Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine not yet approved in Thailand due to lack of data

[Nojohndoe]

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

But if that lead preserver turns out to made of lead and drags them down. Most of those people floating around in that water weren't going to drown, were they?

Your response immediately assumes a premeditated motivation of deliberate harm disguised as assistance  ! In fact you suggest such twice in one sort sentence your distortion of the provided analogy . Very strange.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Nojohndoe said:

Your response immediately assumes a premeditated motivation of deliberate harm disguised as assistance  ! In fact you suggest such twice in one sort sentence your distortion of the provided analogy . Very strange.

Nonsense.

Your analogy assumed those people were all in mortal danger so nothing would be lost by trying. But what about if they weren't mostly in mortal danger? What about if the rescue device which was being tried for the first time was more dangerous than the threat they were facing? Not a matter of premeditation. Just a lack of knowledge among its creator. A lack that only testing should be used to remedy.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, boogiewoogie said:

 

Thalidomide. 

 

Phizer is experimental jab. 

 

Sputnik is a vector oldfart jab.

 

Also critisizing sputnik and stay quiet about other vaccines in case of Speeding up a process is a hypocrisy.

The difference is these vaccines went through phase 3 trials before being distributed to the general public.. Sputnik didn't. And the nonsense about it being an old technology utterly ignores the fact that what it was delivering was novel.

Edited June 19, 2021 by placeholder

[Nojohndoe]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense.

Your analogy assumed those people were all in mortal danger so nothing would be lost by trying. But what about if they weren't mostly in mortal danger? What about if the rescue device which was being tried for the first time was more dangerous than the threat they were facing? Not a matter of premeditation. Just a lack of knowledge among its creator. A lack that only testing should be used to remedy.

Again a distortion. I suggested "severe risk" . That and the offer of assistance by way of an effective flotation aid albeit that aid known at the time to come with a nuisance factor (wet paint).

Those in the water have their own choice as to utilize the flotation device or not.

Rather different to suggesting  tossing them a lead balloon IMO.

The current offerings of vaccine from all sources are subject to EUO criteria which in essence deems their use a continuing global "trial".

Especially so for the mRNA vaccines which as you have said are extraordinarily "new".

Their immediately demonstrable efficacy as intended is obvious and remarkable.

Unfortunately even people who developed this technology are expressing concerns about some unknowns and knowns that have thus far been mostly ignored in favour of apparent commercial advantage.

The more conventional Sputnik V and others have demonstrated efficacy at levels that also impressive but issues known or even suspected have been disproportionately become the subject of massive negativity despite the fact that most of those issues are common to all vaccines often due to delivery mediums.

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, Nojohndoe said:

Unfortunately even people who developed this technology are expressing concerns about some unknowns and knowns that have thus far been mostly ignored in favour of apparent commercial advantage.

 

The more conventional Sputnik V and others have demonstrated efficacy at levels that also impressive but issues known or even suspected have been disproportionately become the subject of massive negativity despite the fact that most of those issues are common to all vaccines often due to delivery mediums.

Which people who developed this technology are expressing misgiving? How many?

 

The trouble is Sputnik is still concealing data.

Data discrepancies and substandard reporting of interim data of Sputnik V phase 3 trial

"Restricted access to data hampers trust in research. Access to data underpinning study findings is imperative to check and confirm the findings claimed. It is even more serious if there are apparent errors and numerical inconsistencies in the statistics and results presented. Regrettably, this seems to be what is happening in the case of the Sputnik V phase 3 trial."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext

 

As for efficacy and effectiveness. Define "impressive" in percentage terms. It seems that all the vaccines do provide good protection against hospitalization and death (although there is some concern now about Sinovac in face of the Delta variant), but there are big differences in how well they prevent infection and transmission.

 

 

[Namtak]

On 6/17/2021 at 8:06 AM, Moo 2 said:

Russia Sputnik v is not accepted in the EU neither. 

It should be. No reason for not being able use it. 

