Russian Campaign Promotes Homegrown Vaccine and Undercuts Rivals (nytimes.com) 105
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Russian news outlets connected to election disinformation campaigns in the United States have set their sights on a new target: convincing Spanish-speaking countries that the Russian coronavirus vaccine works better than its American competitors, according to researchers and State Department officials. The Russian campaign has focused on Latin American nations, including Mexico, which this week signed a deal to acquire millions of doses of the Russian vaccine, and Argentina, which last month began vaccinating its citizens with it.
The Russian vaccine, Sputnik V, was named after the first satellite to orbit the earth, which the Soviet Union launched in 1957. Sputnik V is considered less expensive and easier to transport than vaccines made by the American companies Pfizer and Moderna. But some researchers say the criticism in Russian outlets of the Western vaccines has been misleading. "Almost everything they are promoting about the vaccine is manipulated and put out without context," said Bret Schafer, a fellow with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, an advocacy group that tracks Russian disinformation. "Every negative story or issue that has come out about a U.S.-made vaccine is amplified, while they flood the zone with any positive report about the Russian vaccine."
Media outlets backed by the Russian government posted to Facebook and Twitter hundreds of links to news stories that reported potential ties suggesting American vaccines may have had a role in deaths, the researchers said. The accounts left out follow-up reports that found the vaccines most likely played no role in the deaths. "This was a coordinated effort that was part P.R. campaign and part disinformation. It is one of the largest operations we've seen to promote a narrative around the vaccine in Latin America, and it appears to have had an effect," said Jaime Longoria, a disinformation researcher at First Draft, a nonprofit that supports journalists and independent researchers. "Russia steadily seeded a narrative that has grown and been, to some degree, accepted."
The Russian vaccine, Sputnik V, was named after the first satellite to orbit the earth, which the Soviet Union launched in 1957. Sputnik V is considered less expensive and easier to transport than vaccines made by the American companies Pfizer and Moderna. But some researchers say the criticism in Russian outlets of the Western vaccines has been misleading. "Almost everything they are promoting about the vaccine is manipulated and put out without context," said Bret Schafer, a fellow with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, an advocacy group that tracks Russian disinformation. "Every negative story or issue that has come out about a U.S.-made vaccine is amplified, while they flood the zone with any positive report about the Russian vaccine."
Media outlets backed by the Russian government posted to Facebook and Twitter hundreds of links to news stories that reported potential ties suggesting American vaccines may have had a role in deaths, the researchers said. The accounts left out follow-up reports that found the vaccines most likely played no role in the deaths. "This was a coordinated effort that was part P.R. campaign and part disinformation. It is one of the largest operations we've seen to promote a narrative around the vaccine in Latin America, and it appears to have had an effect," said Jaime Longoria, a disinformation researcher at First Draft, a nonprofit that supports journalists and independent researchers. "Russia steadily seeded a narrative that has grown and been, to some degree, accepted."
Well, it's true (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone who takes one of the American vaccines will eventually die.
Re: Well, it's true (Score:3)
Fun fact: If your parents dont have kids neither will you.
Sadly I read this article yesterday..
https://www.stamfordadvocate.c... [stamfordadvocate.com]
But when you consider this article
https://www.google.com/amp/s/w... [google.com]
I would like to get boosters of the oxford and sputnik just so my body learns to identify several sneaky ways the genetic code enters my body. Should make for a better immunity overall.
Re: Well, it's true (Score:5, Funny)
Well... If you hadn't slept through high school sex ed class ... :-)
Re: Well, it's true (Score:3)
I was too busy in lab to pay attention to the lectures ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The immune system doesn't work like that. There are many ways such an approach could go wrong.
