5 ms·

A reminder that "U.S. officials pushed Brazil to reject Russia’s coronavirus vaccine" [0] for political reasons. > Under a section titled “Combating malign inf

A reminder that "U.S. officials pushed Brazil to reject Russia’s coronavirus vaccine" [0] for political reasons. > Under a section titled “Combating malign influences in the Americas,” the HHS report states that countries including Russia “are working to increase their influence in the region to the detriment of US safety and security.” The global affairs office coordinated with other U.S. government agencies “to dissuade countries in the region from accepting aid from these ill-intentioned states,” it says. The concerted effort to smear the Russian vaccine is clearly the Western version of the anti-vaccine misinformation Russia has been accused of spreading. Textbook projection. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/16/hhs-brazil-sputnik-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/16/hhs-brazil-s...

lindy2021 5y ago
Further, Sputnik V is the most effective (91.4%), non-mRNA vaccine. Therefore the best vaccine to take to minimise personal risk. US officials are doing Brazilians no favor.
- major505 5y ago
  The problem if the vacine was not the efficiency. It was rejected based on poor documentation, and quality control. Both serious problems that need to be solved before approval in any serous regulatory agency.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  Ignoring your efficacy claims, the linked article indicates that the vaccine being distributed now is likely not the same as the one that was used in clinical trials. In particular, > Anvisa, the Brazilian drug agency, said that every single lot of the Ad5 Gamaleya shot that they have data on appears to still have replication-competent adenovirus in it. This is a serious issue because none of the virus vector is supposed to be competent to replicate. Something is very clearly wrong with the vaccine that's being distributed. It's not the Americans.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Hmm, not necessarily no. This can be a simple imperfection in the manufacturing process, it happens. There is not necessarily anything very wrong, just deficient QA. The vaccine is going to work essentially identically to if it wasn't able to replicate. The difference is that you might get an adenovirus infection, which is basically a cold. Still far from perfect, but it is incredibly unlikely to effect efficiency. This should be a pretty easy fix, actually.
    - Clewza313 5y ago
      Yes, it's entirely possible that this is a manufacturing fuckup, but as Lowe points out in the linked article: > The response from the Sputnik V camp has not been good. The official Twitter account has accused Anvisa of having “invented fake news” about the vaccine, when what you’d hope to see is more of the good ol’ “We stand by our manufacturing process, but take these concerns seriously and are working with the authorities to resolve this question” sort of thing. But no, it’s all for “political reasons”. Their official statement is no more conciliatory. A tip for the vaccine’s manufacturers: don’t immediately start accusing your critics of bad faith, especially when they are the regulatory authorities. Step up and act like responsible drug developers: address the issues directly, with transparency, and work to find a solution. Throwing fits on Twitter is not the answer. Update: Here's Gamaleya's official response, which immediately smears the decision as "political" and basically dismisses Anvisa's findings as impossible. https://sputnikvaccine.com/newsroom/pressreleases/sputnik-v-statement-on-brazilian-health-regulator-anvisa-s-decision-to-postpone-authorization/ https://sputnikvaccine.com/newsroom/pressreleases/sputnik-v-...
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Certainly, but I don't see what this has to do with the vaccine. From the very same article, this Twitter account is not ran by the Gamelaya institute but by a separate government institute. EDIT: The link you send is not from Gamelaya either. Gamelaya's webiste is https://www.gamaleya.org/en/ https://www.gamaleya.org/en/. The link you sent is by the same non-scientific governmental marketing agency. If they claim that this indeed did not happen then I guess we will have to see some hard data.
irae 5y ago
Brazilian here, but just a regular guy, I didn't dug deep into this. Anvisa (our health regulatory agency) is well stablished before current president, supposedly independant and more often considered in opposition to current government. I find it unlikely that they are fabricating a rejection and more likely they are being cientific about it.
- major505 5y ago
  Same here. If what they say is true, that there was viral reproduction in the vacine, theres no way is gonna pass. They schedule a session in congress with Anvisa to defend their position, and decided to not show up to the meeting. The resistance in allowing European heath agencies entering and inspecting it's labs is also a bad sign.
  - major505 5y ago
    I talked with a friend with ties in Anvisa. After all the bullshit the current president make they go through, with all the hydroxychloroquine thing, they kind of done a no interference pact over there among the staff, to not allow political pressure to dictate the result of their work. That say, nothing is immune to politics. But I don't think this was the case.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  It's not only that, but the manufacturer refusal to present all kinds of evidence was very public and undeniable.
- coliveira 5y ago
  It is not that Anvisa is taking a political stance, but they operate under requirements of the government. The government is making it difficult for Anvisa to gather the data they need to make a decision.
  - doliveira 5y ago
    How did the government interfere?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
b0sk 5y ago
Here's a follow-up post on the behavior by the Sputnik V Twitter account https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/russian-vaccine-behavior https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/ru... Greg Lowe is a very respected commentator on all things vaccines.
- js2 5y ago
  Derek Lowe.
randomsquared 5y ago
This is not mutually exclusive with the findings of the Brazilian investigators. More than likely this will spur other investigations which should find the same thing if the Brazilian investigators were correct.
is_true 5y ago
Brazil is using the Chinese vaccine. Don't think they would if those claims were true
doliveira 5y ago
Making sense in your head and fitting a narrative is not enough to make a claim correspond to reality.