[Nojohndoe]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Which people who developed this technology are expressing misgiving? How many?

 

The trouble is Sputnik is still concealing data.

Data discrepancies and substandard reporting of interim data of Sputnik V phase 3 trial

"Restricted access to data hampers trust in research. Access to data underpinning study findings is imperative to check and confirm the findings claimed. It is even more serious if there are apparent errors and numerical inconsistencies in the statistics and results presented. Regrettably, this seems to be what is happening in the case of the Sputnik V phase 3 trial."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext

 

As for efficacy and effectiveness. Define "impressive" in percentage terms. It seems that all the vaccines do provide good protection against hospitalization and death (although there is some concern now about Sinovac in face of the Delta variant), but there are big differences in how well they prevent infection and transmission.

 

 

All of the  questions  you have raised in this response have answers easily available via internet or are seemingly obvious knowledge you already have derived.

I am not presenting with any specific bias at all with reference to any specific vaccine in terms of efficacy or effectiveness as of the moment and the implied  urgency. I am simply suspicious of propagandist claims with commercial emphasis on any vaccine that incorporates unknown long term factors versus the conventional with known expectations of adverse events .

Which could be considered worst? A product deemed deficient in provision of data? Or a product presented with selective data benificent to acceptance?

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, Nojohndoe said:

All of the  questions  you have raised in this response have answers easily available via internet or are seemingly obvious knowledge you already have derived.

I am not presenting with any specific bias at all with reference to any specific vaccine in terms of efficacy or effectiveness as of the moment and the implied  urgency. I am simply suspicious of propagandist claims with commercial emphasis on any vaccine that incorporates unknown long term factors versus the conventional with known expectations of adverse events .

Which could be considered worst? A product deemed deficient in provision of data? Or a product presented with selective data benificent to acceptance?

Whichever product was not rigorously tested via Phase 3 trials should be assumed to be worse. That's obvious.

God knows how you came up with "a product presented with selective data beneficent to acceptance?" Ya got any evidence for that?

[rott]

20 hours ago, Namtak said:

It should be. No reason for not being able use it. 

Thailand says there is a lack of data. 

Is it true that people in Russia do not trust Sputnik.?

[Nojohndoe]

17 hours ago, placeholder said:

Whichever product was not rigorously tested via Phase 3 trials should be assumed to be worse. That's obvious.

God knows how you came up with "a product presented with selective data beneficent to acceptance?" Ya got any evidence for that?

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n627

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Nojohndoe said:

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n627

I read the article. The vaccine batches were tested and approved by the Paul Ehrlich Institute. 

The Paul Ehrlich Institute (German: Paul-Ehrlich-Institut – Bundesinstitut für Impfstoffe und biomedizinische Arzneimittel, PEI) is a German federal agency, medical regulatory body and research institution for vaccines and biomedicines. It was founded in 1896 and is subordinate to the Federal Ministry of Health. The institute is a WHO Collaborating Centre for quality assurance of blood products and in vitro diagnostic devices.^[1] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ehrlich_Institute

Ultimately they were accepted the European Medicines Agency.

 

What independent agency tested the Russian vaccine?

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

western govt approval or forget it ........

[Nojohndoe]

47 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I read the article. The vaccine batches were tested and approved by the Paul Ehrlich Institute. 

The Paul Ehrlich Institute (German: Paul-Ehrlich-Institut – Bundesinstitut für Impfstoffe und biomedizinische Arzneimittel, PEI) is a German federal agency, medical regulatory body and research institution for vaccines and biomedicines. It was founded in 1896 and is subordinate to the Federal Ministry of Health. The institute is a WHO Collaborating Centre for quality assurance of blood products and in vitro diagnostic devices.^[1] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ehrlich_Institute

Ultimately they were accepted the European Medicines Agency.

 

What independent agency tested the Russian vaccine?

If you can or can be bothered access the advisory information from Dr R Malone re' known issues of  detached spike protein cleaved of cells artificially via mRNA induced to produce them and the omission of data suspected to be causative of adverse events so removed from those accepted as a normal statistics deliberately ignored.

