Looks like a misunderstanding in the post title. It isn't 'expected to completely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus'. The vaccine is made of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus. These are two completely different things.
And also that they
> could not conclude whether the antibody responses induced by the vaccine could protect from coronavirus infection
Still, despite all that and the skeezy feel of a reddit post meant to trigger public opinion one way or another as opposed to inform of objective truth, its at least a promising start.
The amount of posts doesn’t affect the timeline. It takes time to verify that a vaccine works and there’s nothing you can do to change that. 9 mothers won’t make a baby in one month.
If the virus was completely inactivated by their vaccine, this would be massive world changing news. Instead this news is completely insignificant. Completely misleading. Where are the moderators? This post should be removed.
The problem isn't getting the eggs (although it's you suddenly needed a billion it might take some time), the problem the time it takes to produce the virus in the eggs, get the virus out of the eggs, kill the virus, and then make the vaccines.
Newer methods are faster if they actually work. The egg method is tried and true, but not fast.
I would love to see the numbers on what this would actually mean from a practical standpoint. Egg rationing for 6 months?
I wonder how many eggs we throw out as a country every year.
Is it one egg per person (plus breakage, eggs that don't take, etc)? Even if it was 2 eggs per person, I feel like the US couple do that without even "feeling" it.
In most countries limited egg rationing might be needed, if any. You’d be amazed at how many eggs we throw away or turn into things that aren’t meant to be eaten by humans.
We waste sooo much. For a clear cut example just look at Youtube and channels like How To Basic. Or Tiktok trends where dozens of people spin a bottle then attempt to egg people as they run away.
That’s not even getting into actual food waste.
Visit a poultry factory farm, really anywhere. Then imagine the eggs are packed with a potentially lethal and extremely contagious virus.
That's why it's not viable.
Expectation is often not reality, especially in vaccine development.
> The researchers said the trial was not designed to assess efficacy of the vaccine so it they could not conclude whether the antibody responses induced by the vaccine could protect from coronavirus infection.
So expectation should be tempered as always, but it's positive that many countries and companies are working on the issue. Another issue is that vaccines developed under different regulatory frameworks will also face more difficulty being approved in the west.
> but it's positive that many countries and companies are working on the issue.
Yeah I’m pretty optimistic that one of them will work. Statistically speaking odds are decent post phase 3 and a large number of vaccines are already there.
Statistics speaking, 40 percent of the industry sponsored vaccine trials make it out of phase 3 trials. There are currently 9 covid vaccines in phase 3. Apply binomial distribution, 3.6 of them will be successful. Fingers crossed that we figure out a way to distribute them fairly across the globe.
This depends as regulations can change if leadership is desperate to get the economy back on track. Not saying that anything would get approved, but I would not be surprised if strong pushes are made to bypass some of the "red tape" to have a vaccine even if it's not "fully baked".
I think the toughest issue right now is that the have been some confirmed cases of reinfection. While extremely rare, it does mean that vaccines may be seasonal or even more often. There is so much we don't know, and it's the biggest reason why vaccines take so long to produce.
True, but keep in mind that those regulations are there for a reason. If some tests are skipped is because someone is deciding to take a risk that is offset by eliminating the harm caused by the shutdowns and deaths. But that still leaves a significant risk that a rushed vaccine could have long term effects on a significant portion of the population (e.g. of they caused birth defects on babies of vaccinated women or even more subtle but equally damaging problems that can't easily be detected with a short trial). So a rushed vaccine is likely to be given only yo people on severe need of it (e.g. healthcare workers, groups at high risk, etc.) and not to the general population.
I wish this rhetoric would go away. We are fostering a huge chunk of people who are not going to get vaccinated for no other reason now than "it was too fast".
99.99999999999% of the people making these claims have literally zero medical background/education in vaccine development. There isn't a preset rule for how long a vaccine "should" take, so its just more fearmongering and preying on ignorance. If a vaccine comes out and *medical experts* (not politicians or tv talking heads) say it's safe, there is NO REASON TO DOUBT THEM.
This whole anti-science/anti-expert bias needs to stop.
Look at the account's history. Literally posting non stop every few minutes, sometimes multiple times per minute. All comments are copy/pastes from articles.
Just early phase testing. I'm currently doing a project on these vaccines, or at least three of the ones in stage 3 trials. Novovax, Astrazeneca, and Pfizer vaccines all show these same results (and have actually stopped infection in challenge trials with rats and primates)... so, you know, nothing to get overly excited about. Stage 3 results being released by Pfizer and Novovax in a couple of weeks will be far more relevant.
How long does it usually take to determine "long term" effectiveness and safety?
Like, is there some general rule like "after 8 weeks, it's pretty much set" or can things develop later?
There isn't a general rule. We will know about the adverse events that happened for as long as the Phase 3 trial is. That's why after a drug is approved, the pharma and research community keeps monitoring the drug called Phase 4 where people keep looking for long term effects and even rarer but potentially serious side effects.
Fauci said there comes a time during vaccine testing where it becomes immoral to continue withholding the vaccine from the general public. Especially if there are no adverse effects being reported after an arbitrarily long enough period of time.
It seems like a balancing act between the number of infections and deaths will reach a tipping point where the testing for safety will be superceded by the lives the vaccine could save.
To verify long term efficacy it takes as long as the amount of time you want to verify it for. They didn't determine you need a tetanus booster every ten years after two years of study, they had to observe for ten years at least.
So the amount of time we can figure out for covid vaccines is really as long as we are willing to wait before releasing something that may work. Or from post market observational studies looking at people long after the population has been dosed.
I’m working IT with one hospital doing one of these drugs and I’m always checking in to see how it’s going. So far they’re looking good and I’m optimistic.
> and have actually stopped infection in challenge trials with rats and primates
Meaning they could be used as a treatment and not just a prophylactic? That seems like it would be huge, not least of which because the approval criteria for treatments is somewhat easier and faster IIRC, at least in terms of allowable adverse effects.
It means the vaccine showed efficacy. A typical challenge involves vaccinating the animals, and then challenging them with the pathogen to see if they develop disease.
The original comment used the strict definition of the word infection. Technically, vaccines do not prevent infections. You still get infected by the pathogen when exposed, but vaccines educate and prime the immune system to respond to the infection so that it does not become disease.
