual, as wave after wave of increasingly contagious and virulent COVID virus pass through world society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't about the vaccines as a whole. It's about the post-vaccination clotting events. Pages for the COVID-19 vaccines as a whole and the individual ones implicated are linked in the first paragraph of the lead. No matter how noble the cause of wanting everyone to get vaccinated is, we don't violate/ignore our policies and guidelines on how to craft articles to do so. You may also wish to see our rule on including "disclaimers" in articles (such as what you suggest adding to this article). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter thread, direct link. TL;DR: a mouse model shows that VITT happens if, and only if adenovirus vector enters the blood stream after an accidental intravenous injection, because then platelets and adenovirus stick together and are attacked by the immune system together. Yes, I didn't expect it be that simple either. Ain92 (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And BTW, in replies I found this video from April discussing the same thing and it seems that this hypothesis was proposed as early as mid-March in Denmark. Ain92 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination be renamed and moved to Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination → Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia – The current name makes it difficult to find the article, causes it to not show up in Google searches, and violates WP:UCRN (and WP:OR?) We should use one of the five names used by researchers, of which "Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT)" appears to be the most accurate and most commonly-used. — Omegatron (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]