49 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

Source?

 

I have not seen any public announcement by WHO giving reasons for not (yet) given emergency authorizatioin.  Only the announcement of the approval of Sinopharm.

 

WHO does not generally make public announcements about a vaccine for which they have not issued emergency approval. Rather they will have communicated back to the manufacturer reasons/additional information needed, and the detailed findings will be found in SAGE report.

 

Are you sure you are nto confusing media reports based on the SAGE report with an actual WHO statement?

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/immunization/sage/2021/april/5_sage29apr2021_critical-evidence_sinovac.pdf

 

Page 32 of the SAGE report from Apr 29:

 

14 minutes ago, EricTh said:

immune response of Sinovac is slower

Immune response of AZ is very slow, too

 

15 minutes ago, EricTh said:

Thailand which is of course not as biased

You do realize that China considers all countries in SEA their sphere of influence?

 

16 minutes ago, EricTh said:

I'm not keen on all these untested mRNA vaccines with possible long term side effects. I'm interested only in inactivated virus vaccines but that isn't provided by any western vaccines

Agreed.

Valnevia will come with one. 

Novavax already has one (different technology,  but it's also an old, proven technology)

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

You might want to read this.  I think it would help.

 

https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/mrna-technology-promises-revolutionize-future-vaccines-and-treatments-cancer-infectious-diseases

So what did the article say about the advantages of mRNA technology?

1. "Researchers say mRNA can be used to create a variety of vaccines and treatments in less time and at lower costs than traditional methods."

2. [looks the same as 1. ] “The technology has a lot of advantages over traditional vaccine technologies,” says Florian Krammer, PhD, who runs a research lab at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He cites the relative ease with which information about the genetic sequence of a virus can be inserted into the basic platform.

“It’s very easy to change the vaccine; you just have to change the sequence,” Krammer says.
3. "In addition, although confirmed side effects from the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 have been mild in all but a few cases so far, much remains to be learned."
-------
So the use of mRNA will deliver an immunogen to the patients first and then to the immune system "in less time and at lower costs than traditional methods".

And not a single word was said about the quality of immune response. Obviously because the package being delivered to the immune system remains the same - it is a substance containing peptide fragments from the virus coating. So the quality of the immune response remains the same as one of the traditional vaccines. According to [3] we can expect more side effects.

And what we see next? Looks like we should say "Thank you China for vaccines!" again:
"Chinese scientists laid the foundation for that collaboration by sharing the genomic sequence for the coronavirus in January 2020, soon after they mapped it — “with no strings attached,” notes Barouch at Harvard Medical. “If they hadn’t done that, it would have been a long time before any of us could have started on vaccine development.”

7 minutes ago, friendofthai said:

So what did the article say about the advantages of mRNA technology?

1. "Researchers say mRNA can be used to create a variety of vaccines and treatments in less time and at lower costs than traditional methods."

2. [looks the same as 1. ] “The technology has a lot of advantages over traditional vaccine technologies,” says Florian Krammer, PhD, who runs a research lab at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He cites the relative ease with which information about the genetic sequence of a virus can be inserted into the basic platform.

“It’s very easy to change the vaccine; you just have to change the sequence,” Krammer says.
3. "In addition, although confirmed side effects from the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 have been mild in all but a few cases so far, much remains to be learned."
-------
So the use of mRNA will deliver an immunogen to the patients first and then to the immune system "in less time and at lower costs than traditional methods".

And not a single word was said about the quality of immune response. Obviously because the package being delivered to the immune system remains the same - it is a substance containing peptide fragments from the virus coating. So the quality of the immune response remains the same as one of the traditional vaccines. According to [3] we can expect more side effects.

And what we see next? Looks like we should say "Thank you China for vaccines!" again:
"Chinese scientists laid the foundation for that collaboration by sharing the genomic sequence for the coronavirus in January 2020, soon after they mapped it — “with no strings attached,” notes Barouch at Harvard Medical. “If they hadn’t done that, it would have been a long time before any of us could have started on vaccine development.”

Flying the flag for China again.  You're great at propaganda.  Are you posting from Beijing?

 

Let's not forget this virus originated in China because of their love for eating wild, endangered animals.  Which are kept live in wet markets.  Yeah China!!!????

1 hour ago, Kiujunn said:

Immune response of AZ is very slow, too

 

You do realize that China considers all countries in SEA their sphere of influence?

 

 

Immune response of AZ is not slow, it is quite toxic in the first shot which I am not keen on.  That's why there are adverse blood clots reported in many countries that aren't allied with China.

 

Why must something as simple as a vaccine be made so political? I would rather believe in a neutral Thailand's Chulalongkorn research than those paid by western pharma.

 

The truth is that the western countries don't want to make the traditional type vaccines due to higher cost of production and definitely not because it is 'more effective'. I would still prefer the traditional inactivated virus produced by any country.

 

 

1 hour ago, EricTh said:

 

From the comments that I read, it's just pure propaganda that all products from a certain country are inferior.

 

The immune response of Sinovac is slower because it is less toxic, giving the body more time to build up than Astrazeneca. So I actually prefer a slower buildup but the end result is the same after the second shot.

 

I can't link to Bangkokpost for that article but it was conducted by Chulalongkorn University in Thailand which is of course not as biased as some other countries.

 

 

 

Sinovac is not "less toxic". None of the vaccines are in any way toxic.

 

The vaccines which contain (AZ, J&J) or produce (Moderna, Pfizer) spike proteins yield a faster and stronger immune response than the vaccines that contain inactivated virus. The difference is more pronounced at first dose than at second dose.