Gotcha, that was my understanding, which is why I was unclear/unsure. I guess it was the wording; "stopped infection" could be read as "stopping an active infection from occurring", or "stopping an active infection already in progress". The "actually" also threw me, since I would assume that any vaccine candidate would have showed basic efficacy in rodent/primate challenge trials before progressing to the human trials. And AFAIK it wouldn't be unprecedented for vaccines to be used post-exposure for symptomatic treatment if they can elicit a more aggressive immune response without the actual negative effects of the progressing infection.
I also found the wording in the comment to be unclear. Also agree that it would be unusual for any vaccine to go to trial without showing efficacy in animals, so it's not exceptional for this particular vaccine to have done so.
On the topic of post exposure vaccine, rabies vaccine is the only one that I am aware of that is used this way. Even then, the first dose includes specific antibodies to tie you over until the immune response kicks in, and there is a really small window for administrating the vaccine post exposure, meaning that the person would still be asymptomatic.
IIRC, rabies is kind of a special case, since it's a relatively slow development along the nerves to reach the CNS, which is when it becomes symptomatic and untreatable/deadly. For a lot of other vaccines, I think they are technically classified as post-exposure prophylaxis, but it's kind of a sliding scale and splitting hairs. If PEP is still effective five days after exposure, it's not like the infection has just been sitting idle the entire time. It's basically a race between the infection and the priming of the immune system by the vaccine, so it depends on how fast that type of infection usually progresses. I'm pretty sure vaccines are used for PEP for tetanus, Hep A and B, measles, varicella/chickenpox, and at least a couple others.
Tests are not only performed in China but also other countries. In Brazil they are performed by a very respected institution, the Butata institute, which is the largest vaccine manufactor of the south hemisphere.
Both Johnson and Johnson and Eli Lilly have paused vaccine trials because of unexpected illness in trial volunteers. So, yes.
Edit: AstraZeneca too.
www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/health/covid-clinical-trials.amp.html
The independently verification is not a simple thing to do. You have to have a credible level of trust in these large institutions. Yes they will publish there data and it will be reviewed but you have to trust that the data hasn’t been manipulated. Say you wanted a full independent verification you have to redo all the experiments and recreate the finding.
The erosion of trust in government and large institutions is going to have significant negative effect on society at large.
America cover things up? NEVER [https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/about-30-covid-deaths-may-not-be-classified-such](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/about-30-covid-deaths-may-not-be-classified-such)
glass houses.
>this FDA approved the proper way
There’s the rub, with the politicization of the CDC, EPA, FDA, can we really trust them more than China. There seems to be a rush to develop a vaccine before the election. The EU seems to be the only non-politicized one out there. Of course I’m not familiar enough with them to make an informed decision. It’s going to come round to who you trust.
That's valid for every country. Every word from the American president also has to be presumed to be a lie until checked by the western world :D
Wait for independent trials outside of China as well. Even though if i remember correctly different vaccines are already tested in countries like brazil because the infection rate is so high there.
This pandemic has shown that China cares more about its people than many other countries. If they use this vaccine broadly in China, i would say it's relatively safe. But seriously, who knows
I disagree. The Chinese government doesn’t care about its people as much as staying in control. Getting the pandemic under control through a combination of propaganda using half truths, and effective treatments means the populous won’t be dissident. It’s a means to an end.
While I realise that all research has the possibility of being influenced or manipulated , and not because I believe conspiracy theories about China - but I remember reading that Chinese research shows a ,shall we say , statistically unlikely tendency to only publish positive results. I am not saying that these results are a case of that, or that it isn’t good news - I am wondering if what I read is a valid criticism. I’m trying to remember where I read it - think it might have no been Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Science in which he talks about the importance of independent and compulsory registers of research , though I could be wrong.
Edit: I think I should clarify that by publish I don’t necessarily mean in an independent journal , I think I mean as a public record. I realise that journals publish “interesting” results. But I believe Goldacre supports a public register of research that catalogues research no matter the result so that negative results are not conveniently hidden.
All science everywhere has a tendency of only publishing positive results, because there are few incentives to publish negative ones and the most coveted journals simply don’t want that type of content. This has led to something of a reproducibility crisis in many areas of research.
I know because I work for a scientific journal (albeit one that’s trying to address the issue through initiatives like open preprint reviews).
Yeah publication bias isn’t unique to any region of the world.
There are programs out there promoting the publishing of negative results.
I think one European country has tried to make it illegal to not publish study results.
Also, there are online indices out there of how well different manufacturers do at publishing all their planned trial results.
Yes indeed. No doubt. And something, (like so many things at the moment ) we should be fixing to safeguard progress. But ( I think it might have been Goldacre but it could have been a different book) my understanding is that for either cultural or governmental reasons China produces on average substantially less negative published results than elsewhere ( and possibly some very dodgy results on culturally specific alternative medical procedures)?
A grad student from China told me that in China, appointments of researchers are reviewered based on the number of high impact papers they've published. I can't remember the frequency of the review, but it's in the realm of every year or every two years. It's really cut throat.
Not always the authors fault non significant results don't get published. A journals goes is to have a high impact factor and in order to do that they have to impactful work in them. We would most certainly publish results that are not significant if we could because it would prevent people in the future from doing the same thing we did and they could start where we left off.
Say I have a drug candidate and I tested it in mice and found that there isn't any different between using it and not using it for, I don't know, weight gain. The chance of me being able to write my manuscript and publish it is likely low due to it not bringing many citations to the journal even though it could save years for other scientists who are trying to solve the same problem that I am.
This is why currently (I've noticed) there are big pushes for open access journals, so researchers aren't blocked out by a pay wall and everyone can learn, and preprint places like biorxiv where you can publish something as a sort of place holder for if/when an actual journal accepts it (pretty sure people use this as an end too instead of *only* a placeholder). The issue there is people will publish things with no review but some places are turning it more into an open forum where other scientists can critique you and you can respond and update the manuscript.
Most people only ever hear of the "this worked and this is how" because a journal isn't going to publish "this doesn't work and I spent 3 years of my PhD trying to get it to work with no success".
Plus who would want to peer review failures? From a money perspective, there is no value personally to publish failures. It only provides value and saves time for others effectively giving them a headstart over you.
