AstraZeneca and Oxford's Stories Clash on COVID-19 Vaccine (reuters.com) 56
AstraZeneca and Oxford University have given conflicting accounts of how they came upon the most effective dosing pattern for their COVID-19 vaccine, a rare instance of public dissension between major institutions collaborating on a pivotal project. From a report: The discrepancy, reported for the first time by Reuters, centres on the regimen administered to a smaller group of volunteers in the late-stage trials, of half a dose followed by a full dose. This diverged from the original plan of two full doses, given to the majority of participants. The half-dose pattern was found to be 90% effective, versus the 62% success rate of the two-full-dose main study, based on interim data. AstraZeneca's research chief told Reuters 10 days ago, when interim trial data was released, the half-dose was given inadvertently as a first shot to some trial participants, and emerged as a stroke of fortune -- "serendipity" -- that scientists expertly harnessed.
This narrative was refuted by a leading Oxford University scientist, however, who told Reuters on Monday that the half-dose shot was given deliberately after thorough consultations. Uncertainty over how the dosing regimen came about raises questions about the robustness of the data, according to some experts who said it risked slowing down the process of gaining regulatory approval for the shot and denting public confidence. "These differing accounts are worrying," Eleanor Riley, a professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh, told Reuters. "Trust is at a premium when it comes to vaccines and we must not do anything that might in any way undermine it."
This narrative was refuted by a leading Oxford University scientist, however, who told Reuters on Monday that the half-dose shot was given deliberately after thorough consultations. Uncertainty over how the dosing regimen came about raises questions about the robustness of the data, according to some experts who said it risked slowing down the process of gaining regulatory approval for the shot and denting public confidence. "These differing accounts are worrying," Eleanor Riley, a professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh, told Reuters. "Trust is at a premium when it comes to vaccines and we must not do anything that might in any way undermine it."
Mr Toad says... (Score:5, Insightful)
"we must not do anything that might in any way undermine trust" said Mr Toad, as he made public statements intended to undermine trust...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I still have to think that this article would still be taken down by Facebook (see earlier /. story) and likely flagged by Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In this case, the also changed the age of the test subjects. It is mostly more effective when given to younger people, nothing to do with full or half doses, just younger people. The vaccine is the the most dangerous, for those most at risk from the infection and provides the least protection for them. That is what the study really did prove but hey, billions in profit.
Further reasons not to trust the Oxford vaccine (Score:1, Insightful)
First they refused to be transparent about exactly what went wrong when they stopped the trial. The most we got was that someone's Lupus was discovered using the vaccine. Then something similar happened, and they released almost no information.
Not trustworthy then, not trustworthy now.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Personally I'm going with magic crystals and essential oils for good measure. Might top it off with a few drops of mercury if the mood hits me.
Re:Further reasons not to trust the Oxford vaccine (Score:5, Insightful)
Jumping to the conclusion that they are not trustworthy because of that is weird. Don't you know how much external auditing gets done on medical studies?
Re: (Score:2)
What they did was to release incomplete press releases to pump their stock price.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:3, Insightful)
AstraZeneca and Oxford University have given conflicting accounts of how they came upon the most effective dosing pattern for their COVID-19 vaccine, a rare instance of public dissension between major institutions collaborating on a pivotal project.
Easy solution: what does Facebook say about the situation?
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like AstraZeneca and Oxford University don't have anything documented.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Late emerging complications of vaccination are a legitimate scientific concern with these COVID-19 trials, but by the time you or I get access to a vaccine this the question will probably be as settled as it is with any new vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then wait before you get the vaccine. I think it's pertinent to point out that the first recipients of the vaccine are those in the most at-risk groups, and the high death rate amongst these groups arguably presents a higher risk than the possible dangers presented by a vaccine that has already passed stringent phase 3 trials. And I put far more trust in a vaccine developed by Pfizer/Astra/Oxford than one that could have suffered political pressures from authoritarian regimes.
The (officially reported)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is your response to suggest I wait when I have indicated that my concerns could be addressed by providing the information I seek, information that exists.
Here is the information you asked for in your OP:
What I would like to know, is how often in the history of vaccine development have things that looked promising after 6-12 months of trials showed issues later on. Cause right now my only notable concerns about getting vaccinated are unanticipated long term negative consequences.
It is not the responsibility of AstraZeneca/Oxford to spoon feed information on vaccine history to some rando on the internet. They have better things to do. What the hell is stopping you from using a search engine?
And getting exposed by a sick person on the way to getting vaccinated (I leave the house about once a month right now, so getting vaccinated could present a notable risk).
