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

71–80 of 124 posts

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#71

Post by Clewza313 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #59
Clewza313 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say here. Whoever wrote that response is quite clearly authorized speak on behalf of Gamaleya and the Sputnik V vaccine team, and while I'm sure there are plenty of conscientious scientists at Gamaleya, as Derek says this really is the worst possible public response.

Tackle the problem seriously, sort out the manufacturing process, and the world will have one more weapon in the fight against COVID. But if the response to every piece of bad news is "hurr hurr political fake news", then nobody will trust Sputnik-V, and quite rightly so.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#72

Post by rbanffy »

randomsquared wrote: post #67
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…

That is not mutually exclusive to investigators finding problems with Sputnik V.

It’s being said they didn’t actually test it.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#73

Post by coliveira »

temporalparts wrote: post #3

For 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...

You cannot trust the Brazilian government to make this judgement. It is a policy of that government to delay the approval of vaccines as much as possible, as if there was no actual pandemic going on. Other governments around the world have analyzed the vaccine, including Argentina and Mexico, and they're using it without any problems.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#74

Post by randomsquared »

rbanffy wrote: post #72
randomsquared wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not mutually exclusive to investigators finding problems with Sputnik V.

It’s being said they didn’t actually test it.

"Being said"... Let me guess, Sputnik News?

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/scientists-back-brazil-over-...

> According to a slideshow uploaded online, scientists at Anvisa, Brazil's regulator, said they *tested* samples of the booster shot and found it was "replication competent" -- meaning that once inside the body, the adenovirus can continue to multiply.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#75

Post by coliveira »

temporalparts wrote: post #9
vbezhenar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... [1] https://g.co/kgs/u6wvJ8

Just like they do for every other vaccine. Every result was provided by researchers overseeing the trials for their own vaccines, nothing different here.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#76

Post by seppin »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #33
jacquesm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's a respected journal, but lately it's been publishing research that is of questionable quality for its "top-tier" reputation.

It was also the source of the nonsense surrounding hydroxychloroquine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet#Study_on_hydroxychl...

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#77

Post by coliveira »

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…

Lancet is a great journal, but some people cannot understand that Russia is capable of creating vaccines, so they prefer to say otherwise.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#78

Post by coliveira »

mattkrause wrote: post #56
jacquesm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Every journal in the world is like this. Why you're raising questions about Lancet when all scientific journals operate the same way? There is no such thing as American science or Russian science, it is all the same.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#79

Post by coliveira »

irae wrote: post #14
SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #11

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 dis…

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.

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.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#80

Post by seppin »

Clewza313 wrote: post #38
chupasaurus wrote: post #18

The respone from Gamaleya: https://sputnikvaccine.com/newsroom/pressreleases/sputnik-v-...

Which Derek Lowe tears to shreds in a followup: > These claims are bullshit. Posting them is a disgrace. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/ru... For the record, I believe that's the very first time I've seen him use the word "bullshit", and I've been following him for over 10 years.

" I have a great deal of sympathy for the Russian people, who over the years have managed to make great contributions to humanity while cynically being abused by their leaders, who have too often been a series of despots and thieves."

Hot damn.

Post reply on HN