Prestigious medical journal The Lancet publishes findings on Russian Covid vaccine

Read 'em and weep -> Sputnik V "has been shown to elicit antibody response with no serious adverse events"

The Lancet found that 1.) the vaccine is safe 2.) it produces an antibody response

News stories on the findings
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-russia-vaccine/results-of-russias-covid-19-vaccine-produced-antibody-response-the-lancet-iduskbn25v1i2

https://sputniknews.com/science/202009041080363522-the-lancet-publishes-results-of-russian-covid-19-vaccine-clinical-trials/

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+lancet+russian+vaccine&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=alekk03cmswgz_nysudee3i2jzuaout-pq:1599218113420&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=x&ved=2ahukewj09mxcr8_rahxeg80khffvafkq_auoaxoecasqaw&biw=1440&bih=1162

Lancet article
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/piis0140-6736(20)31866-3/fulltext

The moral of the story: never doubt Russian science.

Why the Russophobia bro?

All I see is anti-Russian bias, mixed with political commentary, like this: "Trump said one of his daughters got the Russian vaccine. I guess he's using his other daughter as a control" (it was Putin who's daughter received the vaccine), and this "and the way things are looking here with political pressure on the FDA for early emergengy [sic]-use approval" (you have access to the inner workings of the FDA?).

The rest of your commentary? Send it to the FDA, or perhaps better yet, why not submit your thoughts to The Lancet for publication?

I recall all the snide jokes the first time I mentioned the Russian vaccine: people will grow third eyes, Russians are always drinking vodka, Russian this, Russian that, blah blah blah. One guy offered to procure it for me from the black market (for a fee of 75k or something equally as ridiculous) (the same fellow suggested Covid was no worse than a bad flu season).

The Lancet has found that the vaccine is both safe, and effective.

To no one in particular, and, as they say "if the shoe fits, wear it": Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Amazing.

Serious question, Buddy, how much testing is enough, and how much is excessive? I don't care where a vaccine comes from, I do care if it is (a) effective and (b) safe. Rushing vaccines to market and then pulling them after problems appear is also a bad thing, agreed?

(See, no political comment there at all, just a question)

Hal I go with what the experts say. I'm not in the field of medicine. If The Lancet says the vaccine is safe and effective, which they have, that trumps us laymen. If the FDA finds one of our vaccine candidates to be the same, I will go with their finding. I trust our FDA, and I trust The Lancet.

I will get the vaccine, the U.S. vaccine, as soon as my doctor tells me it is available. If anyone would like to arrange for me to get the Russian vaccine early, I will consider their kind offer.

Post Edited (Buddy Blank) : 9/4/2020 7:17:53 AM (GMT-6)

“Large, long-term trials including a placebo comparison, and further monitoring are needed to establish the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine for preventing COVID-19 infection,” Lancet article.

As noted by Djin, effectiveness, as with all vaccines being discussed irrespective of origin, is yet to be proven. Not much else to say here.

Thalidomide showed safety and efficacy in early British trials and got approved. (By the way, my dad was took it for a blood disorder -- it's still in use -- just careful use). What would the Russian say -- "Well, no birth defects in chimps."

If I had a couple of bucks for every item that never made through testing, I'd be rich. I still don't understand why the Russian vaccine candidate is any more special than the other candidates in testing.

I have no animus towards the Russian vaccine, I'm just being sober about where they are with it. I don't understand why this vaccine candidate is different from the other promising candidates other than the hype.

Djin

Post Edited (DjinTonic) : 9/4/2020 8:07:18 AM (GMT-6)

DjinTonic said...
Trump said one of his daughters got the Russian vaccine. I guess he's using his other daughter as a control.

Sober as a judge.

DjinTonic said...
What would the Russian say -- "Well, no birth defects in chimps."

No, no Russophobia at all. ;-)

A related issue.

Assuming a quickly-developed vaccine does become available, who should be first in line to get it? The ABC News article below addresses this question.

Highlights:

"The recommendations, made by a committee of scientists from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, were part of a first draft of recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine prioritization."

"A panel of experts gathered this week has recommended prioritizing front-line health care workers, followed by adults with serious underlying medical conditions and seniors living in nursing homes or crowded living environments."

"We looked at issues of ensuring maximal benefit, promoting common good, saving the greatest number of lives possible."

The article goes on to describe the steps being taken to organize and prioritize how a vaccine will be distributed and used when made available, but also makes further mention of "at-risk seniors" and "medically high-risk individuals."

Which brings to mind something that would seem obvious. If it turns out that there really are defects with a newly released vaccine, released too quickly, then those two afore-mentioned, especially vulnerable, groups would seem to be the first to suffer from, and indicate the existence of, those defects.

But of course the planners are aware of this.

https://abcnews.go.com/health/progress-continues-coronavirus-vaccine-experts-debate-1st-receive/story?id=72804222&cid=clicksource_4380645_4_three_posts_card_hed

Yes, Trump will have a vaccine conveniently announced Nov 1.

The problem I see is companies like J&J who are producing a billion doses of untested vaccine. In capitalist America there will be huge political pressure to approve it if it works or not.

Whether we like it or not, this WILL be a political football--we are incapable as a society from seeing it any other way. "I disagree" becomes "You're an idiot" which becomes "You love this because you're a ___" and "You hate it because you're a ___".

This forum has been (mostly) clear from this kind of BS...but it is definitely creeping into this thread. Guys, cut it out, please--

Duck2 said...
Yes, Trump will have a vaccine conveniently announced Nov 1.

The problem I see is companies like J&J who are producing a billion doses of untested vaccine. In capitalist America there will be huge political pressure to approve it if it works or not.

The repercussions of J&J using it, knowing, or even suspecting it doesnt work, would be enormous. Way too much risk, especially for a company that depends on the public trust.

And yea, i find the timing uncanny, as everyone should. I am not sure if i should trust Russia. But i am pretty sure i would trust them before i would trust our own current administration

DjinTonic said...

Buddy Blank said...
Why the Russophobia bro?

Huh? I'm just pointing out there are many difficult steps to having a final vaccine for mass inoculation. Other countries have candidates at the same stage of showing antibodies in healthy subjects. However none of them -- nor we -- have announed a final vaccine as Russia has.

I'm not adverse to taking anyone's vaccine if it proves safe and effective (not only in Phase III trials, but in the general population), but nothing gets approved here on the basis of successful Phase II trials. And the way things are looking here with political pressure on the FDA for early emergengy-use approval, I think the proverb should become Measure Three Times, Cut Once.

Approval of one vaccine that is too early will hamper trials that will show which vaccines are better than others, lasting longer, perhaps not requiring a 2nd booster, etc.

Djin

The issue isnt any kind of phobia of Russia. The issue is that Russia's standards for approval, at least in this case, are not the same as ours. The Lancet (i didnt read the article) is probably right, based on the data submitted by Russia. And the data is probably valid. But there just isnt enough of it.