3 ms·

While I appreciate biotech articles being on hacker news, this one is nothing I would expect on the frontage. Three of the authors have interest in the company

While I appreciate biotech articles being on hacker news, this one is nothing I would expect on the frontage. Three of the authors have interest in the company that makes HD-map. This in combination with being linked as a preprint without peer review makes me look twice. The wording „complete protection“ does the rest. Does anyone have information if this was ever peer reviewed?

ghotli 5y ago
This stuff is important. Thanks for pointing it out.
Proven 5y ago
All true. But also not worse than (proven) lies that spread by Dr Fauci over this site, so I'd say it's well within HN-accepted norms and standards.
Fomite 5y ago
Given it was posted May 31st, 2021 it's at best weeks away from completed peer review, and realistically with the timelines of COVID-19 papers these days, months.
pepperberg 5y ago
BioNTech/Pfizer published a press release regarding 94% efficacy in November 2020 (1 month before publishing any study) and it too landed on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25135984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25135984
- evandijk70 5y ago
  Completely different - They are a large company with a proven track record and a lot to lose if they incorrectly claim efficacy. They were reporting on the results of a registered clinical trial with 30,000 subjects. This shows results for ~ 48 transgenic mice. I would say that, at the time, the vaccine reported in the press release from Pfizer had a 99% chance of being approved by FDA, while this vaccine has maybe a 10% chance of being approved by the FDA at best.
  - pepperberg 5y ago
    You’re right, they completely differ from each other (regarding their relevance) and should therefore face an adjusted amount of scrutiny. If you’re one of the top pharmaceutical companies in the world, some press releases and study protocols are simply not enough [1] and should be (imo) discarded. If you’re a new player (Vaxxas) claiming “complete protection” by testing your product on mice, it’s simply not enough and should be (imo) discarded. [1] https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-...
swiley 5y ago
In other words: par for covid drugs.
vmception 5y ago
It has to be posted to get peer reviewed

ghotli 5y ago

This stuff is important. Thanks for pointing it out.

Proven 5y ago

All true. But also not worse than (proven) lies that spread by Dr Fauci over this site, so I'd say it's well within HN-accepted norms and standards.

Fomite 5y ago

Given it was posted May 31st, 2021 it's at best weeks away from completed peer review, and realistically with the timelines of COVID-19 papers these days, months.

pepperberg 5y ago

BioNTech/Pfizer published a press release regarding 94% efficacy in November 2020 (1 month before publishing any study) and it too landed on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25135984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25135984

evandijk70 5y ago
Completely different - They are a large company with a proven track record and a lot to lose if they incorrectly claim efficacy. They were reporting on the results of a registered clinical trial with 30,000 subjects. This shows results for ~ 48 transgenic mice. I would say that, at the time, the vaccine reported in the press release from Pfizer had a 99% chance of being approved by FDA, while this vaccine has maybe a 10% chance of being approved by the FDA at best.
- pepperberg 5y ago
  You’re right, they completely differ from each other (regarding their relevance) and should therefore face an adjusted amount of scrutiny. If you’re one of the top pharmaceutical companies in the world, some press releases and study protocols are simply not enough [1] and should be (imo) discarded. If you’re a new player (Vaxxas) claiming “complete protection” by testing your product on mice, it’s simply not enough and should be (imo) discarded. [1] https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-...

swiley 5y ago

In other words: par for covid drugs.

vmception 5y ago

It has to be posted to get peer reviewed