Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
blogs.sciencemag.org
Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
1–10 of 124 posts
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#2I wonder how much we are seeing general problems with adenovirus vector vaccines (e.g. blood clotting and this manufacturing issue) only because we've never rolled a vaccine out to a large population so quickly. Regulatory agencies are likely afraid to approve any at this point, which does not bode well for other vaccines using the same technology.
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#3For me, this really calls into question the efficacy numbers published for the Gamaleya vaccine. e.g.: The Gamaleya National Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) have reported that the Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine showed a 97.6% efficacy. [0]
[0]: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/russia-sputni...
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#4For me, this really calls into question the efficacy numbers published for the Gamaleya vaccine. e.g.: The Gamaleya National Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) have reported that the Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine showed a 97.6% efficacy. [0] [0]: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/russia-sputni...
Lancet seems to be a respected journal and it confirms those numbers.
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#5For me, this really calls into question the efficacy numbers published for the Gamaleya vaccine. e.g.: The Gamaleya National Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) have reported that the Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine showed a 97.6% efficacy. [0] [0]: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/russia-sputni...
Lancet seems to be a respected journal and it confirms those numbers.
Did you forget the /s here ? Lancet is not a respected journal and has a history of controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet#Andrew_Wakefield_an...
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#6The same organisation is putting pressure on Pfizer as well for lack of quality-control data: https://valor.globo.com/brasil/noticia/2021/04/26/impasse-co... (in Portuguese).
It looks like it shouldn't have been approved in the first place then.
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#7For me, this really calls into question the efficacy numbers published for the Gamaleya vaccine. e.g.: The Gamaleya National Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) have reported that the Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine showed a 97.6% efficacy. [0] [0]: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/russia-sputni...
Lancet seems to be a respected journal and it confirms those numbers.
The vaccine described in the paper published in The Lancet was explicitly described as using an replication deficient Ad5 vector, while the vaccine received by Brazil seems to have been replication competent.
Considering Slovakia also said that Russia did not deliver a vaccine matching the characteristics of the one in The Lancet, I think those data are basically irrelevant now.
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#8For me, this really calls into question the efficacy numbers published for the Gamaleya vaccine. e.g.: The Gamaleya National Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) have reported that the Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine showed a 97.6% efficacy. [0] [0]: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/russia-sputni...
Lancet seems to be a respected journal and it confirms those numbers.
Lancet is not "respected" after their autism fraud scandal. Re-publishing Russian state-sponsored research is not "confirming those numbers" it's just low editorial standards.
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#9For me, this really calls into question the efficacy numbers published for the Gamaleya vaccine. e.g.: The Gamaleya National Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) have reported that the Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine showed a 97.6% efficacy. [0] [0]: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/russia-sputni...
Lancet seems to be a respected journal and it confirms those numbers.
The Lancet didn't perform those tests, they only published the numbers provided by researchers overseeing the trials. The first author of the source paper is Denis Logunov [0] who works at the Gamaleya Research Institute [1].
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lancet seems to be a respected journal and it confirms those numbers.
Did you forget the /s here ? Lancet is not a respected journal and has a history of controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet#Andrew_Wakefield_an...
> Lancet is not a respected journal
Of all the nonsense I've read over the years on HN this pretty much takes the cake.
> has a history of controversies
No, over the many decades (190+ years) it has been in publication there have been a (low) number of problematic papers that passed its review, and for each and every one of those there is a very well documented history and in most cases a retraction.
Like every other classifier journals have 'false negatives' and 'false positives', papers that should have passed their review but did not and papers that should not have passed but did. It's inevitable.