Re: Well, it's true (Score:2)
Maybe. Im ex military. The amount of shit I got dosed with that is considered experimental is not even worth going into. Surprisingly none of it went so wrong I died or was incapacitated. Most vaccines are inert. They just train you in different ways to identify the specific virus. mRNA focuses on spike proteins.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for your service. Yeah they should be inert for the most part, but a few things can happen. For example, one problem is that they are both based on adenovirus vectors. The first time your body encounters an adenovirus capsid, it develops immunity to it (not just to the COVID virus, but also to the vaccine itself) . That's why the first dose of Sputnik V uses Adenovirus 26's capsid, while the second dose uses Adenovirus 5's capsid. If you have ever encountered either those viruses previously (they are
Re: Well, it's true (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of factors matter everything from the person's genetics to the adjuvant used. So basically, it may vary (probably a long time though) but there's not enough research to know, as far as I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Take Russian, end up looking like bear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone who takes one of the American vaccines will eventually die.
The USA or any other country does not have exclusivity due to intelligence. The difference is in the financing of research. And the Russians, in the medical field, have the USA beat. One thing that Russia does well is to provide universal medicare. A Russian can go to a doctor with a problem, and not have to show proof of residency or citizenship. Since coverage is universal, it is Federally funded. And it works well. Some ten years ago, my son went to Moscow for a job interview. During the first day,
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that Russia does well is to provide universal medicare. A Russian can go to a doctor with a problem, and not have to show proof of residency or citizenship.
Only emergency care (of the kind that your son had) is provided in Russia to everyone regardless of citizenship or the ability to pay. For minor non-life-threatening problems, regular healthcare, preventative care, and chronic issues, you have to have insurance. This is free to obtain for a Russian citizen (so yes we have a universal healthcare) but costs to a foreigner residing or working in Russia. I am not sure it is available for tourists.
Re: (Score:2)
Sputnik 5 (or V) was also a western designation for a Soviet satellite, which the Soviets called Korabl-Sputnik 2. It was an early version of the Vostok, and carried two dogs. The dogs returned safely to Earth.
Is this a win win for most? (Score:1)
I mean if the vaccine works for most or works well enough, then great, we are vaccinating more people. If it doesn't I assume these governments will find out pretty fast. And in the meantime, there is more of the general vaccines for the rest of us so we can get immune. If you are going to listen to the Russia government... well, we really can't help you.
Re: Is this a win win for most? (Score:2)
Sputnik V works just fine. The fact that they work differently could mean a better immunity if you take a combination.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/w... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not entirely clear yet that using different vaccines increases immunity. It's not implausible, but there just hasn't been enough time or enough study to know for sure. And still, going from 95% effective to 98% effective is going to be very hard to prove clinically, and probably not worth the study.
Re: Is this a win win for most? (Score:2)
Im not saying forgo the second dose. But if you are 95% using mRNA and you take a vector virus booster (oxford). You verywell might learn to train not only on spike protein but a different piece too. Once everyone gets their shots Im gonna be one of those trophy achievers in a game and get all of them ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Is this a win win for most? (Score:3)
My biggest concern is global politics with vaccines. I wont even entertain badmouthing a functional vaccine. Anyone who put in the legwork on this deserves a free pass on criticism. While some might work better than others, there is a clinical and proven technique of combining them. I dont think russia, the usa, iran, isreal, or brazil, should be rejecting ANY supplies at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part is that Russia now isn't able to deliver all the vaccines it promised. Argentina ordered (and PAID FOR) several million doses. Only 300.000 were delivered, and now russia is saying the labs are having "delays", so they won't meet the deadlines (for Argentina. For Russia and allies, the vaccine is readily available. Also: the russian vaccine is also produced in Korea but Korea also refuses to sell to other countries until they finish vaccinating their own).
Argentina proposed to manufacture the
Re: Is this a win win for most? (Score:2)
IMHO this should be about licensing the formula to reproduce. Let every country participate in their own salvation.
No. That's "Putin says Russian vax is fine" (Score:1)
Article [thelancet.com] listed in the tweet is NOT from some third-party impartial research source - it's written and paid for by Putin's cronies.