lindy2021 5y ago

Further, Sputnik V is the most effective (91.4%), non-mRNA vaccine. Therefore the best vaccine to take to minimise personal risk. US officials are doing Brazilians no favor.

major505 5y ago
The problem if the vacine was not the efficiency. It was rejected based on poor documentation, and quality control. Both serious problems that need to be solved before approval in any serous regulatory agency.
meepmorp 5y ago
Ignoring your efficacy claims, the linked article indicates that the vaccine being distributed now is likely not the same as the one that was used in clinical trials. In particular, > Anvisa, the Brazilian drug agency, said that every single lot of the Ad5 Gamaleya shot that they have data on appears to still have replication-competent adenovirus in it. This is a serious issue because none of the virus vector is supposed to be competent to replicate. Something is very clearly wrong with the vaccine that's being distributed. It's not the Americans.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Hmm, not necessarily no. This can be a simple imperfection in the manufacturing process, it happens. There is not necessarily anything very wrong, just deficient QA. The vaccine is going to work essentially identically to if it wasn't able to replicate. The difference is that you might get an adenovirus infection, which is basically a cold. Still far from perfect, but it is incredibly unlikely to effect efficiency. This should be a pretty easy fix, actually.
  - Clewza313 5y ago
    Yes, it's entirely possible that this is a manufacturing fuckup, but as Lowe points out in the linked article: > The response from the Sputnik V camp has not been good. The official Twitter account has accused Anvisa of having “invented fake news” about the vaccine, when what you’d hope to see is more of the good ol’ “We stand by our manufacturing process, but take these concerns seriously and are working with the authorities to resolve this question” sort of thing. But no, it’s all for “political reasons”. Their official statement is no more conciliatory. A tip for the vaccine’s manufacturers: don’t immediately start accusing your critics of bad faith, especially when they are the regulatory authorities. Step up and act like responsible drug developers: address the issues directly, with transparency, and work to find a solution. Throwing fits on Twitter is not the answer. Update: Here's Gamaleya's official response, which immediately smears the decision as "political" and basically dismisses Anvisa's findings as impossible. https://sputnikvaccine.com/newsroom/pressreleases/sputnik-v-statement-on-brazilian-health-regulator-anvisa-s-decision-to-postpone-authorization/ https://sputnikvaccine.com/newsroom/pressreleases/sputnik-v-...
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Certainly, but I don't see what this has to do with the vaccine. From the very same article, this Twitter account is not ran by the Gamelaya institute but by a separate government institute. EDIT: The link you send is not from Gamelaya either. Gamelaya's webiste is https://www.gamaleya.org/en/ https://www.gamaleya.org/en/. The link you sent is by the same non-scientific governmental marketing agency. If they claim that this indeed did not happen then I guess we will have to see some hard data.

irae 5y ago

Brazilian here, but just a regular guy, I didn't dug deep into this. Anvisa (our health regulatory agency) is well stablished before current president, supposedly independant and more often considered in opposition to current government. I find it unlikely that they are fabricating a rejection and more likely they are being cientific about it.

major505 5y ago
Same here. If what they say is true, that there was viral reproduction in the vacine, theres no way is gonna pass. They schedule a session in congress with Anvisa to defend their position, and decided to not show up to the meeting. The resistance in allowing European heath agencies entering and inspecting it's labs is also a bad sign.
- major505 5y ago
  I talked with a friend with ties in Anvisa. After all the bullshit the current president make they go through, with all the hydroxychloroquine thing, they kind of done a no interference pact over there among the staff, to not allow political pressure to dictate the result of their work. That say, nothing is immune to politics. But I don't think this was the case.
marcosdumay 5y ago
It's not only that, but the manufacturer refusal to present all kinds of evidence was very public and undeniable.
coliveira 5y ago
It is not that Anvisa is taking a political stance, but they operate under requirements of the government. The government is making it difficult for Anvisa to gather the data they need to make a decision.
- doliveira 5y ago
  How did the government interfere?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

b0sk 5y ago

Here's a follow-up post on the behavior by the Sputnik V Twitter account https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/russian-vaccine-behavior https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/ru... Greg Lowe is a very respected commentator on all things vaccines.

js2 5y ago
Derek Lowe.

randomsquared 5y ago

This is not mutually exclusive with the findings of the Brazilian investigators. More than likely this will spur other investigations which should find the same thing if the Brazilian investigators were correct.

is_true 5y ago

Brazil is using the Chinese vaccine. Don't think they would if those claims were true

doliveira 5y ago

Making sense in your head and fitting a narrative is not enough to make a claim correspond to reality.