Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

blogs.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 124 posts

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#51

Post by meepmorp »

marcodiego wrote: post #41

Covid19 has been extremely politicized in Brazil. President's supporters were mostly against vaccine until coronvac (sinovac vaccines) was approved by anvisa, Brazil's equivalent to FDA. In Brazil this pandemic took ridiculous proportions. In the beginning, it was said that it wouldn't kill even 800 people[0]. It was said that it would be no more than a little flu and that children should not skip schools[1]. After t…

You make a good case, but you do have to admit that Narendra Modi is also a solid contender for shittiest handling of COVID. Just letting the Kumbh Mela go ahead this year earns him a spot near the top.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#52

Post by 19f191ty »

marcodiego wrote: post #41

Covid19 has been extremely politicized in Brazil. President's supporters were mostly against vaccine until coronvac (sinovac vaccines) was approved by anvisa, Brazil's equivalent to FDA. In Brazil this pandemic took ridiculous proportions. In the beginning, it was said that it wouldn't kill even 800 people[0]. It was said that it would be no more than a little flu and that children should not skip schools[1]. After t…

India is catching up

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#53

Post by guhcampos »

marcosdumay wrote: post #48
major505 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me Gamaleya is turning a thecnical decision in a political one. Thanks to mistakes and possible crimes commit by the Brazilian goverment, when rejecting other vacines, they are now being pressured in accepting this vaccine no matter what. I don't think this is how a sanitary inspection agency should act, approving things based in pure pressure.

> Thanks to mistakes and possible crimes commit by the Brazilian goverment, when rejecting other vacines Well, that's the first COVID-19 vaccine the Brazilian government has rejected.

Not really, Covaxin was also rejected about a month prior.

However I believe the original comment refers to the refusal of the Brazilian government to commit/invest in any of the vaccines while they were being developed, then stubbornly dismissing the importance of vaccination while promoting snake oil treatments.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#54

Post by drewblaisdell »

marcosdumay wrote: post #44
exmadscientist wrote: post #42

If the vector is replicating, does that explain some piece of why Sputnik V is significantly more effective than the other adenovirus vector vaccines? (If that's even true, of course, since it may well not be!) Or is it simply a more effective preparation of a vaccine, due to things like the Ad5/Ad26 combination?

Has there been any controlled study on the efficacy of Sputnik V? I haven't heard of any.

You're asking if there has been any controlled study of Sputnik V, a vaccine which has been administered to millions?

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#55

Post by sanxiyn »

marcosdumay wrote: post #44
exmadscientist wrote: post #42

If the vector is replicating, does that explain some piece of why Sputnik V is significantly more effective than the other adenovirus vector vaccines? (If that's even true, of course, since it may well not be!) Or is it simply a more effective preparation of a vaccine, due to things like the Ad5/Ad26 combination?

Has there been any controlled study on the efficacy of Sputnik V? I haven't heard of any.

Yes there has been. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#56

Post by mattkrause »

jacquesm wrote: post #10
tzumby wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On top of that, peer review is more advisory than adversarial: it’s meant to catch honest mistakes and point out possible interpretations that the authors might have missed.

Catching out-and-out fraud, a la Wakefield, is way beyond the reviewers’ remit.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#57

Post by dragonwriter »

exmadscientist wrote: post #42

If the vector is replicating, does that explain some piece of why Sputnik V is significantly more effective than the other adenovirus vector vaccines? (If that's even true, of course, since it may well not be!) Or is it simply a more effective preparation of a vaccine, due to things like the Ad5/Ad26 combination?

> If the vector is replicating, does that explain some piece of why Sputnik V is significantly more effective than the other adenovirus vector vaccines?

The observed discrepancy between the delivered vaccine and the one described in the published clinical trial could, if not explain, hint at the reason the published clinical results are better than other vaccines in the same class.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#58

Post by sudosysgen »

wbl wrote: post #49
sudosysgen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You don't sell medicines to people which don't meet the specs you made public about them. Sure, and I never said otherwise. But all things considered this is pretty minor. >They've made the vaccine demonstrably less safe, either through carelessness or because they don't care. Don't minimize that, or assume it's the only place where the reality of sputnik doesn't match up to the phase 3 data. Yes, this does make the…

You don't know that this is the same vaccine as what was injected before.

Why is there any reason to think it wasn't? Replicant viruses are very easily explained by a QA failure, and Brazil doesn't claim that non-replicant viruses aren't there anymore.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#59

Post by sudosysgen »

Clewza313 wrote: post #45
sudosysgen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/ . The link you sent is by the same non-scientific governmental marketing agency. If they claim that this indeed did not happe…

The PR is titled "Sputnik V statement", is from the "Sputnik V team", and says "Powered by The Gamaleya National Center" at the bottom of the page.

The "Sputnik V team" is the not the Gamelaya research institue, again the article you cited says they are affiliated with the Russian sovereign wealth fund.

"Powered by" is weasel word 101. When you see a website where it's written "Powered by NodeJS" does that mean the website literally is from NodeJS?

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#60

Post by sanxiyn »

xvilka wrote: post #25
hardtke wrote: post #2

I 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.

I am not a virologist, but blood clotting might be related to the specific payload rather than the platform. The original SARS-CoV2 has the same property. Could it be related to the spike protein?

This preprint suggests AZ vaccine blood clotting is due to EDTA, an ingredient specific to AZ vaccine and absent in other vaccines, and is related to neither platform nor payload.

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-440461/v1

Post reply on HN