Funding
Moscow City Health Department, Russian Direct Investment Fund, Sberbank, and RUSAL.
Head of the RDIF, Kirill Dmitriev, is LITERALLY what the Slashdot story is about - dude's been pushing propaganda which claims that Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine turns people into monkeys. [thetimes.co.uk]
He is also in a close personal relationship to Putin, his wife being a pal and employee of Putin's daughter. [wikipedia.org]
Sberbank, Russian bank still under US sanctions (among other sanctions [wikipedia.org]) was until 2016 un
Fuck Putin. Right up his little bleached ass. (Score:2)
Well, as I was saying before some Russian troll tried to mod down reality, being taught THAT is how the reality works...
It's not.
In reality, copy/paste is far more powerful than the sword. And shield. And the lips and tongue tips that swirl Vovochka's asshole.
But anyway...
No. That's "Putin says Russian vax is fine"
Article [thelancet.com] listed in the tweet is NOT from some third-party impartial research source - it's written and paid for by Putin's cronies.
Funding
Moscow City Health Department, Russian Direct Investment Fund, Sberbank, and RUSAL.
Head of the RDIF, Kirill Dmitriev, is LITERALLY what the Slashdot
Re:Is this a win win for most? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that these claims get picked up by anti-vaxx people and spread general vaccine fear, not just confined to their targets. This is grossly irresponsible behavior in a pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? Anti-vaxxers are going to spread their nonsense no matter what. If it's not Russian propaganda, then it'll be something they just make up.
Given the absurdities they've been spreading on social media, just making stuff up seems to be their preferred approach.
Let's not forget that the Russians are actually trying to get people vaccinated. Their propaganda may be less attractive to the Jenny McCarthy fan club than you think.
Re: Is this a win win for most? (Score:2)
God give her a break. She isnt 100% anti-vaxx. Her kid was autistic and she was reaching for answers. She has since recanted. I am sure there are a couple things you wished you could mulligan. In the last 5 years have you seen or hears her tell anyone not to vaxx?
She bought into a hypothesis before proven. Its not like you havent bought into the correlation = causation media bs too. We all have at some point.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, sure, I've made mistakes like that. Of course, I didn't reorient my career around those mistakes. Neither did my mistakes cause a global health crisis and kill countless children.
I'm glad she changed her mind, but she hasn't taken any steps to undo the damage she's caused. I don't think she's even apologized. I also seem to recall her denying that she had any role in spreading the lie that vaccines cause autism.
I'll give her a break when she puts the same energy into promoting vaccination as she di
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that I can find is that she said in a 2019 book that she is not anti-vaccine she is "pro - safe vaccine". Adding that "safe" qualifier makes it sound quite fishy though without specifying what she considers "safe". So does she no longer believe and tell other people that the MMR vaccine causes autism? Does she think that the vaccine is safe now in the face of the scientific data that has been produced ever since then?
Because without that context saying that sh
Re: (Score:2)
so as it pains me to admit this.. my wife is major NKOTB blockhead. So as such the two follow each other on social media, since she is married to the 'tough guy' from NKOTB. they follow each other to the point that one making a response invokes a near immediate response in the other. All I can say is that this is not her stance anymore, but she does not want to infringe or alter anones alternate view on vaccines and autism (specifically autism). Because the drama and pain associated with coming to terms wit
Re: (Score:2)
Not wanting to "infringe" on "alternate views" is a nice euphemisms for not standing up against unfounded bullshit because it might hurt the feelings of those that spread misinformation.
Always remember that being a victim does not give anyone the right to victimize others. Being a victim and perpetrator is not mutually exclusive.
But ok. I never used her as a poster child of an anti-vaxxer before and won't do so in the future.
Re: Is this a win win for most? (Score:2)
Its not anti-vaxxers.
https://www.stamfordadvocate.c... [stamfordadvocate.com]
This is state-sanctioned politics gambling with human lives.
