AstraZeneca Tries Combining Its Covid-19 Vaccine With Russia's 'Sputnik V' Vaccine (reuters.com) 80
Slashdot reader Hmmmmmm shared this report from Reuters:
AstraZeneca is to start clinical trials to test a combination of its experimental COVID-19 vaccine with Russia's Sputnik V shot to see if this can boost the efficacy of the British drugmaker's vaccine, Russia's sovereign wealth fund said on Friday. Trials will start by the end of the year and Russia wants to produce the new vaccine jointly if it is proven to be effective, said the RDIF wealth fund, which has funded Sputnik V.
AstraZeneca said it was considering how it could assess combinations of different vaccines, and would soon begin exploring with Russia's Gamaleya Institute, which developed Sputnik V, whether two vaccines based on a common-cold virus could be successfully combined... Sputnik's Russian developers say clinical trials, still under way, have shown it has an efficacy rate of over 90%, higher than that of AstraZeneca's own vaccine and similar to those of U.S. rivals Pfizer and Moderna.
Some Western scientists have raised concerns about the speed at which Russia has worked, giving the regulatory go-ahead for its vaccines and launching large-scale vaccinations before full trials to test Sputnik V's safety and efficacy have been completed. Russia says the criticism is unfounded.
AstraZeneca said it was considering how it could assess combinations of different vaccines, and would soon begin exploring with Russia's Gamaleya Institute, which developed Sputnik V, whether two vaccines based on a common-cold virus could be successfully combined... Sputnik's Russian developers say clinical trials, still under way, have shown it has an efficacy rate of over 90%, higher than that of AstraZeneca's own vaccine and similar to those of U.S. rivals Pfizer and Moderna.
Some Western scientists have raised concerns about the speed at which Russia has worked, giving the regulatory go-ahead for its vaccines and launching large-scale vaccinations before full trials to test Sputnik V's safety and efficacy have been completed. Russia says the criticism is unfounded.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
many vaccines will be approved, more than 3. they'll be sold all over the world, because it's profitable and there is huge demand. maybe a combination will be found that is more effective than a single treatment.
so, what's the problem?
Re:This is a tale of politicizing science (Score:2)
What's the problem? Politicizing science is the problem. One consequence is that many people have died from Covid-19 who didn't need to.
My reading of this story is that Putin's vaccine isn't that hot, but he's playing to create a better vaccine using AstraZenaca's technology. Won't be hard as long as Putin controls the testing. AstraZenaca gets some money for cooperating.
Everybody's happy! So why am I sad (again).
Sometimes I miss programming for a living. Simple work, and you can't politicize the code. It w
Re: This is a tale of politicizing science (Score:2)
And as a point of fact, politicizing code was in vogue way before politicizing plastic bags was. The Free Software Foundation got its start way back when with political advocacy against closed-source software very much in its mission. And if you listen to Richard Stalman's speeches from the 90s, you'd be forgiven for thinking you were listening to a disciple of Kalm Marx himself, with e
Re: (Score:1)
That more people died that needed to is speculative at best. In my country of 83m commies the excess mortality does not seem to exist if you look at the data.
People still die of course and hospitals get crowded too - as they always do in winter. You will not get much of it in MSM but the data from official government sites or fed with government sites (EUROMOMO) do not show any. We shall see how that looks like in string when warm weather helps vaccine to combat disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I miss programming for a living
Uh huh. These are the occupations you list on your LinkedIn page: [linkedin.com]
Page
Secretary
Security Guard
Security Guard
Teaching Assistant
Marine Corps Reserve
Security Guard
Secretary
Secretary
Secretary
Secretary
Factory Worker
"Database research flunky"
English Teacher
Editorial Consultant
Instructor
Email Postmaster
Salesman
"Very frequent lecturer"
Technical Editor
Adjunct Instructor
Retired
Yeah...I don't see "programming for a living" in there anywhere.
I do see you claiming to have been a programmer a lot on Slashdot, though.
(in between your "Public masurbation" trolls, that is)
Public masturbation of 3493987 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Shannon Jacobs (Score:2)
Charlatan
SHärldn,SHärltn/
noun: charlatan; plural noun: charlatans
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
You are a sad, strange little man [imgflip.com]
Public masturbation of 3493987 (Score:2)
Z^-2
Bot speaks! (Score:1)
At war with the world is it?
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-3
Hey, bot! Wazzup my brutha? (Score:1)
Going for a bit of variety these days, eh?
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-4
Re: (Score:1)
so, what's the problem?
The part where you keep insisting or presuming or whatever the fuck it is you are doing there, insisting that you will be able to choose between them.
If your population was selected for (A), you will only be allowed to take (A) no exceptions. If your population was selected for (A+C), you will only be allowed to take (A+C) no exceptions.
The onus is on you. Either put up or stop role playing a thinker.
