4 ms·
I'm staring to think these are industry attacks on a company that is in competition with others. AZ's vaccine is quite similar to J&J but AZ is getting all the
by sschueller 6y ago
I'm staring to think these are industry attacks on a company that is in competition with others. AZ's vaccine is quite similar to J&J but AZ is getting all the criticism. If AZ is so unsafe why has there not been huge issues in the UK where so many got AZ.
Something fishy is going on. Either at AZ or from the outside.
- Neil44 6y agoThe company licensing and distributing their vaccine at cost and many times cheaper than the others is getting lots of negative stories and comments in the media, who could possibly benefit from this.
- mantas 6y agoDon't forget geopolitics. Russia and China would looooove to come in with their vaccines and save the day.
- sschueller 6y agoThe negative press against the Russian Sputnik Vaccine is also quite dominant in the news.
- mantas 6y agoNot so much after EU did 180... Here in my country PM claimed to never accept Sputnik. Wonder what will happen if EU confirms it :)
- sschueller 6y agoAlso interesting that a Swiss company is going to be producing Sputnik V [1] [1] https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/schweizer-biopharma-firma-stellt-russischen-corona-impfstoff-her https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/schweizer-biopharm...
- fmajid 6y agoThe Russian Sputnik V vaccine is as effective as the Western ones. Fr all its flaws the Soviet Union was a scientific, educational and health giant, and its successor Russian state still is. The Sinopec (Chinese) one is only about 60-70% effective, on the other hand, and unless given away for free, it's hard to understand why any country would want it. The concerns about Sputnik are geopolitical in nature (weakening the sanctions regime against Russia for its doings in Ukraine, and the persecution of Navalny), not sanitary ones.
- Throwawayaerlei 6y agoThe concerns about Sputnik are geopolitical in nature Not entirely. Their politicians boasted about it being the world's first "registered" vaccine a month before its Phase III trial started, that was an own goal completely of their making. It was only months later where they were able to finish their Phase III trial with very good results, but a few weeks behind the two mRNA vaccines.
- fmajid 6y agoSo in other words exactly like Astra Zeneca. A good vaccine whose reputation was marred by nationalism-driven botched design of experiment and clinical trials. That said, the effectiveness of Sputnik V has been established to Western standards now, so the only reason for the EU to refuse it when it is in crying need for vaccines is political, not scientific or medical.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> If AZ is so unsafe... That's not what this means. AZ has genuinely fucked up a couple times. They accidentally gave some trial participants half the intended dose (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55086927 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55086927), and now appear to have made a mistake in reporting data. They're procedural fuckups. Never should've happened, but neither one inherently says "the vaccine is unsafe".
- sschueller 6y agoI agree, stuff like that should not happen.
- refurb 6y agoThis shouldn’t be downvoted it’s accurate. Several screw ups happened during the trials. AZ and Oxford are now paying the price for that lack of trust.
- Throwawayaerlei 6y agoAZ has genuinely fucked up a couple times. They accidentally gave some trial participants half the intended dose That was an Oxford fuck up, as were most of the other early clinical trial ones as far as we know. As others have explained, this is not a normal small organization plus Big Pharma arrangement, and after the EU went crazy I'll bet AZ is now regretting ever getting involved. AZ's catastrophic fuck up from that testing mistake which should have burned a lot of their credibility was to use that data which in the long term didn't pan out to make a blended claim of higher efficacy than they could at that time legitimately support.
- addicted 6y agoAstraZeneca has no experience developing vaccines. As a result they’ve massively screwed up multiple times before. Frankly, even the original approval they got from the UK should never have been given, considering how tainted their original trials in Brazil were. Basically what seems to have happened is that Oxford university developed the vaccine, required that companies who wanted to manufacture and sell it should not make a profit, and therefore only got companies with little vaccine development experience, such as AstraZeneca, which probably due to their lack of experience has been making mistake after mistake. That being said, we have seen that with COVID the vast majority of vaccines have been extremely successful (some like the Russian and Chinese ones were deployed without complete testing and were shown to have great results), and since we are confident the AZ vaccine is safe enough, ans we can see the impact in the UK, there’s a strong justification to authorize using it even without proper results. Just not in the US, which already has access to enough vaccines for its population without needing the AZ zone.
- JamisonM 6y agoThis comment is a valuable contribution to the discussion wrt AZ's lack of experience & screw ups. Although I disagree that there was any reason to hold up UK approval, there was clear safety and effectiveness evidence that overwhelmed any doubts about safety in spite of the screw ups. But I have zero sympathy for AZ even if many, many people are compounding their errors.
- linuxftw 6y agoSeems like anything made by this company should contain warnings like "This manufacturer has never released an approved vaccine" and "This manufacturer is not allowed to make a profit on this product, so there is no monetary incentive to ensure quality after the product is authorized for emergency use" I fully expect the same quality as soviet era cars.
- JamisonM 6y agoAstraZeneca has staked their reputation as an extremely large firm that makes all sorts of pharmaceuticals on the safety and efficacy of this vaccine, the idea that they have no incentive to ensure the quality of the product is absolutely bonkers. Hilariously Lada cars - the Soviet era cars being referenced I expect - were exported for the express purpose of making a profit!
- black6 6y ago> Something fishy is going on. AZ is a British company. It has nothing to do with vaccine efficacy and everything to do with punishing them over Brexit.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> U.S. health body questions AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine trial data Why would the American regulators want to punish England for Brexit?
- moystard 6y agoThat's the British narrative at the moment; self-identification with this vaccine mixed with a constant feeling of being punished for Brexit.
- bouvin 6y agoAnd how does Norway fit with your narrative?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoyawn Nobody cares about Brexit. Especially not US pharmaceutical licensing agencies.
- ppf 6y agoGiven the sheer amount of potential profit at stake, it's not surprising that some skullduggery is happening. However, given the speed of the rollout of the various vaccines, and the corresponding number of people injected with them, the companies invovled should be absolutely above reproach in these matters. The fact that, even when lives are at stake, companies cannot resist temptation, is why there are regulations. Try complaining about the regulations that were relaxed to allow this all to happen, however, and suddenly I'm an anti-vaxxer.
- JamisonM 6y agoIs there any evidence of skullduggery?
- ppf 6y agoI was responding to the parent comment that such headlines are just competing vaccine compaines attempting to destroy the reputation of their competitors. Assuming that is the reason behind this headline (which, is not a given), I'm just pointing out that would not be surprising.