SMH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing I'm not asking them then!
Then who the hell *are* you asking to provide you with the virus history information you seek? Slashdot readers? It isn't their job to spoon feed you easily obtained information either.
Yes, like clear up the confusion mentioned in the summary.
The Aztra/Oxford people have much, much better things to do than clear up an insignificant conflict between something said by one guy on one team and one guy on another. These project teams are very large, and anyone who expects a given team member to have perfect knowledge of the statements/activities of each and every ot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is so readily accessible, and I claim it is not, you could have proved your point with less effort than you committed to writing this reply, the fact that you haven't is telling.
LOL! Let me spell this out for you then. Take your mouse and highlight the words "getting vaccinated are unanticipated long term negative consequences" in your post above. Right click to bring up the context menu and choose "Search".
If you are capable of performing that simple action, you will find results for papers like ones at the NIH titled "Adverse events of vaccines and the consequences of non-vaccination: a critical review" and "Vaccination and its adverse effects: real or perceived" at the top o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good job, you found results that don't even come close to providing the information I asked for.
You said "my only notable concerns about getting vaccinated are unanticipated long term negative consequences." If think a paper whose title begins "Adverse events of vaccines..." won't provide you with at least some of what you're looking for, or point you in a direction to get what you want, you're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for. What a fucking joke.
It is nobody's job to teach you how to compose/refine search terms to get what you're after. You've got plenty of time hiding out in your basem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also said:
> What I would like to know, is how often in the history of vaccine development have things that looked promising after 6-12 months of trials showed issues later on.
Put on your listening ears this time. Ready? Take your mouse, highlight your words, right-click, choose "Search".
I'm not here to do your research for you. Nobody is. That you expect someone else to do your own damn homework is just further proof of your obstinate childishness. If you stop acting like a cunt for long enough, you might just learn how to use a search engine. Smart money is betting against that ever happening though.
Where did I say I was fearful? I am slightly concerned
Yes, so slightly concerned you think you need to board a bus and stand sh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"help "is synonymous with "dealing with" got it.
Damn, dude. You really are too stupid to read. Here, try again:
Now go find your grade school English teacher and punch them in the face. (after the pandemic's over, of course)
So, is this your last little whimper of a post, or a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For someone who claims to be trying to counter fud you're doing a pretty shit job.
I've got more bad news for you, bud. You haven't posted ANY more FUD since I first replied to your sorry ass. I'd call that a job well done.
If I was a troll I'd be getting exactly what I want right now, a reaction. The most success I've had and seen others have when addressing bullshit fud is to patiently and politely provide well reasoned responses with evidence and citations.
Yeah, calling someone's' comment "pseudo academic language that is sufficiently difficult to decipher", telling someone to "grow up" and they're "talking out of their ass" isn't acting like a troll at all. Very patient and polite. Your mother would be very proud. [rolls eyes]
You otoh are just pitching a fit. Are you enjoying yourself, cause that's the only good that can come from the kind of comments you're posting, entertainment.
You're damn right it's entertaining. Why else would I bother with a worthless piece of shi
Re:"Trust is at a premium" (Score:5, Informative)
There was the Rotavirus Vaccine in 1998. It made it all the way through approval and was released but then soon thereafter pulled from the market voluntarily because it caused bowel obstructions in babies.
There was also the MMR vaccine in 2005 but it doesn't sound like the side effects were life threatening, just worse than the alternative MMR vaccines so there was no reason to use an inferior product when safer alternatives exist.
Everything is always a cost/benefit weight in life. I suspect considering the absolutely astronomical cost in lives, health and cash of covid19, the price regulators are willing to pay is high as well relative to new flavor of MMR.
Re: (Score:3)
What I would like to know, is how often in the history of vaccine development have things that looked promising after 6-12 months of trials showed issues later on.
When considering just how many vaccines there are, and how many people are vaccinated, the short answer to that is "rarely". For a more numerical, though still by no means full, answer you might like to have a quick read of this page [historyofvaccines.org] which gives specific 'probabilities' of the various side effects for one specific and widely used vaccine, as well as some context on the relative risks, and links to other resources.
Cause right now my only notable concerns about getting vaccinated are unanticipated long term negative consequences.
Personally I'm no more concerned about that for this vaccine than I was about any of the many m
Re: (Score:2)
Which account is true? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Oxford University account sounds more plausible.
Whereas the AstraZeneca account sounds like something some mid-manager or marketing person would say.