Re:This is a tale of 3 vaccines (Score:4, Insightful)
If your population was selected for (A), you will only be allowed to take (A) no exceptions. If your population was selected for (A+C), you will only be allowed to take (A+C) no exceptions.
Citation needed. What is your source for these ridiculous claims? Did you hear about this at a Trump rally?
What possible justification could there be to coerce people into taking specific vaccines?
How will the vaccine police ensure that nobody uses the "wrong" vaccine?
Re: (Score:1)
YOU are the needs to at least provide a citation for the existence of at least ONE PERSON, somewhere, having the choice you claim everyone will have. Now even though such a citation is NOT EVEN SUFFICIENT to justify your claim, you cant even provide that single anecdote. You have less than data, as you dont even have anecdote.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/hea... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
His claim that is no one will have a choice until there's no longer a need to get enough people vaccinated. Your statement is that the choice will only manifest after enough people will be vaccinated.
You're in agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
If your population was selected for (A), you will only be allowed to take (A) no exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is literally what your statement says. That choice will only be allowed AFTER enough people have been vaccinated. Definitionally, that means "no choice BEFORE enough people have been vaccinated".
Re: (Score:2)
>at the moment that choice is from the singular product that is approved.
"You have a choice of colour for you Ford Model T, as long as that colour is black" is a meme for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh I see, you make up stuff.
Meanwhile, I'll be able to go to pharmacy A or B, or wait in my car at clinic C to get whatever vaccine. Just like I did with with the 3 flu vaccines and I chose to go to pharmacy B.
This stuff won't be rare in 6 months...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is a tale of 3 vaccines (Score:4, Interesting)
Oxford University and AstraZeneca have been working on a third vaccine that apparently doesn't have the temperature issue, although it's unclear what the regimen will be so we don't know if it'll require two shots.
It's always been two doses, about 3-4 weeks apart.
There is some interesting things in the data from a screw up though. One of the trials accidentally gave half doses as the first dose, followed by normal doses at the standard times after being found out. The low dose / normal dose recipients actually appear, at first glance of the data, to be much better protected.
This low dose / normal dose leading to better immune response VS. normal / normal dose has also been observed prior to this in mouse studies that used adenovirus vectors, supporting the data that the regimen actually was more effective. They want to study the data some more to try and find out whether it is true or not. The hard part is that the data set is smaller than the normal / normal dose set (~2500 Vs. ~8500, roughly ).
Re: (Score:3)
I note that the vaccine doseage error was discussed on TWIV 693 this past weekend. https://www.microbe.tv/ [microbe.tv] They say that it was a manufacturing scale up issue. The manufacturer used a concentration measurement method that involved illumiinating the test sample and measuring the absorption of a specific wavelength as a proxy for concentration. What they initially missed was that something else in the samples - the specific carrier solution was also absorbing at that wavelength. So they ended up with a lower
Re: This is a tale of 3 vaccines (Score:2)
News flash -20 is shorthand for a domestic freezer. Just put it onto fast freeze and it will be fine, without fast freeze it will hover at about -18.
Re: (Score:2)
What was happening was that their vaccin just wasn't good enough and a huge pay day was about to get away from them. Meanwhile Russia had no way to tap the western market with their vaccine.
By these accidents combined you get this unholy union.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More likely the Russian one works, but not as well as it could, just like the AZ one. That wouldn't be surprising, since the two vaccines are pretty similar. The biggest problem with viral vector vaccines is if you happen to have an immune reaction to the vector. So more vectors, more better.
Pfizer and Moderna set the bar high and everyone else is going to struggle to reach it.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, we that our immune systems have a very heavy bias at disallowing existence of any mRNA in our systems. In evolutionary thinking, that means that there's a cost in having this sort of extreme response that is worth it.
And we do not know why it's worth it. It could be something vestigial. It could be something catastrophic. It could be something in between. We simply do not know, because these vaccines are completely novel and untested.
Unlike the legacy vaccines from Oxford and Sputnik V. W
Re: (Score:2)
You're packed full of RNA. Pounds of the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
But not mRNA. That is destroyed by immune system on contact. It's also what makes it as effective as it is claimed to be. Immune system reacts to it in a much more hostile way.
Re: (Score:2)
mRNA about about 1-5% of the RNA in your body.
mRNA vaccines don't work by inducing an immune response to the mRNA. They cause a few of your body's cells to produce the target protein (spike protein in this case) and *that's* what the immune system reacts to.
You should probably check out some reputable sources if you're concerned about this stuff. At least ones that get their basic biology correct.
Re: (Score:2)
>mRNA about about 1-5% of the RNA in your body.
And gets killed on sight when encountered by immune system. Unlike RNA.
>You should probably check out some reputable sources if you're concerned about this stuff.