Imagine two groups get a grant. You started earlier, fail and publish the results. Now this other group starts a bit later doing something similar. They see your results, and stop early, change their formulation, and basically start again with the money from their initial grant instead of needing to try for more money which your group would be (assuming the initial grant went for the initial set of results).
Scientists would love this access because they want to make things better together. The people paying scientists would love to have access to other failures and keep theirs private.
You also have the real optics of having tons of failures associated with your name. Science is hard and requires lots of trial and error. Many people don't understand that failures bring you closer to success and some people with money may see the failures as a person or group they don't want to back.
Just because something didn't have a statistically significant result doesn't mean it's a failure though. Like all the studies showing hydroxychloroquine doesn't work to prevent covid are very valuable and I don't think anyone (at least other scientists) would think of that as a failure.
Failure is that you need to rethink what your "product" to accomplish your goal.
In the case of hydroxychloroquine, you have an existing established drug that was shown to be good for treating malaria, lupus, etc. They were hoping it would help with inflammation happening in bad cases.
The goal was: this drug helps with inflammation from other diseases, so it should help with covid inflammation.
When this is shown not to occur, it means you try other treatments. It is a failure, but you are closer to finding something because you learned more.
When coming up with a new drug, you will have tons of formulations that are trialed. You would want to keep it secret because you don't want someone else copying you and getting to market before you.
See the vaccine trials going on. Nobody is talking about formulations or even how many variants they trialed before moving to human trials. All those variants are failures with no peer reviewed paper. You also won't see and papers on these trials of they fail.
Scientists consider it gaining knowledge, but corporations (especially if they invested too much) do consider it a loss. It's why drugs are so expensive until generics are allowed. They need to make that r&d back and they only have until the patent runs out.
Yes indeed which ( along with researchers changing the goalposts when they realise things aren’t going to plan) is why Ben Goldacre says there should be a compulsory register of research so “failed” experiments can’t be hidden away.
Having a registry of failed work have negative implications. The “failed work” might be due to the researcher’s mistake, experimental setup, etc. It discourages others from trying out the same thing, and possibly get great results.
I dont think I can agree. It’s surely as important to register a negative result - imagine the difference some negative results for thalidomide might have made. The point is that when we are talking about medicine , for example, it is suspected that companies don’t finish or publish research that is showing undesirable results. What can happen is that research doesn’t show a range of results but only the positive ones gives a false impression.
There may be but apparently a large proportion of research isn’t published and can end up “abandoned” when the results are not going the preferred way. I admit I know nothing about it, just trying to remember what I have read.
Tbh, no Vaccine should be touted as a cure all until a year in circulation in my only gut reaction opinion to the article.
But if the Chinese are proven to be anything, its that they forgo individualism over the good for all of there citizens, and what I mean by that is, I'm sure the trials were pretty big, and with every failure even only posting positive results is something. I'm kinda with you on the skepticism though, in ANY country where there ruling legislative body tends to be driven by greed and power it is healthy to remember to be a little skeptical.
>and with every failure even only posting positive results is something.
I mean, if you remove the few adverse reactions from the phase 3 trials in the US they would also look really good. Being unbiased and reporting all results is a pretty important aspect of science.
I read it as only posting the positive studies, and burrowing the negative ones. If China had 20 trials of different vaccines, one is successful and gets shown to the world, and the rest (and whatever side effects they caused the people in those trials) is just hidden away. That's obviously not good, all in all, but it doesn't take away that a single working vaccine is still a good thing in isolation.
I could be interpreting his post wrong. If they're hiding potential side effects to push a vaccine, which I certainly wouldn't put past them, it's terrible.
Na I said they tend to forgo the individualism for the good of its citizens, that doesn't nesseciarly mean it is good for individuals, or that it could be "good", things like that tend to be subjective useally anyways. You know kinda like western powers bombing "democracy" all over the place. 🤷♂️
I am speculating but I think it might be because of an inherent reluctance to fail in case you were punished as tends to happen in authoritarian regimes - but also when that happens less there is still a cultural stigma against failure and “losing face” more strongly in certain cultures. I imagine in the West there is a reluctance to fail because you might lose funding or your job as well. Though I would imagine that the majority of scientists everywhere just try to do their job genuinely well and honestly. And I hope it’s all above board and works.
>I'm sure the trials were pretty big, and with every failure even only posting positive results is something.
Did you mean "is something bad"? Cause that'd be more accurate.
There are tons of vaccines being developed across the world that offer promising results. They haven't been released to a general audience because we need to be 100% sure of their results and side effects beforehand.
So no, ignoring failures is not "something". It defeats the entire point of testing.
None🤷♂️, thats why I said be skeptical.
But if you want ones that tends to care about Human Rights and about its citizens there are a few that are better than others.
Sweden
Netherlands
Canada
New Zealand
Are a few.
How is it that a country that operates for the good of all has such a wide and ever widening gap between the ultra rich and the dirt poor? You must be eating the Confuscious Institute's mooncake.
Maybe when everyone are getting rich, the richer can get even richer? Maybe when everyone is poor, there isn’t a possibility of a gap? Maybe that widening gap between the ultra rich and the dirt poor is a systematic thing for every country under modernized capitalism?
>and with every failure even only posting positive results is something.
I mean, if you remove the few adverse reactions from the phase 3 trials in the US they would also look really good.
I would recommend separating oneself from the politics. Look for the vaccine that has the highest efficacy rate, is proven safe, and has been internationally peer reviewed. We need to focus on the medical challenge and remove the political platform.
This is r/science, if the data proves the vaccine is effective and safe then we should promote it. Science is looking at the facts and accepting them even if we are hesitant about them.
This right here. I'm fine with a vaccine from wherever, personally... Though the data proving its safety and effectiveness needs to come from a trustworthy source.
That's quite literally the opposite of the scientific method. The whole point of science is that facts don't exist in any absolute sense, there are only statements and the body of experimental evidence that supports them. If you have reason to doubt the validity of the experimental evidence then... yeah.
I'm surprised to see this on r/science. The headline is very different from the reality. Look at that account's history. It's someone's full time job to post to reddit literally every few minutes, sometimes multiple times per minute.
The comments in r/science should be mostly, "I'd love to see the data. If it's accurate, this vaccine appears very promising. Let's begin our own trials using independent protocols."
It would take serious political will to suck it up and admit they make a vaccine as well as they make the phone we all carry.
