Posted on 07/26/2021 7:53:21 PM PDT by algore
Two new large studies of China's CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine showed good efficacy against symptomatic infection and severe disease, albeit with lower efficacy than the two mRNA coronavirus vaccines currently in use. Overall 83.5% efficacy against infection
Interim efficacy and safety results from a phase 3 trial in Turkey were published yesterday in The Lancet. A team led by researchers from Hacettepe University School of Medicine in Ankara randomly assigned either the inactivated whole-virion CoronaVac vaccine or a placebo to 10,214 healthcare and community volunteers aged 18 to 59 years at 24 centers from Sep 14, 2020, to Jan 5, 2021. Participants received two doses of the vaccine or placebo 14 days apart.
Phase 3 trials have been testing CoronaVac since mid-2020 in Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Turkey, the authors noted.
Over a median follow-up of 43 days in the Lancet study, 9 of 6,646 (0.14%) participants in the vaccine group and 32 of 3,568 (0.90%) in the placebo group had symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after their second dose, for a vaccine efficacy of 83.5%.
No vaccinees were hospitalized, compared with six in the placebo group, for a vaccine efficacy against coronavirus-related hospitalization of 100%. While the analysis of immunologic tests done on a subset of participants is ongoing, early results show that 89.7% of vaccinees had antibodies against the coronavirus's spike protein.
Adverse events occurred in 18.9% of vaccinees and 16.9% in placebo recipients. No deaths or serious adverse effects were reported. The most common systemic reaction was fatigue (8.2% in the vaccine group, 7.0% in the placebo group), and the most common local reaction was injection-site pain (2.4% in vaccinees, 1.1% in placebo recipients). Pros, cons of inactivated vaccines
Median participant age was 45 years, 57.8% were men, 36.0% were healthcare workers, and 15.6% were obese (body mass index, 30 kg/m2 or greater). High blood pressure was the most common underlying condition, affecting 11.8% of 6,217 participants who had available comorbidity data.
The authors noted that inactivated vaccines may offer the advantages of no virus replicability or transmissibility in recipients, and the generation of a wide range of humoral and cellular immune responses against epitopes, or the parts of antigens recognized by the immune system. Potential disadvantages are the need for adjuvants to boost the immune response, handling of large quantities of live virus, and the verification of the integrity of antigens or epitopes.
The World Health Organization (WHO) gave emergency use approval to the vaccine, which is also called Sinovac, on Jun 1, 2021.
But then they probably know nothing at all about corona viri, or mRna either.
If I had to pick, I like Russia’s best from the description of its mechanism — but for all I know China’s is safer than all of ours but less efficacious?
Yeah, right.
It works.
Doing what exactly?
Oh, the LANCET says it’s good. Another medical journal who now has a tarnished reputation.
Hers the way it works. Praise the Chinese vaccine, and get Chinese “research grants”.
Don’t praise the Chinese vaccine, and no easy money for you.
So what you gonna do?
I actually find all the approaches interesting.
I said a long time ago that mRna technology may turn out the be the greatest advance in medical history. Or not. We do not have enough data. I am not extremely confident of the current approach from what I understand.
The Russian approach using “alien” dna which is how the adendovirus can be described is well understood, but there are limitations of using human adenoviral vectors which would make me reluctant in case I ever “really” need something which uses these vectors.
It will be interesting to watch the large ongoing phase 3 trials for all of these.
We don’t need anything more from China...ever!
I don’t know why Nixon ever opened that door.
How much money did China pay the University of Minnesota I wonder.
23 July 2021: The College Fix: University website scrubs reference to China origin for COVID after bias complaint
by MATT LAMB
The University of Minnesota system’s Bias Response and Referral Network asked students to report suspected bias “related to the COVID-19 outbreak.”
As a result, it appears that the School of Public Health removed a reference to COVID-19’s origin in China...
A student reported an unnamed professor for asking for students to pray that President Donald Trump would recover from COVID in October 2020.
“A student wrote to report that a professor during a Zoom lecture urged students to pray for the President of the U.S. who has COVID-19,” the October 2 complaint said.
The bias team also turned this over to the equal opportunity office...
https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-website-scrubs-reference-to-china-origin-for-covid-after-bias-complaint/
University of Minnesota: Confucius Institute Projects
https://experts.umn.edu/en/organisations/confucius-institute/projects/
You asked the best question.
Who in their right mind would voluntarily inject anything from China into their body at this point?
the possibility that their SARS vaccine years ago contributed to the severity of initial coronavirus outbreak in wuhan is worth mentioning here.
Vaccine-enhanced disease is apparently not uncommon in attempts at coronavirus vaccines. this makes me wonder if the j&j product will have a similar effect down the road.
their dam building and water control abilities, however, appear to be lagging a bit...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.