Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
121–124 of 124 posts
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#122If 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?
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Argentinian government basically told it's own version of anvisa to approve the vaccine. That's it.
That's nonsense, most governments around the world are approving vaccines on an urgent basis. This is true for every vaccine. This doesn't mean that the government forcing any vaccine to be accepted.
Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will try to find the source again, however I would read todos os lotes as saying that there are detectable replicant viruses. Replicant viruses do not carry the spike protein, they don't contribute to antigen protection.
> Replicant viruses do not carry the spike protein, they don't contribute to antigen protection. Are you sure? Do you mean that all of them must have had recombination that added the E1 gene and dropped the spike protein?