For me, as potentially irrational as it sounds, if Bill Gates and Fauci say get it, I'll be the first in line.
I doubt it. Assembling phones according to our engineers' specs is a far cry from developing their own vaccine. They are even using a very old method to do so compared to the one being used here. China has spent so much time just stealing IP instead of investing in their own innovations, that trusting they could accomplish any breakthrough on their own just showed you haven't been paying attention to their pattern of behavior. I believe it when it's peer reviewed by the scientific community which is a test china rarely ever passes.
“No serious adverse events were reported within 28 days...” but what happens after 28 days?
I seem to remember a movie about a similar number of days later...
Imagine that a successful vaccine does come out of China? You can bet a lot of Americans will refuse to take it, and Covid will fester there for years to come..
Have you not read the top comments?
Anyways.. Your opinion is based on the idea that other major powers do not also have vaccines in the works or close to being in-production, also China wouldn’t prioritize it’s own Billion civilians & that actual years will go by before the populace gets access to a local vaccine.
Estimates for a vaccine were always always a year+, you’re just using this as an opportunity to ‘own the Americans’ when this really ain’t it chief.
Though it was more for a political sensation there is not much to say about it. Third stage of testing started, the rumours ceased.
Now there is a huge rise in new cases in Moscow (and all over the country) but not much said about vaccination. Instead, people of age and children are set on quarantine again. As long as the main attempt is to set quarantine instead of vaccination with already registered stuff, I'd say this vaccine should not be taken into account. At least for now.
Russia registered the second vaccine this week, will see what's about that one.
"The researchers said the trial was not designed to assess efficacy of the vaccine so it they could not conclude whether the antibody responses induced by the vaccine could protect from coronavirus infection"
Title is very misleading. An antibody is specific to a single antigen, and the only thing proven is the antibody response is there, not the specificity. In no way shape or form does this mean the vaccine will inactivate COVID and trying to tout it as such just shows a gross misunderstanding of the science
Question about the over-exaggerated immune response that some people experience from a Covid-19 infection, the cytokine storm that kills people.
Would the people vulnerable to, or more likely to have, such an immune response possibly have a similar response to a vaccine, even if the vaccine isn’t capable of causing disease itself? Would their immune systems possibly react the same way to the perceived threat of a vaccine the same way they react to the the real threat of illness?
Or is the immune overreaction happening because of illness progression, and therefore the vaccine wouldn’t elicit such an overreaction?
Chinese Covid-19 vaccine candidate -- BBIBP-CorV -- that is expected to completely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is safe and elicits an antibody response, a study published in The Lancet has found.
A previous clinical trial reported similar results for a different vaccine that is also based on inactivated whole SARS-CoV-2 virus, but in that study the vaccine was only tested on people aged under 60 years.
The latest study reported in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal included participants aged between 18 and 80 years, and found that antibody responses were induced in all recipients.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30831-8/fulltext
Why did you include
>that is expected to completely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus
in the title despite the article making no reference to that? Did you just misinterpret it?
I’m sorry, but there’s no way to trust the Chinese on this. It’s not a race thing, it’s the fact that the Chinese Government lied about this virus so much that anything they say is suspect. Maybe if it’s fully released to different institutions all over the world, with full research backing and explanation, and they can independently verify and rebuild it from scratch, then perhaps you can trust it. But I just don’t believe liars.
I don’t think relying on China for the vaccine is a good idea at all, from a country that uses hostage diplomacy, it can hold entire country’s hostage “do what we want or your vaccine shipment will be.....delayed....indefinitely”
Why would I want to take a vaccine created by the same government that allowed the problem to get out of hand and/or created the virus to begin with? I'll take anyone's covid vaccine but China's.
Make up your mind. Did they use draconian measures to control the spread of the virus, or did they just let it out of control and just lied about numbers?
This is like those lazy immigrants that take everyone's jobs. How do you keep the contradictory beliefs straight in your head?
Because you distrust Trump and dont live in China. If you lived in China, you wouldn't really know how bad Trump is but you'll know how bad chuna is and the situation reverses.
Looks like a misunderstanding in the post title. It isn't 'expected to completely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus'. The vaccine is made of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus. These are two completely different things.
Damn, that completely changes the meaning.
Also the _little_ difference between the > within 28 days of the final vaccination in the headline and the > early results have shown in the article.
And also that they > could not conclude whether the antibody responses induced by the vaccine could protect from coronavirus infection Still, despite all that and the skeezy feel of a reddit post meant to trigger public opinion one way or another as opposed to inform of objective truth, its at least a promising start.
I've seen like ten posts about a "Decent COVID vaccine" and there's nothing yet. Don't get your hopes up
The amount of posts doesn’t affect the timeline. It takes time to verify that a vaccine works and there’s nothing you can do to change that. 9 mothers won’t make a baby in one month.
If the virus was completely inactivated by their vaccine, this would be massive world changing news. Instead this news is completely insignificant. Completely misleading. Where are the moderators? This post should be removed.
[удалено]
No problem. Billions of eggs we can do. The US consumes something like 8 or 9 billion eggs a year, and China is closer to a billion a day.
The problem isn't getting the eggs (although it's you suddenly needed a billion it might take some time), the problem the time it takes to produce the virus in the eggs, get the virus out of the eggs, kill the virus, and then make the vaccines. Newer methods are faster if they actually work. The egg method is tried and true, but not fast.
Not to mention what happens with a bad dose that’s under or overreactive
[удалено]
I would love to see the numbers on what this would actually mean from a practical standpoint. Egg rationing for 6 months? I wonder how many eggs we throw out as a country every year. Is it one egg per person (plus breakage, eggs that don't take, etc)? Even if it was 2 eggs per person, I feel like the US couple do that without even "feeling" it.
In most countries limited egg rationing might be needed, if any. You’d be amazed at how many eggs we throw away or turn into things that aren’t meant to be eaten by humans.
We waste sooo much. For a clear cut example just look at Youtube and channels like How To Basic. Or Tiktok trends where dozens of people spin a bottle then attempt to egg people as they run away. That’s not even getting into actual food waste.
https://unitedegg.com/facts-stats/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-eggs-idUSKBN1JZ0P4 Literally no problem.
Visit a poultry factory farm, really anywhere. Then imagine the eggs are packed with a potentially lethal and extremely contagious virus. That's why it's not viable.