Re: (Score:2)
"Every negative story or issue that has come out about a U.S.-made vaccine is amplified, while they flood the zone with any positive report about the Russian vaccine."
Isn't that just called "Marketing"?
Re: Is this a win win for most? (Score:2)
Why the hell is marketing having a role in vaccines charging $10? Marketing can go fuck itself when it comes to the heavy lifting and what is at stake here.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you won't catch me disagreeing with you on that.
Since forever, certain professions were prohibited from advertising in Australia. If not by the government, then by their various associations. The premise being: 'you want more work? Do a damn fine job and you'll develop a good reputation and the word will spread.'
Now, many (formerly?) respected professions find it's better just to set aside $x for a marketing budget.
I think certain fields should be off-limits to marketing. But we live in the real world a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, my garsh, the Russians are using MARKETING!!! No one can do that except US companies! We must put a stop to that immediately!
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between marketing and misinformation just like there's a difference between CEOs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, "marketing" implies a Madison Avenue ad company got paid. That's a huge difference.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between marketing and misinformation just like there's a difference between CEOs.
Fake news and misinformation is marketing. How the hell else could a moron have been elected president of the US, unless a significant portion believe lies and downright bullshit coming out of the Trump camp and the news organisations that helped him to power. Here is a little bit of fake news for you; Fox news has the greatest number of fact checkers of any news organisation in the world. The voracity of their reporting is beyond reproach and to the highest journalistic standards.
Putin and his supporters a
Re: Is this a win win for most? (Score:2)
That would have only been better if you had said OH NOES! :-). But seriously.. wrong topic for world governments to be drawing lines in the sand over. Be pragmatic and on a high horse when youve nothing less to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries in South America were slated to get significant quantities of vaccine and were in fact, in some cases, going to be able to immunize the country quickly. Reality is that the EU limited exports, the US aggressively pursued additional doses it initially rejected, and a deal with the Russians became the best way forward.
At this moment, WHO is trying to get
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
If it works, and there are doses available, then lets get the world inoculated.
I don't care about the politics "The Russians helped us instead of the Americans..." Who cares. This is about saving lives. Anyone who helps deserves kudos for helping.
Fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok. More vaccine for us. This is one of those conspiracies that I don't really care about. If Russia wants to convince Latin America not to use the US's supply of vaccine production, then that doesn't really hurt us.
Just so long as they're not trying to convince people that vaccines in general are bad.
Re: (Score:2)
It would "hurt us" if anyone from those countries came here with potentially new variants.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. But badmouthing competitors plus shortages of their own is only going to lead to one result. So not using anyone elses vaccine is going to "hurt" someone which is why we should care.
Re: Fine by me (Score:2)
Unless it limits the supply and speed of immunity. I really would rather not hear that 2024 is when everyone will be vaccinated. This shit only extends that. Im tired of government executive branches taking extended restrictions on peoples liberties. At some point the electorate should have to collectively ratify this shit. The sooner everyone gets vaccinated the sooner we return to majority vote.
Re: (Score:2)
It does. Russia is not delivering the doses Argentina has already paid for. They are saying they have "delays in production". Only 300.000 doses were delivered out of several million.
Basically russia is trying to sell something they can't produce fast enough.
Re: Fine by me (Score:2)
As long as those countries are not bound by exclusively using sputnik V then let then get other doses elsewhere. There really should be no IP here if people cannot meet demand.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised countries aren't already doing this. Yeah it's going to leave a sour taste in a lot of mouths, but this is a global problem, and it's not going to be solved by pettiness. What affects one will eventually affect all, one way or another.
Re: (Score:2)
300k is still more than what the others can supply to Argentina right now I bet.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine 300k from Russia, 100k from Pfizer BioNtech, 100k from AstraZeneca, 100k from Moderna. Of course just hypothetical numbers. But it should be obvious to you that any number greater than zero added to those 300k is higher than 300k.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is AZ, Moderna, Pfizer, etc are pricing their vaccines with supply-and-demand pricing. Only first world nations can pay for them now. Once the first rich billion is vaccinated, we'll talk about the rest.
