4 ms·

It’s really a never-ending shit show with this company. Somehow, I’d still take the vaccine. I remain convinced that none of this is done with malicious intend

It’s really a never-ending shit show with this company. Somehow, I’d still take the vaccine. I remain convinced that none of this is done with malicious intend. But that confidence is based mostly on a general trust of institutions and procedures in healthcare. It’s a deep reservoir of trust, built up over time. AZ is certainly taking from it more than it is contributing.

happymellon 6y ago
They use may have too many times in the article for me to take this seriously. It reads like a smear campaign.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  It reads like scientists who have an entire career looking at this sort of data, have spotted something odd in the AZ data, aren’t sure what it’s coming from, and are asking for clarification.
  - ignoramous 6y ago
    > "AstraZeneca did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment." This wouldn't be the first I have seen News Agencies deliberately avoid carrying comments because the PR on the other side of the table happened to not respond "immediately" or "in time" etc;
    - gebruikersnaam 6y ago
      AZ admits they shared old data: https://news.yahoo.com/astrazeneca-share-latest-data-panel-115644244.html https://news.yahoo.com/astrazeneca-share-latest-data-panel-1...
  - happymellon 6y ago
    If it did, then there would be a reason for this position. > The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data [because... the data reviewed does not appear to cover the California varient, etc...] The fact that it is kept vague and not including a reason is not helpful and leads to speculation on how terrible AZ are for not being able to submit proper data. They do confirm that this question has nothing to do with the blood clots which this data helps disprove any proper link.
    - icegreentea2 6y ago
      The "may have" appears to come directly the NIAID's news release. If you think that NIAID or the DSMB is trying to smear AZ, then sure. Otherwise, keeping things vague provides maximum room for maneuver for both groups to resolve the issue without either group losing too much face. This way things can get chalked up to "mis-understandings" of what the requirements were, and AZ can reclarify their data in light of these new requirements.
    - refurb 6y ago
      AZ just released a statement that indeed, the data submitted was not the final analysis (interim data from Feb) and they promise to submit final data within 48 hrs. And the full data looks similar to the interim. What’s going on over at AZ? I’m not claiming conspiracy, but clearly there was a miscommunication somewhere. https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2021/update-following-statement-by-niaid-on-azd1222-us-phase-iii-trial-data.html https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/pres... “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data. We intend to issue results of the primary analysis within 48 hours.”
sschueller 6y ago
It's difficult. Do you trust J&J after what they did with their baby powder [1]? Or Pfizer [2], or Moderna who's vaccine is the most expensive and new to the scene [3]? [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullahi_v._Pfizer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullahi_v._Pfizer,_Inc. [3] - Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78 (£1.61). - Johnson & Johnson: $8.50 (£6.30). - Sanofi/GSK: €7.56. - Pfizer/BioNTech: €12. - CureVac: €10. - Moderna: $18.
- yunohn 6y ago
  Wow, I’d never heard of the Pfizer case. Here’s a crazy snippet: “Pfizer argued that it was not required to obtain informed consent for experimental drug trials in Africa, and that any case should be heard in Nigeria”
  - juanani 6y ago
    >Wow, I’d never heard of the Pfizer case. From the Wiki article >Pfizer subsequently settled the case out of court with a $75 million settlement that was subject to a confidentiality clause. Does the confidentiality clause also suppress media or is that a separate payment to whoever is putting their nose into it? I'm curious how these stories get out, and are there others that don't ever reach Wiki articles?
- spazrunaway 6y ago
  Conspiracy theorist. Trust the science! /s
  - sschueller 6y ago
    I'm definitely getting the Vaccine, just saying, it's not easy to just blindly trust anyone.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  Cost is by far the least interesting part of this for me. These are all astoundingly affordable vaccines. $18 is the cost of a big bottle of Claritin!
addicted 6y ago
The good thing is the actual vaccine development was done by Oxford University that has experience and done a good job with the vaccine itself. Unfortunately, it’s the related stuff, manufacturing, procurement, trials, contract signing, that was done by AZ and they have almost entirely done a horrible job.
- Throwawayaerlei 6y ago
  The good thing is the actual vaccine development was done by Oxford University that has experience and done a good job with the vaccine itself. They failed for 8 years to get this particular vaccine platform to work, and read some of the other comments, they probably caused more of the infamous string of clinical trial screw ups than AZ.
scotty79 6y ago
Remeber that the only reason Astra Zeneca is involved in this is because Bill Gates told Oxford they should find commercial exclusive partner instead opensourcing their vaccine.
- fmajid 6y ago
  No. AstraZeneca got involved at the request of the British government. They were not the first choice, GSK was (no 1. vaccine company in the world), but for whatever reason GSK passed, so AstraZeneca, as a British (and Swedish) national champion was chosen, even though they don't have vaccine experience. There is an excellent investigative report by Le Figaro (in French) that details the many issues the vaccine faced: https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/astrazeneca-le-laboratoire-ambitieux-qui-est-devenu-la-bete-noire-de-l-europe-20210317 https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/astrazeneca-le-laboratoire-... These include friction between AZ and Oxford, the latter insisted on retaining much more control than they would normally have, and this led to serious flaws in the design of experiments for the trials, including not having sufficient numbers of over-65. Furthermore, they mixed samples with different inoculation protocols, raising all sorts of red flags within the scientific community. It does seem the vaccine is effective and safe, but the unforced methodology errors did them no favors, and explain why the FDA and EMA are taking an exceptionally hard look at the data. Furthermore, production is outsourced to a number of companies with varying level of expertise, and they are poorly supervised by AZ, for instance EU commissioner Thierry Breton performed an inspection in the Belgian subcontractor that has been having problems that led to AZ not meeting its contractual commitments to the EU (and a diplomatic crisis between the EU and UK), and found production and quality control issues the AZ headquarters were unaware of.
  - moystard 6y ago
    The article is not accessible because of the hard paywall. Frustrating as it looks like an interesting read.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    That doesn't contradict what I said. Oxford wanted to opensource the vaccine before Bill Gates influenced them.