I do, as a matter of routine. I've had a whole lot less work due to covid, and I've spent much of the time reading scientific papers as journals opened. I can tell you that "reputable sources" disagree on almost everything mRNA related in terms of large scale vaccination but a single point, which
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Your blood, and all your other bodily fluids, are full of mRNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Things you do not know that once again result in peak Dunning-Kruger:
1. Basics of cancerous functionality. Why does cancer not get killed by immune system?
2. Study numbers in this context. When setting up to look for mRNA, even with targeted sampling methodology, they only see 15% out of all RNA they can find in blood cloud.
Between those two points, you seem to fail to grasp that study you cite confirms my point, rather than debunk it as you seem to believe. Immune system kills mRNA when it detects it.
Re: (Score:2)
People say things like "you're not paranoid if 'they' are actually coming to get you". What's the opposite of that? Whatever it is, that's you that is.
Time to market? (Score:1)
Some Western scientists have raised concerns about the speed at which Russia has worked, giving the regulatory go-ahead for its vaccines and launching large-scale vaccinations before full trials to test Sputnik V's safety and efficacy have been completed.
It seems that every vaccine for this has been rushed due to how little time the virus has had to make an impact. I refuse to be a guinea pig.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that every vaccine for this has been rushed due to how little time the virus has had to make an impact. I refuse to be a guinea pig.
Also... the name - seems like they wanted to sound like they were first to come out with it or something...
Re: (Score:2)
The rich and the politicians were the first to get it (amid loud international criticism), it seems they were fairly confident in it and don't seem to be keeling over in any great numbers. It's good enough for some of the richest people in the world and I'm in an at-risk group, if it's what is available first I'll take it.
Re: (Score:2)
The rich and the politicians were the first to get it (amid loud international criticism), it seems they were fairly confident in it and don't seem to be keeling over in any great numbers.
As a point of fact, you dont know what anybody took, nor will you know if you ever get the same thing as them or even if they took anything at all.. Once you accept what the facts actually are, only then can we have a rational discussion. We may decide to presume things together, but you dont get to decide that all discussions have to just swallow your, frankly unfounded, presumptions. You begin communication by not being a dishonest assfuck.
Amid predictable international criticism, they never took a sin
Re: (Score:1)
you dont know what anybody took, nor will you know if you ever get the same thing as them or even if they took anything at all..
The possibilities for psycho conspiracy theories are endless!
Re: (Score:3)
Buy cheap, buy twice is a falsehood. The truth is that if you buy early, you buy often.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich people will buy anything as long as it is the most expensive :) You have no idea what a hassle these expensive cars are!
Re:Time to market? (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as you meet the guidelines -- as in read all the fine print about who should and should not receive the vaccine -- you should be pretty safe with any of the three first vaccines.
The Phase 3 trials had some limitations -- for example Pfizer's didn't include people with histories of anaphylactic reactions to medicines -- so if you fit in one of those limitation groups you should discuss the pros and cons of the vaccine with your doctor. That's a good idea if you have *anything* in your medical history that's unusual. Also if you're over 75 or under 18 years old. You should not make any decision this important based on shit you've read on the Internet.
This is a time of rapid technological advance. It's no accident that the first three vaccines out of the gate use some kind of genetic technology -- that eliminates months of trial and error. The mRNA vaccines are also much more precisely targeted vaccine than traditional methods using whole viruses. One mRNA vaccine will be just like any other, except for the single protein it encodes. It's a sniper's bullet rather than a shotgun blast.
This is going to revolutionize cancer treatment in a few years. Taking years to develop a vaccine is going to be a thing of the past -- like taking days to cross the Atlantic.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you do three phase trials and win approval from the FDA?
Re: (Score:2)
The sample sizes are surprisingly large with these trials. 40K seems to be the magic number. I've gone back through Pubmed to look at similar trials, and rarely have they ever been this big.
The trial stages might have been quick, but fast isnt an important metric, its how big the sample sizes are, and these appear to be big samples sizes leading to quite big. This means the confidence and error metrics are all very convincing.
I'll be happy to take the damn things day one. The utterly tiny prospect of an ave
Re: (Score:2)
You protect vaccine.
AstraZen been criticized for lack of transparency (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What better way to solve that than to partner up with Russia, a country renowned for its transparency.
Yes, because we all know USA deserves 1st prize in the contest of transparency. *THE* USA which is trying to incarcerate Assange, Snowden and others for whistle blowing.
Of course, bashing on Russia's vaccine has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they do have a vaccine that's (1) a lot easier to handle logisitcally, and (2) doesn't seem to have any other disadvantages than Pfizer/BioNTech's -- similar efficiency, similaryl poorly tested etc. /sarcasm
The only difference is that the Russians pokered
A simple truth (Score:2)
There's a very simple litmus test for what Russia is claiming and that's what Mr. Putin thinks about its own vaccine. He has not been vaccinated [interfax.ru].