Interestingly Moderna  was provided approx $140 million startup financing by none other than AstraZenica in 2016. In March 2021 AstraZenica sold its 9% share  for  $1 Billion.

Why interesting? If AstraZenica is pursuing a more conventional vaccine production process despite it being a more tedious one and in spite of a lesser efficacy rating than the Holy Grail of vaccines mRNA is  being touted to be why bail out of such an apparently lucrative investment at a such a relatively early stage ?

As the question/s surrounding the release and usage of the Sputnik V vaccine the controversy sees to be directed at failure to adhere to conventions rather than outcome of demonstrated efficacy and lack of any significant adverse outcomes by comparison to any other.

There appears to be no International Law that dictates specific criteria in terms of scale for "trials".

There is however International Law that prescribes culpability for bad outcomes regardless of adherence to conventions or not.

It is  being suggested that Sputnik V is expected to be approved  by more than one "authority" within the next 2 months with EUA rating. That would presume legitimate assessed data is being presented for such. Source? The many  countries that have welcomed provision generally denied from elsewhere?

It is the EUA classification that defies genuine liability while permitting maximized profitability where connived.

It would be sad if such profitability was to become subject to compensation at the conclusion of Stage 4  of trial conventions.

Or will the world be subjected to EUA  classification  and avoidance of culpability prolonged to the criteria of other declarations that new medications must be subjected to many years of testing before being unleashed on the public ?

IMO the ongoing events involved in almost  every aspect of this pandemic has revealed that the greater disease is the inherent failure of humanity to advance itself in any meaningful intellectual demonstration because technology is just a new version of a club for dominance .

 

 

 

[shdmn]

From what I have read, the Sputnik data appears fake.  Apparently it looks like they cut/paste the same data over and over and did other things.  I think this "lack of data" I am reading about is the politically correct generic way a lot of countries are saying it in addition to an actual lack of data too.

Edited June 21, 2021 by shdmn

[mistral53]

On 6/21/2021 at 10:37 PM, shdmn said:

From what I have read, the Sputnik data appears fake.  Apparently it looks like they cut/paste the same data over and over and did other things.  I think this "lack of data" I am reading about is the politically correct generic way a lot of countries are saying it in addition to an actual lack of data too.

From what I have read, the real reason Sputnik V approval is delayed is for economical benefits of western developed and produced vaccines - cant have competition from the pesky Russkies, they cut into profits and bonuses. Besides, imagine the horror that Russia and China could develop a vaccine! Completely counters the well rehearsed narrative the western powers live on.........for now.

[shdmn]

1 hour ago, mistral53 said:

From what I have read, the real reason Sputnik V approval is delayed is for economical benefits of western developed and produced vaccines - cant have competition from the pesky Russkies, they cut into profits and bonuses. Besides, imagine the horror that Russia and China could develop a vaccine! Completely counters the well rehearsed narrative the western powers live on.........for now.

Please explain how all these independent science driven organizations in all these different countries all came to the same conclusion?  Not all western countries either.

Edited June 22, 2021 by shdmn

[mistral53]

21 hours ago, shdmn said:

Please explain how all these independent science driven organizations in all these different countries all came to the same conclusion?  Not all western countries either.

 

Sputnik V was authorized in over 60 countries worldwide as of May 2021.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123927/sputnik-v-exports-from-russia-by-country/

 

Don't insinuate, provide links to support your argument or you are just fake news - links like this one:

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00191-4/fulltext

 

 

[placeholder]

On 6/21/2021 at 10:31 PM, Nojohndoe said:

If you can or can be bothered access the advisory information from Dr R Malone re' known issues of  detached spike protein cleaved of cells artificially via mRNA induced to produce them and the omission of data suspected to be causative of adverse events so removed from those accepted as a normal statistics deliberately ignored.

