Talk:Hepatitis C vaccine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hepatitis C vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004221451/http://www.who.int/csr/disease/hepatitis/whocdscsrlyo2003/en/index2.html to http://www.who.int/csr/disease/hepatitis/whocdscsrlyo2003/en/index2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006022403/http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/12/7774.asp to http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/12/7774.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes

Calton: How are the UAlberta sites unreliable, considering that they are academic institutions? (Also, Folio is official: https://blog.ualberta.ca/introducing-folio-ca-32f0d0c0fdf6.) As well, only one of the sources is dated from 2012. The others are more up to date with one of these even showing the current research status. 2605:3E80:E00:5:0:0:0:B7B (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Who said "unreliable"? Don't make things up. --Calton | Talk 04:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Calton: Here: "very weak sources". 137.186.252.240 (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not that this university doesn't do good research, its just that the university's publicity department is overplaying their hand, big time. --Quisqualis (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said, 137.186.252.240, don't make things up. --Calton | Talk 09:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Quisqualis: Can you be specific please, and Calton, what do you mean "don’t make things up"? 208.98.223.90 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Just parse that press release. You will probably ask yourself, "Where's the beef?" It's all hype and promises of future success. There is not one word of technical jargon indicative of concrete results. Phase 1 research is mostly wasted time where definitive solutions are concerned, all the more so for Phase 1 studies which have not been completed. The hurdles to overcome in developing a HepC vaccine, as with HIV, are well known. A real breakthrough could have and would have described these hurdles in nontechnical language. What those PR people should have said was, "Dream on".--Quisqualis (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Quisqualis: I’ve cited four sources that discuss the hep C vaccine under development (specifically, “the vaccine is currently at preclinical studies”). Per WP:OR, our thoughts do not dictate the inclusion of information from reliable sources (in this case, an academic institution). Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored. There is no policy-based reason to not include this info. 108.173.18.28 (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

what do you mean "don’t make things up"?

You know, lying about what I wrote. Is English your first language?

Preclinical.

Well, that tells me everything I need to know. No.

There is no policy-based reason to not include this info.

Other than, at minimum, due weight issues, predicting the future, and not being a university's PR arm, no. At minimum. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Calton: "Is English your first language?" Resorting to personal attacks, I see (WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."). "You know, lying about what I wrote." Nope, and I quoted part of your response as evidence. Regarding the three policy pages you linked, please quote specific passages from each that explicitly prohibit my edits. 108.173.18.28 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, now we have the THIRD time you've lied about what I wrote, including the false claim about evidence. To help you out again, from above: Who said "unreliable"? Don't make things up. --Calton | Talk 04:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC). And who said "unreliable"? Still not me.

Regarding the three policy pages you linked, please quote specific passages from each that explicitly prohibit my edits.

No, Mr. Sealion, that's not how it works. --Calton | Talk 06:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Calton: You said “very weak sources”, indicating they are unreliable. No need to get hostile about it! As well, I am not “Sealioning” (Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility.)) Read WP:AGF. I have asked for explicit passages. You have failed to provide them. 75.155.20.48 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You said “very weak sources”, indicating they are unreliable.

Bullshit. I wrote "very weak sources"; "unreliable" is your invention, so you could have something to argue against. That you persisted in such dishonest nonsense gives me every reason for being hostile.

As well, I am not “Sealioning”...

Yeah, you are. And are still doing it. This isn't a court of law, your wikilawyering attempts notwithstanding -- you actually claimed CENSORSHIP, unbelievably -- and the basic, even common-sense, reasons have been laid out for you.

So what's your connection to this vaccine? Why the zeal for publicity for drug that hasn't even reached clinical trials? --Calton | Talk 23:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

<outdent>From my comment at ANI, where nobody's buying the Alberta IP's complaint: "Having been challenged by three editors, a better strategy might be to reduce the bluster and show, using prominent sources independent of the university, that this is the breakthrough they're claiming." Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

One has to wonder what connection this passive-aggressive IP has to the university in question. I surmise that they are holding back on declaring their connection, not realizing that WP has already coined a term called WP:Linkspam.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

None, actually, believe it or not. If the sources are not “unreliable”, then why are independent ones needed? I was trying to assist Wikipedia, but if you do not want help building “the sum of all human knowledge,” then that’s not my problem.
http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/: “The problem, most researchers and Wikipedia stewards seem to agree, is that the core community of Wikipedians are too hostile to newcomers, scaring them off with intractable guidelines and a general defensiveness. One detailed study from 2012 found that new editors often find that their first contributions to the site are quickly rejected by more experienced users, which directly correlates with a drop in the likelihood that they will continue to contribute to the site.”

... and Wikipedia (with its hostile, unpaid community) has the nerve to ask for donations! Never. 75.155.23.207 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Independent sources: https://canlivj.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/canlivj.2018.0010, https://newatlas.com/hepatitis-c-vaccine-developed/21553/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25275133, http://www.cacmid.ca/wp-content/uploads/Thurs%20April%204%20-%20M.%20Houghton.pdf, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120216095040.htm, https://thesheaf.com/2012/03/08/u-of-a-develops-hepatitis-c-vaccine-that-could-protect-against-all-forms-of-virus/ (“The research has only completed the first of three phases needed for Health Canada to approve the vaccine.“), http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50476.html (“Developing a vaccine” section) 75.155.23.207 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"The research has only completed the first of three phases needed for Health Canada to approve the vaccine." [emphasis added]

So it's only a third of the way through the process to GETTING approved? And no clinical testing? Yeah, you're not helping your case at all.

If the sources are not “unreliable”, then why are independent ones needed?

Try reading the words people wrote instead of making up interpretations which suit you better.

I was trying to assist Wikipedia...

No you weren't. You were and are attempting to puff up a particular researcher's preliminary developments as if they had been settled.

... and Wikipedia...has the nerve to ask for donations! Never.

I'd bet last month's paycheck that you've never given a dime to Wikipedia and have never even considered doing so, so that old gambit, like your "CENSORSHIP!" gambit, falls flat.

Also, your list of "independent sources" is very weak tea, including the press releases from 2012 and the main researcher's PowerPoint slides -- you'll have to explain how that last one is "independent" by any meaning of the term -- and shows no support for this being advance enough or important enough to include. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

IP Editor, before you storm off in a snit, never to be heard from again, please read WP:Undue. Undue emphasis on one aspect of a subject has been the downfall of too many WP articles in the past. It's far better never to go down that road in the first place.--Quisqualis (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2020 is not "current" any more

could anybody please update this (and the Hep. C article, too) ?