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

Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

forbetterscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

#41

Post by higherup »

chomp wrote: post #27
m0zg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you establish long term safety of the vaccine if you don't have a control group of randomly chosen, unvaccinated people? And if you don't, then how did it get approved?

How long are you talking? I mean, nothing stops these people from going off and getting the vaccine themselves; what are you going to do, send mailers to them to never get a covid vaccine for the rest of their lives so that we can study them?

Yes, you are right. So either way, these vaccines has not passed through proper safety evaluation.

Just because something is not possible, does not make it any less required.

Re: Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

#42

Post by _RPL5_ »

higherup wrote: post #40
_RPL5_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia isn't the only country to have trialed Sputnik. From a recent Nature article (July 2021) titled "Mounting evidence suggests Sputnik COVID vaccine is safe and effective" [1]: --- Figures released by the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Health, on some 81,000 individuals who had received two doses of the vaccine, suggested 97.8% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and 100% efficacy in preventing severe d…

>I am pretty sure Sputnik V is fine. It has been administered to tens of millions inside Russia itself. If there were massive problems with it, we would know by now. No, we wouldn't. Because most of the Vaccine AEFI tracking is based on voluntary reporting, and is known to only report around 1% of the events. Even if it was not the case, we wouldn't still know without a control group. Basically this is why systematic…

You are right. We do need systematic trials to confidently makes statements like the one I made. Thank you for pointing out the error in my logic.

Re: Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

#43

Post by higherup »

dangom wrote: post #6
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #2

The language the article uses, is a bit inflammatory. It may well be correct, but the tone gives me pause. Sounds like the author has an axe to grind.

Same feeling here. Curiously enough the domain is called "For better science", where we'd have expected neutrality and impartiality to be the guiding principles of any report. Apart from that, it is hard to believe that any of the vaccine reports and clinical trials are unbiased. Unfortunately there are too many conflicts of interest and money on the table for any information to be taken at face value. The beauty of…

>The beauty of science is that now that the vaccines are out there it becomes easier to independently access them and move our knowledge further in the right direction.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Re: Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

#44

Post by chriszhang »

xvilka wrote: post #9

This link overly politised and does not offer technical details about these problems. The Moscow Times article [1] makes a better job. [1] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/08/20/leaked-sputnik-v-r...

Moscow Times article does not load on my phone. It appears to reload itself again and again. Then it error out. Anyone facing same issue?

Re: Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

#45

Post by mattkrause »

dangom wrote: post #6
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #2

The language the article uses, is a bit inflammatory. It may well be correct, but the tone gives me pause. Sounds like the author has an axe to grind.

Same feeling here. Curiously enough the domain is called "For better science", where we'd have expected neutrality and impartiality to be the guiding principles of any report. Apart from that, it is hard to believe that any of the vaccine reports and clinical trials are unbiased. Unfortunately there are too many conflicts of interest and money on the table for any information to be taken at face value. The beauty of…

For what it's worth, the blog has a pretty similar tone even when writing about less politically-fraught topics; it's usually focused on fraud in the life science literature.

Re: Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

#46

Post by yyyk »

hamburgerwah wrote: post #7

I think that what is sort of a sideline in this article is really a more important story. The Lancet and NEJM have completely debased themselves and destroyed centuries of institutional credibility in their handling of covid related research. I don't know where it goes from here but they have both burned themselves to the ground.

The Lancet does this all the time. To add a few more examples to the sibling comments: The fraudulent HCQ paper*, the absurd Iraq war casualty calculation.

In general, assume that whenever there's politics or the opportunity to shock, the Lancet won't be very thorough with its articles.

* The conclusion being accidentally right doesn't cover for the fraudulent data.

Re: Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

#47

Post by kcb »

higherup wrote: post #41
chomp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long are you talking? I mean, nothing stops these people from going off and getting the vaccine themselves; what are you going to do, send mailers to them to never get a covid vaccine for the rest of their lives so that we can study them?

Yes, you are right. So either way, these vaccines has not passed through proper safety evaluation. Just because something is not possible, does not make it any less required.

> Just because something is not possible, does not make it any less required.

Yes, it does.

Re: Sputnik V: fraudulent clinical trial data

#48

Post by sk2020 »

dangom wrote: post #6
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #2

The language the article uses, is a bit inflammatory. It may well be correct, but the tone gives me pause. Sounds like the author has an axe to grind.

Same feeling here. Curiously enough the domain is called "For better science", where we'd have expected neutrality and impartiality to be the guiding principles of any report. Apart from that, it is hard to believe that any of the vaccine reports and clinical trials are unbiased. Unfortunately there are too many conflicts of interest and money on the table for any information to be taken at face value. The beauty of…

> at least there will be lessons learned for the future development of vaccines and increased scrutiny in their manufacturing process.

I’m nagging, but we’ve gone to extraordinary lengths to set a precedent where pharmaceutical companies are relieved of the burden of demonstrating the safety of their products and also relieved of the risk of providing relief to anyone harmed by said products.

20 years later, emergency measures to protect Americans from terrorism are in effect today. I doubt Pfizer will be vulnerable to class-action suits ever again.

Post reply on HN