Interestingly Moderna  was provided approx $140 million startup financing by none other than AstraZenica in 2016. In March 2021 AstraZenica sold its 9% share  for  $1 Billion.

Why interesting? If AstraZenica is pursuing a more conventional vaccine production process despite it being a more tedious one and in spite of a lesser efficacy rating than the Holy Grail of vaccines mRNA is  being touted to be why bail out of such an apparently lucrative investment at a such a relatively early stage ?

As the question/s surrounding the release and usage of the Sputnik V vaccine the controversy sees to be directed at failure to adhere to conventions rather than outcome of demonstrated efficacy and lack of any significant adverse outcomes by comparison to any other.

There appears to be no International Law that dictates specific criteria in terms of scale for "trials".

There is however International Law that prescribes culpability for bad outcomes regardless of adherence to conventions or not.

It is  being suggested that Sputnik V is expected to be approved  by more than one "authority" within the next 2 months with EUA rating. That would presume legitimate assessed data is being presented for such. Source? The many  countries that have welcomed provision generally denied from elsewhere?

It is the EUA classification that defies genuine liability while permitting maximized profitability where connived.

It would be sad if such profitability was to become subject to compensation at the conclusion of Stage 4  of trial conventions.

Or will the world be subjected to EUA  classification  and avoidance of culpability prolonged to the criteria of other declarations that new medications must be subjected to many years of testing before being unleashed on the public ?

IMO the ongoing events involved in almost  every aspect of this pandemic has revealed that the greater disease is the inherent failure of humanity to advance itself in any meaningful intellectual demonstration because technology is just a new version of a club for dominance .

 

 

 

Can't bother with all the issus you raised. but as regards your Astra Zeneca assertion. It actually sold it's shares during 2020 and septupled its investment. Pretty sweet profit, huh?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-moderna-stake-idUSKCN2AS0RO

Back then it wasn't regarded at all as a sure thing that Moderna would succeed. In fact, Curevac, a highly regarded company, just released the results on its mRNA phase 3 trial which showed efficacy below 50%,

 

[Namtak]

On 6/21/2021 at 1:15 PM, rott said:

Thailand says there is a lack of data. 

Is it true that people in Russia do not trust Sputnik.?

No. 

[placeholder]

21 hours ago, mistral53 said:

 

Sputnik V was authorized in over 60 countries worldwide as of May 2021.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123927/sputnik-v-exports-from-russia-by-country/

 

Don't insinuate, provide links to support your argument or you are just fake news - links like this one:

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00191-4/fulltext

 

 

You mean links that lead to articles like this?

Data discrepancies and substandard reporting of interim data of Sputnik V phase 3 trial

Restricted access to data hampers trust in research. Access to data underpinning study findings is imperative to check and confirm the findings claimed. It is even more serious if there are apparent errors and numerical inconsistencies in the statistics and results presented. Regrettably, this seems to be what is happening in the case of the Sputnik V phase 3 trial.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext

¹

[jacko45k]

On 6/23/2021 at 12:02 AM, mistral53 said:

From what I have read,

Pravda?

[cdnvic]

Removed a meme containing misleading and out of context information. When making medical claims post citations from authorative sources, not random pictures that agree with your preferred narrative. We aren't about to have Thaivisa become a haven for medical misinformation.

[placeholder]

On 6/21/2021 at 3:15 PM, rott said:

Thailand says there is a lack of data. 

Is it true that people in Russia do not trust Sputnik.?