happymellon 6y ago

They use may have too many times in the article for me to take this seriously. It reads like a smear campaign.

ethanbond 6y ago
It reads like scientists who have an entire career looking at this sort of data, have spotted something odd in the AZ data, aren’t sure what it’s coming from, and are asking for clarification.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  > "AstraZeneca did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment." This wouldn't be the first I have seen News Agencies deliberately avoid carrying comments because the PR on the other side of the table happened to not respond "immediately" or "in time" etc;
  - gebruikersnaam 6y ago
    AZ admits they shared old data: https://news.yahoo.com/astrazeneca-share-latest-data-panel-115644244.html https://news.yahoo.com/astrazeneca-share-latest-data-panel-1...
- happymellon 6y ago
  If it did, then there would be a reason for this position. > The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data [because... the data reviewed does not appear to cover the California varient, etc...] The fact that it is kept vague and not including a reason is not helpful and leads to speculation on how terrible AZ are for not being able to submit proper data. They do confirm that this question has nothing to do with the blood clots which this data helps disprove any proper link.
  - icegreentea2 6y ago
    The "may have" appears to come directly the NIAID's news release. If you think that NIAID or the DSMB is trying to smear AZ, then sure. Otherwise, keeping things vague provides maximum room for maneuver for both groups to resolve the issue without either group losing too much face. This way things can get chalked up to "mis-understandings" of what the requirements were, and AZ can reclarify their data in light of these new requirements.
  - refurb 6y ago
    AZ just released a statement that indeed, the data submitted was not the final analysis (interim data from Feb) and they promise to submit final data within 48 hrs. And the full data looks similar to the interim. What’s going on over at AZ? I’m not claiming conspiracy, but clearly there was a miscommunication somewhere. https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2021/update-following-statement-by-niaid-on-azd1222-us-phase-iii-trial-data.html https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/pres... “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data. We intend to issue results of the primary analysis within 48 hours.”

