Here’s how high-profile criticism of the AstraZeneca vaccine trial should be taken seriously



[ad_1]

Kate Bingham, a UK government official, after being vaccinated in London in October 2020. She did not get the Oxford / AstraZeneca vaccine.

  • Oxford University and AstraZeneca announced Monday that their vaccine works, but the story soon gets complicated.
  • AstraZeneca’s Mene Pangalos said a group of study participants received a lower dose by accident, prompting a wave of criticism from experts.
  • There are legitimate reasons to criticize the vaccine, questioning details of the development process and its precise effectiveness.
  • But it’s important not to overstate the issues – the vaccine has been shown to be safe and could become a powerful weapon against Covid-19.
  • Visit the Business Insider home page for more stories.

The high-profile announcement by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford Monday of a vaccine that works has soured in the following days.

After the promising headline results, it became clear that the development process had not been perfect, as some participants were mistakenly given a smaller dose, which seemed to make it more effective.

On Thursday, after a wave of criticism, its CEO admitted there were problems in the process and promised to conduct another study. It’s a noticeably less fluid launch than rival Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

The problems sparked critical columns and a wave of attacks on social media. But it is important to take the news in context.

  1. AstraZeneca and Oxford made a mistake: the lower doses were given by accident and the test was never intended to measure what was achieved, making it difficult to know how good the vaccine really is at that dose.
  2. They haven’t released many details about their trials, less so than Pfizer or Moderna. This means that skeptics and critics have more ammunition. (No vaccine manufacturer has published a peer-reviewed journal article, which is the gold standard.)
  3. AstraZeneca data is more complicated from the start. Their results come from three separate trials in the UK, Brazil, and South Africa, rather than one large study like Moderna and Pfizer. They had different start dates and used different placebos.
  4. It took the company several days to respond and commit to undergo another study.

    Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President of Biopharmaceutical Research and Development at AstraZeneca.

  1. Scientists always criticize the work of others: this is how processes are refined and progress occurs. For new problems like the Covid-19 coronavirus, this is especially true.
  2. Scrutiny like this is part of the process and must be intense because the stakes are high.
  3. It’s easy to overstate the criticism and feed unfounded fears about vaccines.
  4. The results so far suggest that the vaccine works against Covid-19, even if it may take longer to determine exactly how well.
  5. The vaccine has significant advantages over its rivals: It is cheaper and much easier to store and transport, which could ultimately help it reach patients that other vaccines cannot.
  6. Mistakes are not always a disaster; for example, penicillin was discovered accidentally.

When you promise a solution to a severe pandemic that has caused 1.4 million deaths worldwide, inevitably the stakes are high. There are legitimate reasons to speak, but also a balance to achieve it.

Receive a daily news update on your cell phone. Or gand the best of our site emailed to you.

Go to the Business Insider home page for more stories.



[ad_2]