It's amazing how the Kremlin PR machine is managing to lie in two co
Re:A simple truth (Score:5, Informative)
There's a very simple litmus test for what Russia is claiming and that's what Mr. Putin thinks about its own vaccine. He has not been vaccinated [interfax.ru].
Sputnik 5 is currently only offered to people between 18 and 60 years old. A clinical trial for older population is underway.
I am 46 and I've got the first of the two shots two days ago at my local clinic near Moscow, no questions asked. My 61 years old neighbour has asked the clinic if he could get it too and has been refused based on his age.
Putin is 68.
Re: (Score:2)
While I can understand the lead-by-example value of participating in a clinical trial (note that Sputnik 5 is still in the clinical trial stage for people over 60), it would be slightly irresponsible for a head of state to do so. Name an acting president who has participated in a clinical trial of any covid vaccine.
I guess George W. Bush and Bill Clinton will get a vaccine approved for people of their age.
We can criticise Putin on many counts but his decision to wait with his vaccination is not among them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell is it not offered to people over 60?? That's excluding the most vulnerable group?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, not yet. It's not yet offered to people over 60.
Re: (Score:2)
Sputnik 5 is currently only offered to people between 18 and 60 years old. A clinical trial for older population is underway.
The age restriction has been removed today [meduza.io]. The data has shown it is more than 90% effective in people over 60.
Nearly anyone over 18 (barring a few medical restrictions) can now get vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be a whole lot easier for them to lie about him taking it than about it not working or being unsafe.
Russia (Score:2)
So Russia sponsored the vax-afraiders in the West to discredit our own vaccines while Russia peddles its own vaccine. Gotta love their diabolics hahaha.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia sponsored
[Citation Needed]
The anti-vaxxers have never needed any external funding that I've ever seen, hell, they don't even need facts or logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Russia distributes outside the US to Africa, South America, India, Middle East, and even some European countries. They eliminate competition by getting the western vaccine manufacturers out of their way.
They skipped 4 years of testing (Score:2)
While proper western companies only skipped 3 years and 9 months ... it's an outrage. I'm not saying there is no justification for rushing, but complaining about Russia's level of testing when the level is already so low everywhere is miserly.
A bigger issue is cooperating with a company from a totalitarian nation led by someone who quite recently ordered an assassination in their country, which also killed innocents ... but when there's billions to be earned with Corona vaccines there's not a lot of room fo
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it is because of preexisting immunity ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Both Sputnik V and Oxford/AstraZeneca are based on adenovirus as a vector to carry the gene that makes the Coronavirus Spike protein as part of its DNA payload.
But they use different strains: the AstraZeneca uses ChAdOx1 (Chimpanzee Adenovirus Oxford 1), which is a chimpanzee virus, in the hope that humans would not have natural immunity to the viral vector, destroying it before it can infect cells and do its spike protein synthesis thing.
Sputnik V uses two different human strains: the first does is Ad5, which is very common (something like 20% in Europe/America, but 80% in Africa). The second dose is based on Ad26, which is less common.
Perhaps they want to replace the Ad5 first dose of Sputnik by AstraZeneca's so there is a lower chance of prevalent immunity interfering with the overall effectiveness of the mixed two dose regimen?
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense. The screwup with the dosing strongly suggests that AZ's vaccine is limited by an immune reaction to the second dose. It's likely Russia's is limited by immune reactions to either or both doses.
You could also just mix them together.
Re: (Score:2)
That is how I understand it indeed. That the Oxford people think their vaccine worked less well if the first dose was higher because of acquired vector immunity(immunity to the carrier virus), Then Gamaleya offered them their adenovirus vectors, and Oxford will use the Ad26.
I like this news because one, it is a nice example of cooperation and two, the resulting vaccines are a lot cheaper and easier to distribute than the mRna vaccines so they will help a lot more people.
Do you want zombies? (Score:3)
Because that's how you get zombies!
Bioethicists, Soviet and other (Score:1)
Everywhere else, bioethicists prefer to just watch the world burn. Now who has it backwards?
Potentially important strategy (Score:2)
Putting aside the distrust in the Russian establishment that seems to be in vogue around here (I'll grant, they earn that distrust) , the strategy of multiple vaccines seems an interesting one for evolutionary reasons.
If these things create different types of immune responses, using both means that if the bug tries to mount an evolutionary defense against one sort of response, it'll still fall prey to the other. Well thats the theory. That is to say, its not so interesting whether it defends a particular pe
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't seem likely. All the vaccines target the same thing (the spike protein). The differences between them is primarily in the delivery mechanism. Taking more than one vaccine is potentially very useful in the case of these two vaccines because they both depend on sneaking carrier viruses past your immune system. The AZ one has to do it twice with the same virus.