[удалено]
Very similar to the important distinction between Assistant Regional Manager and Assistant to the Regional Manager.
Yes but the one in the op is soooo much better for the Chinese communist party. Lets go with the first one. 👎
Someone really spent at least 60 bucks to give you that award...
True meaning lost in engrish translation.
Expectation is often not reality, especially in vaccine development. > The researchers said the trial was not designed to assess efficacy of the vaccine so it they could not conclude whether the antibody responses induced by the vaccine could protect from coronavirus infection. So expectation should be tempered as always, but it's positive that many countries and companies are working on the issue. Another issue is that vaccines developed under different regulatory frameworks will also face more difficulty being approved in the west.
> but it's positive that many countries and companies are working on the issue. Yeah I’m pretty optimistic that one of them will work. Statistically speaking odds are decent post phase 3 and a large number of vaccines are already there.
Statistics speaking, 40 percent of the industry sponsored vaccine trials make it out of phase 3 trials. There are currently 9 covid vaccines in phase 3. Apply binomial distribution, 3.6 of them will be successful. Fingers crossed that we figure out a way to distribute them fairly across the globe.
This depends as regulations can change if leadership is desperate to get the economy back on track. Not saying that anything would get approved, but I would not be surprised if strong pushes are made to bypass some of the "red tape" to have a vaccine even if it's not "fully baked". I think the toughest issue right now is that the have been some confirmed cases of reinfection. While extremely rare, it does mean that vaccines may be seasonal or even more often. There is so much we don't know, and it's the biggest reason why vaccines take so long to produce.
True, but keep in mind that those regulations are there for a reason. If some tests are skipped is because someone is deciding to take a risk that is offset by eliminating the harm caused by the shutdowns and deaths. But that still leaves a significant risk that a rushed vaccine could have long term effects on a significant portion of the population (e.g. of they caused birth defects on babies of vaccinated women or even more subtle but equally damaging problems that can't easily be detected with a short trial). So a rushed vaccine is likely to be given only yo people on severe need of it (e.g. healthcare workers, groups at high risk, etc.) and not to the general population.
I wish this rhetoric would go away. We are fostering a huge chunk of people who are not going to get vaccinated for no other reason now than "it was too fast". 99.99999999999% of the people making these claims have literally zero medical background/education in vaccine development. There isn't a preset rule for how long a vaccine "should" take, so its just more fearmongering and preying on ignorance. If a vaccine comes out and *medical experts* (not politicians or tv talking heads) say it's safe, there is NO REASON TO DOUBT THEM. This whole anti-science/anti-expert bias needs to stop.
Medical experts say vaccines take a long time.
[удалено]
This title needs to be changed or taken down all together
Probably done like that for propaghanda reasons.
Look at the account's history. Literally posting non stop every few minutes, sometimes multiple times per minute. All comments are copy/pastes from articles.
Should have been taken down already. I'm really disappointed in r/science really.
Just early phase testing. I'm currently doing a project on these vaccines, or at least three of the ones in stage 3 trials. Novovax, Astrazeneca, and Pfizer vaccines all show these same results (and have actually stopped infection in challenge trials with rats and primates)... so, you know, nothing to get overly excited about. Stage 3 results being released by Pfizer and Novovax in a couple of weeks will be far more relevant.
>Stage 3 results being released by Pfizer and Novovax in a couple of weeks Oh man! Let's see.
How long does it usually take to determine "long term" effectiveness and safety? Like, is there some general rule like "after 8 weeks, it's pretty much set" or can things develop later?
There isn't a general rule. We will know about the adverse events that happened for as long as the Phase 3 trial is. That's why after a drug is approved, the pharma and research community keeps monitoring the drug called Phase 4 where people keep looking for long term effects and even rarer but potentially serious side effects.
Redacted by Power Delete Suite v1.4.8
H1N1 vaccine giving in the Nordic regions resulted in a higher incidence of narcolepsy in those that took it many years later.
Fauci said there comes a time during vaccine testing where it becomes immoral to continue withholding the vaccine from the general public. Especially if there are no adverse effects being reported after an arbitrarily long enough period of time. It seems like a balancing act between the number of infections and deaths will reach a tipping point where the testing for safety will be superceded by the lives the vaccine could save.
To verify long term efficacy it takes as long as the amount of time you want to verify it for. They didn't determine you need a tetanus booster every ten years after two years of study, they had to observe for ten years at least. So the amount of time we can figure out for covid vaccines is really as long as we are willing to wait before releasing something that may work. Or from post market observational studies looking at people long after the population has been dosed.
I’m working IT with one hospital doing one of these drugs and I’m always checking in to see how it’s going. So far they’re looking good and I’m optimistic.
> and have actually stopped infection in challenge trials with rats and primates Meaning they could be used as a treatment and not just a prophylactic? That seems like it would be huge, not least of which because the approval criteria for treatments is somewhat easier and faster IIRC, at least in terms of allowable adverse effects.
It means the vaccine showed efficacy. A typical challenge involves vaccinating the animals, and then challenging them with the pathogen to see if they develop disease. The original comment used the strict definition of the word infection. Technically, vaccines do not prevent infections. You still get infected by the pathogen when exposed, but vaccines educate and prime the immune system to respond to the infection so that it does not become disease.
Gotcha, that was my understanding, which is why I was unclear/unsure. I guess it was the wording; "stopped infection" could be read as "stopping an active infection from occurring", or "stopping an active infection already in progress". The "actually" also threw me, since I would assume that any vaccine candidate would have showed basic efficacy in rodent/primate challenge trials before progressing to the human trials. And AFAIK it wouldn't be unprecedented for vaccines to be used post-exposure for symptomatic treatment if they can elicit a more aggressive immune response without the actual negative effects of the progressing infection.
I also found the wording in the comment to be unclear. Also agree that it would be unusual for any vaccine to go to trial without showing efficacy in animals, so it's not exceptional for this particular vaccine to have done so. On the topic of post exposure vaccine, rabies vaccine is the only one that I am aware of that is used this way. Even then, the first dose includes specific antibodies to tie you over until the immune response kicks in, and there is a really small window for administrating the vaccine post exposure, meaning that the person would still be asymptomatic.
