3 ms·
So, I could totally believe that this is mostly a political gesture, and Russia is doing this mostly for propaganda purposes. But, honestly, even given that, I
by rossdavidh 6y ago
So, I could totally believe that this is mostly a political gesture, and Russia is doing this mostly for propaganda purposes. But, honestly, even given that, I found the tone of the article to be biased and speculative, in an anti-Russia way. FUD should not be the main component of an article in a medical journal. Give us some facts about the situation, or if you don't have any facts to give, write a shorter article.
- lngnmn1 6y agoFacts: 76 healthy participants, 100% effectiveness. That must be a joke. And yes, a country which is famous for bullshit propaganda instead of technological advances is not expected to suddenly produce a word-class tech.
- danesparza 6y agoThat's just it. We don't have many facts about this vaccine other than it was rushed. Many folks are probably going to hear 'a vaccine has been created' and think it's a panacea. This article seeks to correct that by pointing out what we don't know about the trial (which appears to be a lot).
- ak217 6y agoThe second paragraph contains a link to the phase 1/2 results that the vaccine creators published in the same journal. Because of unexpected patterns in the data in those results, there are doubts about their veracity, which is consistent with the idea that the institute is cutting corners in the trial. If it turns out that they did make up the results and the vaccine is more dangerous and/or less effective than expected, the journal will be known as complicit in the backlash that ensues not just against this vaccine, but against all others as well. So the journal wanted to temper their implicit endorsement made by publishing the original article, and this is the result.
- thrwway34 6y agoPointing out facts is biased?