Re: (Score:1)
If Oxford is telling the truth that the dosing change came after thorough consultation, tell us where and when, and with whom this consultation took place. Otherwise it sounds like a politician saying that many folks told him something, and therefore it's true.
Seriously Oxford, be open and honest and we'll probably believe you. If not, I'll just have to take your word for it regarding the extremely fine nature of the emperor's new clothes.
Re: (Score:2)
The Oxford University account sounds more plausible. Whereas the AstraZeneca account sounds like something some mid-manager or marketing person would say.
Yeah, and you can imagine the immense pressure they were under to spin the news, given how crappy their vaccine is compared to the mRNA ones. The mRNA vaccines are nothing short of incredible, but it's pretty clear from the pre-orders that there was a lot more scepticism about them working compared to the other approaches.
I wonder at this point whether they will bother even using the Oxford vaccine. If they wish to avoid the mandatory vaccination question, then you have to give a whole lot less volunteers a
most vaccines aren't terribly effective (Score:1)
Re:Which account is true? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and you can imagine the immense pressure they were under to spin the news, given how crappy their vaccine is compared to the mRNA ones. The mRNA vaccines are nothing short of incredible,
If you lived in the developing world, which doesn't have the cold storage facilities you need to transport and store mRNA based vaccines, you might think the Astra vaccine at 62% effective is pretty incredible.
Re:Which account is true? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't both of them be true?
The actual quote from the earlier Reuters article [reuters.com] is "The reason we had the half-dose is serendipity." If they expected a full dose for both shots, but got a half dose from a new manufacturer, and yet the half-dose turned out to work better, that would be serendipity.
Now Oxford University is stressing that they noticed the difference first and went through channels before actually administering the half-dose portions. Yeah, I hope they did that -- otherwise they should be told to clean their desks, and when they're done, the nice chaps outside with handcuffs would like a word. But that does not address why they had half the dose in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think it is a huge problem and much more disturbing if the half-dose was accidental.
When you are doing an experiment, especially on health, if you don't know exactly what or how much is going to be given BEFORE it is done, then your company should never be in that business.
Can you imagine a hospital contacting you and say "Oh we only gave you half the cancer treatment you were supposed to get"
That anybody at AstraZeneca said this makes me wonder about their approval process for anything, including a press
Re: (Score:3)
When we hear the term "conflicting accounts" we automatically think someone must be lying, but it can also be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing or why.
If, as the Oxford group says, they made a deliberate decision to try the half dose protocol after consultations, I'd tend to believe them, since the existence of those consultations should leave some kind of record keeping trail.
The number of subjects on the half dose regimen was relatively small (2700 out of 41,000), so it may not h
Re: (Score:2)
Why argue, just release the paperwork (Score:3)
If there is no paperwork,
Re:Why argue, just release the paperwork (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup,
Put up or shut up. Ball's in your court Oxford. Don't drop it.
Also, the 90% thing is misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The half-dose pattern was found to be 90% effective, versus the 62% success rate of the two-full-dose main study
The half-dose was given to the younger people, the full dose to the older [bloomberg.com]. So we don't know if the effectiveness discrepancy is because of the age of the recipients, or that that giving a lower dose is somehow better.
...told Reuters on Monday that the half-dose shot was given deliberately after thorough consultations
That doesn't sound right. Why would you give group A one dosage and group B another dosage, when group A and B are different age groups? You now have no control with which to determine the rather significant difference found in the effectiveness. That article I just linked to implies there is some age overlap though, so maybe they can split the data out for the overlapping age range and determine if it was the dosage or the age. But it sure does seem odd that a lower dose would be more effective, buuut maybe that's valid...? Either way, this doesn't sound like something you would do on purpose. Hopefully all will be revealed in time.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only speak from what I know (mathematics) but I once had a professor who particularly specialised in organising scientific (specifically agricultural) trials. They were paid LOTS of money to help optimise the trial process of, say, five different pesticides on three different crops on 20 different farms locations (i.e. local climates).
Mathematically, the easiest way is to try all the combinations - that would be 5 x 3 x 20 trials, each a year long, which is an incredible amount of money, or an incred
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a medical manufacturer, and we do this to find optimal manufacturing parameters from existing data sets and a small number of experiments. What you are describing was covered part of Six Sigma Multivariate Design of Experiment. I don't personally use it as a software engineer though. What seems fishy here is the conflicting claims, and also that if they had this planned from the beginning then we would have answers to the questions people are asking about why they had 2 separate groups and wha
half-dosing to extend it (Score:2)