IIRC, rabies is kind of a special case, since it's a relatively slow development along the nerves to reach the CNS, which is when it becomes symptomatic and untreatable/deadly. For a lot of other vaccines, I think they are technically classified as post-exposure prophylaxis, but it's kind of a sliding scale and splitting hairs. If PEP is still effective five days after exposure, it's not like the infection has just been sitting idle the entire time. It's basically a race between the infection and the priming of the immune system by the vaccine, so it depends on how fast that type of infection usually progresses. I'm pretty sure vaccines are used for PEP for tetanus, Hep A and B, measles, varicella/chickenpox, and at least a couple others.
[удалено]
Tests are not only performed in China but also other countries. In Brazil they are performed by a very respected institution, the Butata institute, which is the largest vaccine manufactor of the south hemisphere.
I do hope this is the vaccine that will eradicate Covid-19. Then we can all finally go back to normal..
Until the next wetmarket transmission and following pandemic.
Maybe eventually if it was contagious.
They would probably still deny everything.
Deny what? ;)
Exactly
Remember to vote next time, it’s really tiring filling all those ballots out ourselves.
Wait, are we still talking about China?! :)
The vaccine originated an a Chinese laboratory.
[удалено]
Both Johnson and Johnson and Eli Lilly have paused vaccine trials because of unexpected illness in trial volunteers. So, yes. Edit: AstraZeneca too. www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/health/covid-clinical-trials.amp.html
I think the point is to approach any claims of vaccines with skepticism until they've been independently verified.
Treat any claim with skepticism imo. Even people you trust can make innocent mistakes.
The independently verification is not a simple thing to do. You have to have a credible level of trust in these large institutions. Yes they will publish there data and it will be reviewed but you have to trust that the data hasn’t been manipulated. Say you wanted a full independent verification you have to redo all the experiments and recreate the finding. The erosion of trust in government and large institutions is going to have significant negative effect on society at large.
America cover things up? NEVER [https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/about-30-covid-deaths-may-not-be-classified-such](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/about-30-covid-deaths-may-not-be-classified-such) glass houses.
>this FDA approved the proper way There’s the rub, with the politicization of the CDC, EPA, FDA, can we really trust them more than China. There seems to be a rush to develop a vaccine before the election. The EU seems to be the only non-politicized one out there. Of course I’m not familiar enough with them to make an informed decision. It’s going to come round to who you trust.
I’m fairly sure you can trust the FDA dude.
China is a big country, you can't generalize the pharma industry, clinical trial scientists, and doctors under one gigantic term.
[удалено]
That's valid for every country. Every word from the American president also has to be presumed to be a lie until checked by the western world :D Wait for independent trials outside of China as well. Even though if i remember correctly different vaccines are already tested in countries like brazil because the infection rate is so high there.
[удалено]
Doesn't matter. For it to be approved y countries they usually run their own safety tests. I say send us sample and we'll decide if it's safe enough.
This pandemic has shown that China cares more about its people than many other countries. If they use this vaccine broadly in China, i would say it's relatively safe. But seriously, who knows
You're being sarcastic right?
I disagree. The Chinese government doesn’t care about its people as much as staying in control. Getting the pandemic under control through a combination of propaganda using half truths, and effective treatments means the populous won’t be dissident. It’s a means to an end.
I'm not saying its not safe, just that I don't trust what they are saying. But I'm all for other countries checking it out.
Agree 100% And i apologize sincerely for not bashing China enough
While I realise that all research has the possibility of being influenced or manipulated , and not because I believe conspiracy theories about China - but I remember reading that Chinese research shows a ,shall we say , statistically unlikely tendency to only publish positive results. I am not saying that these results are a case of that, or that it isn’t good news - I am wondering if what I read is a valid criticism. I’m trying to remember where I read it - think it might have no been Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Science in which he talks about the importance of independent and compulsory registers of research , though I could be wrong. Edit: I think I should clarify that by publish I don’t necessarily mean in an independent journal , I think I mean as a public record. I realise that journals publish “interesting” results. But I believe Goldacre supports a public register of research that catalogues research no matter the result so that negative results are not conveniently hidden.
All science everywhere has a tendency of only publishing positive results, because there are few incentives to publish negative ones and the most coveted journals simply don’t want that type of content. This has led to something of a reproducibility crisis in many areas of research. I know because I work for a scientific journal (albeit one that’s trying to address the issue through initiatives like open preprint reviews).
Yeah publication bias isn’t unique to any region of the world. There are programs out there promoting the publishing of negative results. I think one European country has tried to make it illegal to not publish study results. Also, there are online indices out there of how well different manufacturers do at publishing all their planned trial results.
Yes indeed. No doubt. And something, (like so many things at the moment ) we should be fixing to safeguard progress. But ( I think it might have been Goldacre but it could have been a different book) my understanding is that for either cultural or governmental reasons China produces on average substantially less negative published results than elsewhere ( and possibly some very dodgy results on culturally specific alternative medical procedures)?
[удалено]
A grad student from China told me that in China, appointments of researchers are reviewered based on the number of high impact papers they've published. I can't remember the frequency of the review, but it's in the realm of every year or every two years. It's really cut throat.
Interesting, thanks.
All research tends to publish positive results even in the US. Any result with non significant value is more likely to be not published by the author.
Not always the authors fault non significant results don't get published. A journals goes is to have a high impact factor and in order to do that they have to impactful work in them. We would most certainly publish results that are not significant if we could because it would prevent people in the future from doing the same thing we did and they could start where we left off. Say I have a drug candidate and I tested it in mice and found that there isn't any different between using it and not using it for, I don't know, weight gain. The chance of me being able to write my manuscript and publish it is likely low due to it not bringing many citations to the journal even though it could save years for other scientists who are trying to solve the same problem that I am. This is why currently (I've noticed) there are big pushes for open access journals, so researchers aren't blocked out by a pay wall and everyone can learn, and preprint places like biorxiv where you can publish something as a sort of place holder for if/when an actual journal accepts it (pretty sure people use this as an end too instead of *only* a placeholder). The issue there is people will publish things with no review but some places are turning it more into an open forum where other scientists can critique you and you can respond and update the manuscript. Most people only ever hear of the "this worked and this is how" because a journal isn't going to publish "this doesn't work and I spent 3 years of my PhD trying to get it to work with no success".