China and India are big enough to throw their weight around and shit on medical IP and produce generics. So LATAM is next in line for vaccination, then SEA, then Africa.
TBF Argentina is producing, along with Mexico, the Oxford vaccine. It's produced in Argentina and finished and packaged in Mexico. F
Re: (Score:2)
Just so long as they're not trying to convince people that vaccines in general are bad.
Well, that's the foul aftertaste such a promotion leaves in my mouth.
On one hand, it's great that more people get access to a vaccine. But badmouthing other vaccines does not seem like a good idea in the face of the situation. Especially because of vaccine shortages it seems like a better idea to allow people to get an effective vaccine from whatever available source and not to promote only your own product.
Of course the same also applies to badmouthing the Russian vaccine. That should go without sayin
Does it work? It does? Then who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get vaccines in people's arms in every corner of the world. Who cares where it's made?
Produce the vaccine and get it in peoples arms.
Re: (Score:2)
Produce the vaccine and get it in peoples arms.
And get paid! Don't forget the important part.
Re: Does it work? It does? Then who cares? (Score:2)
Exactly brother. Exactly. This is darwinism war of species on a microscopic level. I really dont want to lose a Darwin race on survival over a political pissing match.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are already seeing a divide opening up between haves and have-nots.
The UK is starting to discuss "vaccine passports" so that people can have holidays this summer. Of course only boomers will get them, younger people won't be vaccinated in time.
There is some question over which countries would accept them too. If you have had one dose of a particular vaccine you might only be 30% protected and still able to carry the virus.
And then there is the developing world, which is now having to rely on the generosi
Re: (Score:2)
Race as in the rich getting it before the poor.
Iâ(TM)d rather take a vaccine (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hardly call adenovirus vectors "tried and true".
Re: (Score:2)
What is not "tried and true" about them? They've been tested in double-blind experiments and shown to be effective.
Re: Iâ(TM)d rather take a vaccine (Score:2)
Exactly. The science seems sound to me. The same research is being used to create retrovirus cancer treatments.
To summarize captain jack sparrow. Its about what works and what doesnt work. Im at the point where i am resulting to basic fix this fix that, politics and procedures be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
The science is sound, and the testing was done.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not a technology that has been widely been used in vaccines before. The GP appears to think that they are. They're a relatively new technology that shows promise, and not as bleeding edge as, say, mRNA vaccines, but are nothing like, say, inactivated or attenuated vaccines cultured in eggs or whatnot.
home grown (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: home grown (Score:1)
I support your freedom to do what the hell you please.. but have you considered the impact of a respiratory virus if your lung capacity is compromised? Maybe edibles?
Re: (Score:2)
How much pot do you have to smoke to meaningfully compromise lung function?
You can be a daily pot smoker and only take two puffs of smoke marijuana and get really high. My guess is that living in a dense urban area like NYC exposes you to more lung damage than two puffs of pot.
I think if you just did two bong hits or even used a vaporizer, there's not enough zeroes on a pocket calculator to measure the lung damage, or it would take 4+ decades to even show up.
Re: (Score:2)
As it turns out, moderate use does not impair lung function. In fact, it can actually improve it because the smoke is a vasodilator. Many people with asthma use it for control of their asthma symptoms! You have to really bomb the shit out of your lungs before there is any loss of function.
Peer reviewed data (Score:5, Interesting)
And moving past the news reports and politicians posturing and commentators blathering, the data from the phase-3 trials in Russia was just published in The Lancet.
https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
Looks like 91% effective and no bad side effects.
Re:Peer reviewed data (Score:5, Interesting)
State sponsored data collected in only one city - the capitol of the state. It is difficult to believe although I do hope it is correct.