sschueller 6y ago

It's difficult. Do you trust J&J after what they did with their baby powder [1]? Or Pfizer [2], or Moderna who's vaccine is the most expensive and new to the scene [3]? [1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullahi_v._Pfizer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullahi_v._Pfizer,_Inc. [3] - Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78 (£1.61). - Johnson & Johnson: $8.50 (£6.30). - Sanofi/GSK: €7.56. - Pfizer/BioNTech: €12. - CureVac: €10. - Moderna: $18.

yunohn 6y ago
Wow, I’d never heard of the Pfizer case. Here’s a crazy snippet: “Pfizer argued that it was not required to obtain informed consent for experimental drug trials in Africa, and that any case should be heard in Nigeria”
- juanani 6y ago
  >Wow, I’d never heard of the Pfizer case. From the Wiki article >Pfizer subsequently settled the case out of court with a $75 million settlement that was subject to a confidentiality clause. Does the confidentiality clause also suppress media or is that a separate payment to whoever is putting their nose into it? I'm curious how these stories get out, and are there others that don't ever reach Wiki articles?
spazrunaway 6y ago
Conspiracy theorist. Trust the science! /s
- sschueller 6y ago
  I'm definitely getting the Vaccine, just saying, it's not easy to just blindly trust anyone.
thehappypm 6y ago
Cost is by far the least interesting part of this for me. These are all astoundingly affordable vaccines. $18 is the cost of a big bottle of Claritin!

addicted 6y ago

The good thing is the actual vaccine development was done by Oxford University that has experience and done a good job with the vaccine itself. Unfortunately, it’s the related stuff, manufacturing, procurement, trials, contract signing, that was done by AZ and they have almost entirely done a horrible job.

Throwawayaerlei 6y ago
The good thing is the actual vaccine development was done by Oxford University that has experience and done a good job with the vaccine itself. They failed for 8 years to get this particular vaccine platform to work, and read some of the other comments, they probably caused more of the infamous string of clinical trial screw ups than AZ.

scotty79 6y ago

Remeber that the only reason Astra Zeneca is involved in this is because Bill Gates told Oxford they should find commercial exclusive partner instead opensourcing their vaccine.

fmajid 6y ago
No. AstraZeneca got involved at the request of the British government. They were not the first choice, GSK was (no 1. vaccine company in the world), but for whatever reason GSK passed, so AstraZeneca, as a British (and Swedish) national champion was chosen, even though they don't have vaccine experience. There is an excellent investigative report by Le Figaro (in French) that details the many issues the vaccine faced: https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/astrazeneca-le-laboratoire-ambitieux-qui-est-devenu-la-bete-noire-de-l-europe-20210317 https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/astrazeneca-le-laboratoire-... These include friction between AZ and Oxford, the latter insisted on retaining much more control than they would normally have, and this led to serious flaws in the design of experiments for the trials, including not having sufficient numbers of over-65. Furthermore, they mixed samples with different inoculation protocols, raising all sorts of red flags within the scientific community. It does seem the vaccine is effective and safe, but the unforced methodology errors did them no favors, and explain why the FDA and EMA are taking an exceptionally hard look at the data. Furthermore, production is outsourced to a number of companies with varying level of expertise, and they are poorly supervised by AZ, for instance EU commissioner Thierry Breton performed an inspection in the Belgian subcontractor that has been having problems that led to AZ not meeting its contractual commitments to the EU (and a diplomatic crisis between the EU and UK), and found production and quality control issues the AZ headquarters were unaware of.
- moystard 6y ago
  The article is not accessible because of the hard paywall. Frustrating as it looks like an interesting read.
- scotty79 6y ago
  That doesn't contradict what I said. Oxford wanted to opensource the vaccine before Bill Gates influenced them.