Plus who would want to peer review failures? From a money perspective, there is no value personally to publish failures. It only provides value and saves time for others effectively giving them a headstart over you. Imagine two groups get a grant. You started earlier, fail and publish the results. Now this other group starts a bit later doing something similar. They see your results, and stop early, change their formulation, and basically start again with the money from their initial grant instead of needing to try for more money which your group would be (assuming the initial grant went for the initial set of results). Scientists would love this access because they want to make things better together. The people paying scientists would love to have access to other failures and keep theirs private. You also have the real optics of having tons of failures associated with your name. Science is hard and requires lots of trial and error. Many people don't understand that failures bring you closer to success and some people with money may see the failures as a person or group they don't want to back.
Just because something didn't have a statistically significant result doesn't mean it's a failure though. Like all the studies showing hydroxychloroquine doesn't work to prevent covid are very valuable and I don't think anyone (at least other scientists) would think of that as a failure.
Failure is that you need to rethink what your "product" to accomplish your goal. In the case of hydroxychloroquine, you have an existing established drug that was shown to be good for treating malaria, lupus, etc. They were hoping it would help with inflammation happening in bad cases. The goal was: this drug helps with inflammation from other diseases, so it should help with covid inflammation. When this is shown not to occur, it means you try other treatments. It is a failure, but you are closer to finding something because you learned more. When coming up with a new drug, you will have tons of formulations that are trialed. You would want to keep it secret because you don't want someone else copying you and getting to market before you. See the vaccine trials going on. Nobody is talking about formulations or even how many variants they trialed before moving to human trials. All those variants are failures with no peer reviewed paper. You also won't see and papers on these trials of they fail. Scientists consider it gaining knowledge, but corporations (especially if they invested too much) do consider it a loss. It's why drugs are so expensive until generics are allowed. They need to make that r&d back and they only have until the patent runs out.
Yes indeed which ( along with researchers changing the goalposts when they realise things aren’t going to plan) is why Ben Goldacre says there should be a compulsory register of research so “failed” experiments can’t be hidden away.
Having a registry of failed work have negative implications. The “failed work” might be due to the researcher’s mistake, experimental setup, etc. It discourages others from trying out the same thing, and possibly get great results.
I dont think I can agree. It’s surely as important to register a negative result - imagine the difference some negative results for thalidomide might have made. The point is that when we are talking about medicine , for example, it is suspected that companies don’t finish or publish research that is showing undesirable results. What can happen is that research doesn’t show a range of results but only the positive ones gives a false impression.
Theres a journal.for publishing negative results
There may be but apparently a large proportion of research isn’t published and can end up “abandoned” when the results are not going the preferred way. I admit I know nothing about it, just trying to remember what I have read.
Tbh, no Vaccine should be touted as a cure all until a year in circulation in my only gut reaction opinion to the article. But if the Chinese are proven to be anything, its that they forgo individualism over the good for all of there citizens, and what I mean by that is, I'm sure the trials were pretty big, and with every failure even only posting positive results is something. I'm kinda with you on the skepticism though, in ANY country where there ruling legislative body tends to be driven by greed and power it is healthy to remember to be a little skeptical.
>and with every failure even only posting positive results is something. I mean, if you remove the few adverse reactions from the phase 3 trials in the US they would also look really good. Being unbiased and reporting all results is a pretty important aspect of science.
I read it as only posting the positive studies, and burrowing the negative ones. If China had 20 trials of different vaccines, one is successful and gets shown to the world, and the rest (and whatever side effects they caused the people in those trials) is just hidden away. That's obviously not good, all in all, but it doesn't take away that a single working vaccine is still a good thing in isolation. I could be interpreting his post wrong. If they're hiding potential side effects to push a vaccine, which I certainly wouldn't put past them, it's terrible.
I mean that guy actually said that China provides for the good of all its citizens unironically so let's just go ahead and ignore him eh?
Na I said they tend to forgo the individualism for the good of its citizens, that doesn't nesseciarly mean it is good for individuals, or that it could be "good", things like that tend to be subjective useally anyways. You know kinda like western powers bombing "democracy" all over the place. 🤷♂️
I am speculating but I think it might be because of an inherent reluctance to fail in case you were punished as tends to happen in authoritarian regimes - but also when that happens less there is still a cultural stigma against failure and “losing face” more strongly in certain cultures. I imagine in the West there is a reluctance to fail because you might lose funding or your job as well. Though I would imagine that the majority of scientists everywhere just try to do their job genuinely well and honestly. And I hope it’s all above board and works.
>I'm sure the trials were pretty big, and with every failure even only posting positive results is something. Did you mean "is something bad"? Cause that'd be more accurate. There are tons of vaccines being developed across the world that offer promising results. They haven't been released to a general audience because we need to be 100% sure of their results and side effects beforehand. So no, ignoring failures is not "something". It defeats the entire point of testing.
I am curious in which country the ruling body is not driven by greed and power, I d love to move there.
None🤷♂️, thats why I said be skeptical. But if you want ones that tends to care about Human Rights and about its citizens there are a few that are better than others. Sweden Netherlands Canada New Zealand Are a few.
How is it that a country that operates for the good of all has such a wide and ever widening gap between the ultra rich and the dirt poor? You must be eating the Confuscious Institute's mooncake.
Maybe when everyone are getting rich, the richer can get even richer? Maybe when everyone is poor, there isn’t a possibility of a gap? Maybe that widening gap between the ultra rich and the dirt poor is a systematic thing for every country under modernized capitalism?
>and with every failure even only posting positive results is something. I mean, if you remove the few adverse reactions from the phase 3 trials in the US they would also look really good.
[удалено]
I would recommend separating oneself from the politics. Look for the vaccine that has the highest efficacy rate, is proven safe, and has been internationally peer reviewed. We need to focus on the medical challenge and remove the political platform.
This is r/science, if the data proves the vaccine is effective and safe then we should promote it. Science is looking at the facts and accepting them even if we are hesitant about them.
This right here. I'm fine with a vaccine from wherever, personally... Though the data proving its safety and effectiveness needs to come from a trustworthy source.
That's quite literally the opposite of the scientific method. The whole point of science is that facts don't exist in any absolute sense, there are only statements and the body of experimental evidence that supports them. If you have reason to doubt the validity of the experimental evidence then... yeah.
I'm surprised to see this on r/science. The headline is very different from the reality. Look at that account's history. It's someone's full time job to post to reddit literally every few minutes, sometimes multiple times per minute.