Due to the financial implications such a study could have, studies performed out of country are essential. I read that Brazil is a popular location, but all of Europe would basically work. Get some data from countries where the data can not be faked / minimized and people will start to believe the results. Non-state run trials do not have to worry about such things but when you have a state run trial of a state created vaccine it is only as trustworthy as the state. Who actually trusts Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
The AZ/Oxford one was state sponsored as well. In fact so was Pfizer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Dunno, Dr. David Kelly's death was pretty suspicious...
For the most part though in the UK the main problem is cronyism, and putting political considerations before science. The early approval of the Pfizer vaccine, for example. Looks like it was rushed through so Johnson could say we were first, but fortunately it turned out to be safe it seems.
Retaliation (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the thing goes that since about November, the agreement between the Argentine government and Pfizer stalled, which was a shame as Argentina was one of the few non-US countries to start the Pfizer vaccine trial almost simultaneously with the US. Argentina and Mexico were also associated, since about August to produce the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine. But we all know by now the problems that vaccine has endured, both in the science behind it and in the production chain.
At this point, Argentina started conversations with Russia for the Sputnik V. And Sputnik V was being heavily criticized by the media. I'm talking about 4/5 homepage news every day for about 2 month. Some fears were scientifically based, but most were ideologically motivated. I don't know if it was just an anti-russian reflex, some business decision of media owners (I'd like to thing they are this intelligent) or simple small-minded home politics (the most probable cause I'd say). I don't know the demographics now, but when the first doses arrived in late December, about 50% of Argentines didn't want to get vaccinated with Sputnik V.
Now with preliminary phase 3 results published in The Lancet, Russia is retaliating. Of course, hating all kinds of propaganda I really dislike the "white collar" disinformation campaign against the Sputnik V and hate even more this "I don't even try to disguise it" propaganda Russia is promoting now. But seeing the comments I thought it could be worth it to add my 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"They are using a Chimp virus and will turn you into apes"! Yes, that happened,
sure, but once the critics turn into apes, they have trouble either speaking or using a keyboard, so they're quite effectively silenced . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:1)
Although my domain of expertise is physics, I could appreciate that there was scientifically valid criticism aimed at Sputnik V. However the thing here was mostly political, some notable figures even calling it poison. Argentina's equivalent of FDA, ANMAT, approved the vaccine around mid December, after a delegation from the Health Ministry had been in Russia for about 3 weeks and ANMAT officials travelled to inspect to facilities and go through the data.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, the concerns about viral vectors (which is shared by Astra Zeneca, J&J/Janssen, and Sputnik V) are there, but their magnitude and impact in reality, are unknown.
I am someone who lived on 3 continents, and I will avoid these viral vectors (if I have other options) because of the high probability that I did have these adenoviruses.
Calling it poison is wrong, simply because there is a peer reviewed study that shows that it is effective and safe (at least in the short term).
But again, Russia is t
self-entitled (Score:2)
"... put out without context."
US companies demand a 'third-world' country buy their product.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all smoke & Mirrors this time (Score:2)
Once again, it was New Knowledge, NOT Russia! (Score:1)
You have to admire the media and pundits tenacity at continuing with a bullshit narrative.
New Knowledge, in order to sell a social media monitoring app to the Federal Government, hired a Russian based PR firm that specialised in Facebook advertising, to Run a bunch of Memes and Jokes NOT related to the election.
THEN..
New Knowledge showed this activity as if it was their product detecting it, and that it was Russian interfering with the election.
The head of New Knowledge was caught lying, Facebook cancelled
Go fuck yourselves (Score:2)
As if any other company wouldn't do the same.
Western propaganda (Score:1)
"the first satellite to orbit the earth" (Score:2)
Obvious (Score:1)
I'm surprised that China hasn't ramped up production to sell their vaccine on the world market.
Tell a lie often enough... (Score:1)