On 6/24/2021 at 9:03 PM, Namtak said:

No. 

rt.com disagrees with you:

Despite roll-out, Russians ‘in no hurry’ to receive Covid-19 vaccines as suspicion is a ‘national characteristic,’ Kremlin claims

As countries across the world sign deals to import or manufacture Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccines, many back home in Russia are still skeptical of receiving any form of jab. That, the Kremlin says, is just part of the culture.
Speaking to Moscow-based newspaper Argumenty i Fakty, President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, admitted that distrust in domestically-produced vaccines is still hampering immunization efforts.

https://www.rt.com/russia/519576-vaccine-rollout-russians-skeptical-attitude/

 

For those who may not know what rt.com is:

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled^[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.^[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

[Namtak]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

rt.com disagrees with you:

Despite roll-out, Russians ‘in no hurry’ to receive Covid-19 vaccines as suspicion is a ‘national characteristic,’ Kremlin claims

As countries across the world sign deals to import or manufacture Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccines, many back home in Russia are still skeptical of receiving any form of jab. That, the Kremlin says, is just part of the culture.
Speaking to Moscow-based newspaper Argumenty i Fakty, President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, admitted that distrust in domestically-produced vaccines is still hampering immunization efforts.

https://www.rt.com/russia/519576-vaccine-rollout-russians-skeptical-attitude/

 

For those who may not know what rt.com is:

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled^[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.^[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

I work with several dozen Russian engineers. All of them have gladly been vaccinated. I'll trust reality over a linked rt opinion piece any day. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Namtak said:

I work with several dozen Russian engineers. All of them have gladly been vaccinated. I'll trust reality over a linked rt opinion piece any day. 

The issue isn't whether or not the vaccine is effective. If I were Russian, I'd take it. And I imagine those engineers are most likely able to judge the issue dispassionately. But you claimed that there isn't widespread aversion among Russians to taking it. And that assertion is obviously false. 

[Namtak]

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

The issue isn't whether or not the vaccine is effective. If I were Russian, I'd take it. And I imagine those engineers are most likely able to judge the issue dispassionately. But you claimed that there isn't widespread aversion among Russians to taking it. And that assertion is obviously false. 

Currently 22% of the population has been vaccinated. The remote regions are the most difficult to distribute to, and there are many of them. 

 

Urban areas are doing much better, as you would expect, due to the logistics 

[Zikomat]

20 minutes ago, Namtak said:

Currently 22% of the population has been vaccinated. The remote regions are the most difficult to distribute to, and there are many of them. 

 

Urban areas are doing much better, as you would expect, due to the logistics 

15% the most. And they started their vaccination process the same time UK and US did. Now compare the numbers.
At least 50% of the Russian people don’t have any intention to be vaccinated as shown by the numerous recent polls.
 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Zikomat

[placeholder]

56 minutes ago, Namtak said:

Currently 22% of the population has been vaccinated. The remote regions are the most difficult to distribute to, and there are many of them. 

 

Urban areas are doing much better, as you would expect, due to the logistics 

According to Our World in Data, about 14% have been vaccinated at least once:

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-covid-vaccinations?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..latest&region=World&country=~RUS

 

And 75% of Russia's people live in urban areas.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271343/urbanization-in-russia/#:~:text=Urbanization in Russia 2019&text=This statistic shows the degree,population lived in Russian cities.

 

And finally, as noted before, RT disagrees with you. It's funded entirely by the Russian government and not noted for its editorial independence. If it says Russians are mostly reluctant to get vaccinated, you can bank on it.

[Namtak]

On 6/27/2021 at 7:33 PM, placeholder said:

According to Our World in Data, about 14% have been vaccinated at least once:

 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-covid-vaccinations?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..latest&region=World&country=~RUS

 

And 75% of Russia's people live in urban areas.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271343/urbanization-in-russia/#:~:text=Urbanization in Russia 2019&text=This statistic shows the degree,population lived in Russian cities.

 

And finally, as noted before, RT disagrees with you. It's funded entirely by the Russian government and not noted for its editorial independence. If it says Russians are mostly reluctant to get vaccinated, you can bank on it.

Actually it is twenty percent. Our world in data is a better reference. 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

 

Again, I work directly with many Russian people and none of them are hesitant to get the jab. Neither are there families. 

 

Cities and urban areas do not mean that they are not remotely located or lacking in the required infrastructure to administer the vaccines. 

 

You can believe what you like. 

[Surelynot]

Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine not yet approved in Thailand due to the fact CP do not own 15% of the company.