 

The Chula study did not examine effectiveness. It was an in vitro study, looking at circulating antibodies in people  vaccinated. Which was already done in the pre-clinical phase of developing these vaccines and makes zero sense to redo at this stage when the same vaccine has already completed Phase I, II and III clinical trials. It contains absolutely no new information and it is unclear why it was done. Apparently someone felt there was a need to repeat old research just to have something that was done in Thailand by a Thai researcher.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kiujunn said:

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/immunization/sage/2021/april/5_sage29apr2021_critical-evidence_sinovac.pdf

 

Page 32 of the SAGE report from Apr 29:

 

I am thoroughly familiar with this report. What I have never seen, and doubt there was, is a public announcement by WHO  stating they are withholding  emergency authorization.

 

The report findings are such that they cannot give authorization for all age groups. They could give it for under 60's, or they could wait for more data.

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

 

The Chula study did not examine effectiveness. It was an in vitro study, looking at circulating antibodies in people  vaccinated. 

 

 

 

Let me quote what they are saying to refute what you are stating.

 

As for the Sinovac vaccine's efficacy, he said, the study found 99.49% of the recipients had developed antibody responses four weeks after their second injection even though only 65.9% had developed immune responses three weeks after the first shot.

 

 

Thailand is fully aware that the western media can be quite biased so they decided to run their own clinical trials so I don't see anything wrong with 'doing it again'.

 

Efficacy of a vaccine is measured by the antibody production so this is all about efficacy. It's the antibodies produced that will protect us against future infection.

 

The strength of a vaccine lies on its ability to produce antibody response without severe reaction like blood clots ,deaths & DNA changes.

 

Temporary numbness and tiredness are considered mild reaction in every vaccine.

2 hours ago, EricTh said:

The truth is that the western countries don't want to make the traditional type vaccines due to higher cost of productio

Agreed.

But its not the higher cost of production of this particular vaccine.  mRNA technology makes vaccine production for many different vaccines easier and thus cheaper. 

 

I still would never trust China. 

Vaccines like the ones from Novavax or Valnevia would be nice. But late.

 

BTW as Sheryl said, none of the vaccines are "toxic". The word has a more narrow sense in medicine, it doesn't include any unwanted effects. 

Same for "efficacy", it's not defined by antibodies, even if your quoted passage sounds like it.

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

doubt there was, is a public announcement by WHO  stating they are withholding  emergency authorization

Ok, no statement that they withhold it.

They just withhold it.

It was expected last week - and didn't come. 

3 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Are you posting from Beijing?

What makes you think these posts are all written in one location?

1 hour ago, EricTh said:

 

 

Let me quote what they are saying to refute what you are stating.

 

As for the Sinovac vaccine's efficacy, he said, the study found 99.49% of the recipients had developed antibody responses four weeks after their second injection even though only 65.9% had developed immune responses three weeks after the first shot.

 

 

Thailand is fully aware that the western media can be quite biased so they decided to run their own clinical trials so I don't see anything wrong with 'doing it again'.

 

Efficacy of a vaccine is measured by the antibody production so this is all about efficacy. It's the antibodies produced that will protect us against future infection.

 

The strength of a vaccine lies on its ability to produce antibody response without severe reaction like blood clots ,deaths & DNA changes.

 

Temporary numbness and tiredness are considered mild reaction in every vaccine.

 

The news article -- which is not from a scientific journal but rather mnass media --  may have used the word efficacy but it is not a  correct usage. 

 

Efficacy of a vaccine is not measured by antibody production. It is measured by a demonstrated reduced incidence of disease in vaccinated populations compared to unvaccinated ones.

 

This was not a clinical trial.  Maybe they plan some, who knows, but what is reported on is not a clinical trial. Measuring in vitro antibody response is something done in pre-clinical vaccine research.

 

"Temporary numbness" is not  a usual vaccine side effect. It would also require immediate investigation. The few cases where people reported this in Thailand after Sinovac seem pretty conclusively to have been a hysterical reaction.

12 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

have been a hysterical reaction.

And that's exactly why few people trust Sinovac.

Defining patient reactions as hysterical is the last thing the patient wants to hear,  even if it may be true.

It destroys the last remnants of trust.

 

I trust AZ, they were very open.  Their honesty caused a big mess, but I prefer this to Sinovac which afaik has never admitted to any side effects whatever. 

With AZ i know my risks (it is minuscule, negligible).

With Sinovac, it's a black box. And the recent history of Sinovac and Chinese vaccines is full of scandals. 

Just now, Kiujunn said:

And that's exactly why few people trust Sinovac.

Defining patient reactions as hysterical is the last thing the patient wants to hear,  even if it may be true.

It destroys the last remnants of trust.

 

I trust AZ, they were very open.  Their honesty caused a big mess, but I prefer this to Sinovac which afaik has never admitted to any side effects whatever. 

With AZ i know my risks (it is minuscule, negligible).

With Sinovac, it's a black box. And the recent history of Sinovac and Chinese vaccines is full of scandals. 

It is not Sinovac who said this. It is the outcome of detailed investigations by the Thai MoPH. Nothing to do with Sinovac company.

 

And they did not use the word "hysterical".  Rather something like "stress" or "anxiety".

 

What would you have had them say when absolutely no physical cause for subjective symptoms can be found and said symptoms -- experienced only in a small cluster if people who know each other, despite same vaccine being given to over 1 million in Thailand alone -- spontaneously subsided?

 

I have not seen manufacturer data sheet from Sinovac Biotech for CoronaVac but would be surprised if it did not list the adverse reactions documented in the clinical trails. They do so with their other vaccine currently in use in Thailand (Healive).