3 ms·

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 The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data [because...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.”

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.”