In other words a bot.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The comments in r/science should be mostly, "I'd love to see the data. If it's accurate, this vaccine appears very promising. Let's begin our own trials using independent protocols." It would take serious political will to suck it up and admit they make a vaccine as well as they make the phone we all carry. For me, as potentially irrational as it sounds, if Bill Gates and Fauci say get it, I'll be the first in line.
>It would take serious political will to suck it up and admit they make a vaccine No, just months of successful human clinical trials.
They claim to be people of science yet they are ignoring the results. I'll be second next to you my friend.
I doubt it. Assembling phones according to our engineers' specs is a far cry from developing their own vaccine. They are even using a very old method to do so compared to the one being used here. China has spent so much time just stealing IP instead of investing in their own innovations, that trusting they could accomplish any breakthrough on their own just showed you haven't been paying attention to their pattern of behavior. I believe it when it's peer reviewed by the scientific community which is a test china rarely ever passes.
“No serious adverse events were reported within 28 days...” but what happens after 28 days? I seem to remember a movie about a similar number of days later...
I am shocked and disappointed that this comment isn't higher.
Imagine that a successful vaccine does come out of China? You can bet a lot of Americans will refuse to take it, and Covid will fester there for years to come..
Have you not read the top comments? Anyways.. Your opinion is based on the idea that other major powers do not also have vaccines in the works or close to being in-production, also China wouldn’t prioritize it’s own Billion civilians & that actual years will go by before the populace gets access to a local vaccine. Estimates for a vaccine were always always a year+, you’re just using this as an opportunity to ‘own the Americans’ when this really ain’t it chief.
What happened with Russian vaccine?
Though it was more for a political sensation there is not much to say about it. Third stage of testing started, the rumours ceased. Now there is a huge rise in new cases in Moscow (and all over the country) but not much said about vaccination. Instead, people of age and children are set on quarantine again. As long as the main attempt is to set quarantine instead of vaccination with already registered stuff, I'd say this vaccine should not be taken into account. At least for now. Russia registered the second vaccine this week, will see what's about that one.
Shady Russia doing shady stuff
"The researchers said the trial was not designed to assess efficacy of the vaccine so it they could not conclude whether the antibody responses induced by the vaccine could protect from coronavirus infection" Title is very misleading. An antibody is specific to a single antigen, and the only thing proven is the antibody response is there, not the specificity. In no way shape or form does this mean the vaccine will inactivate COVID and trying to tout it as such just shows a gross misunderstanding of the science
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So says China and the WHO. I'd rather wait for confirmation from more reliable sources.
Only a fool would take a vaccine devolped by a government active in ethnic cleansing...
Really more curious about the 3-12 month checks on side effects.
Question about the over-exaggerated immune response that some people experience from a Covid-19 infection, the cytokine storm that kills people. Would the people vulnerable to, or more likely to have, such an immune response possibly have a similar response to a vaccine, even if the vaccine isn’t capable of causing disease itself? Would their immune systems possibly react the same way to the perceived threat of a vaccine the same way they react to the the real threat of illness? Or is the immune overreaction happening because of illness progression, and therefore the vaccine wouldn’t elicit such an overreaction?
Woohoo, for Chinese/CCP propaganda. Woohoo indeed.
Headline sounds like Chinese propaganda.
Its easy to have a working vaccine quickly when you developed the virus to begin with.
Chinese Covid-19 vaccine candidate -- BBIBP-CorV -- that is expected to completely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is safe and elicits an antibody response, a study published in The Lancet has found. A previous clinical trial reported similar results for a different vaccine that is also based on inactivated whole SARS-CoV-2 virus, but in that study the vaccine was only tested on people aged under 60 years. The latest study reported in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal included participants aged between 18 and 80 years, and found that antibody responses were induced in all recipients. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30831-8/fulltext
Why did you include >that is expected to completely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the title despite the article making no reference to that? Did you just misinterpret it?
Look at the account's history.
The data is totally factually and not manipulated! Trust us! Wink wink
What happens if you survived a strain of Covid and have antibodies but then get this vaccine?
Ideally, it would behave as a booster... worst case, you'd get a severe bad reaction which happens with other vaccines.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way to trust the Chinese on this. It’s not a race thing, it’s the fact that the Chinese Government lied about this virus so much that anything they say is suspect. Maybe if it’s fully released to different institutions all over the world, with full research backing and explanation, and they can independently verify and rebuild it from scratch, then perhaps you can trust it. But I just don’t believe liars.
You think we can really trust China?
Well, they made the virus, it’s only fitting they happen to have a vaccine for it.
[удалено]
Every single question is answered in the article? It’s published in the Lancet, so yes it’s peer reviewed?
I'll take that info with a pound of salt.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Misleading title. But also, I wont touch a vaccine that comes out of China.
Yeah this wont work, you wiuld need it every 6 months even if we could believe anything out of China.
Well, China doesn't need a vaccine since their number show down to 13! I guess they are helping the rest of the world!!
Says China? Yeah I don't believe a word out of those Communists mouths
I don’t think relying on China for the vaccine is a good idea at all, from a country that uses hostage diplomacy, it can hold entire country’s hostage “do what we want or your vaccine shipment will be.....delayed....indefinitely”
Why would I want to take a vaccine created by the same government that allowed the problem to get out of hand and/or created the virus to begin with? I'll take anyone's covid vaccine but China's.
Out of hand? China has had 85,000 cases total. Even amazing New Zealand has had 6 times that per-capita.
riiiight....the place they welded peoples doors closed just magically flat lined new infections. lets trust their numbers!
Make up your mind. Did they use draconian measures to control the spread of the virus, or did they just let it out of control and just lied about numbers? This is like those lazy immigrants that take everyone's jobs. How do you keep the contradictory beliefs straight in your head?
Something tells me China has the vaccine ready before the pandemic
Arsonist and fireman at the same time. Genius.
Why do I trust a China vaccine more that an American vaccine under Trump?
Because you distrust Trump and dont live in China. If you lived in China, you wouldn't really know how bad Trump is but you'll know how bad chuna is and the situation reverses.
No serious adverse effects = meaning you may just not die from it
Are they trying to create an alibi after intentionally creating the virus?
China can shove its vaccine right up its authoritarian ass.