"The nanoparticle vaccine was tested in cell culture and in mice."
OK, progress, but not that far along yet.
There's a similar COVID vaccine, from Caltech and Oxford, in about the same stage of development.[1] Phase I testing in humans should start some time in the next year.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological and political battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. You can't do that here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Eh, they still get funding and money from rich elites and the government either way. Many board members in big pharma served in the government and many former politicians serve on the boards of big pharma. The conflict of interests is amazing, but I'm pretty sure they all made out well enough on COVID.
Klaus Schwaab and the WEF too, since they were running virtual scenarios on zootonic novel coronaviruses breaking out and mandatory lockdowns, etc... a year before COVID-19. Then he wrote that whole COVID-19 the great reset book. Seems like everyone's making a killing off these vaccines, and the world population, are well, just dying.
From a virus, which still hasn't been confirmed, to not have originated in a lab. Or a group of experimental vaccines rushed into production. One of the two.
The amount of ‘HIV cures’ compared to drugs that actually hit the market are disproportionate. I don’t fully know what causes trials to fail but I would assume failure rate is pretty substantial, so I won’t hold my breath.
HIV is unusually difficult to target and mutates very rapidly. It also has the ability to intertwine itself with DNA in CD4 lymphocytes and then start reproducing after a long period of dormancy[1]. Other viruses don't do that.
An HIV vaccine is really hard.[1] The human immune system is very poor at fighting HIV. People do not recover on their own. There is no had HIV, recovered, now immune state.
COVID and influenza are much easier, because the human immune system can fight off those viruses reasonably effectively and most people recover. A vaccine just has to replicate having had the disease and recovered.
Here's an article from The Lancet on the many COVID vaccines using this approach now in test.[2]
> COVID and influenza are much easier, because the human immune system can fight off those viruses reasonably effectively and most people recover. A vaccine just has to replicate having had the disease and recovered.
Really?
Influenza mutates and mostly escapes natural immunity all the time. Essentially everyone has had the flu and recovered, and a lot of people (and almost all children?) have been vaccinated. Yet the flu still circulates. The whole point of this new vaccine candidate is to produce better protection than natural immunity or the current vaccine.
COVID is so new that the endgame isn’t really known, but reinfections with different variants seem to be fairly common. Certainly the other (non-COVID) human coronaviruses reinfect humans regularly. (They account for 1/3 of common colds by estimates I’ve seen, and there are only four of them. The average person gets many more than 12 colds in their life.)
None of this is relevant. They were responding to a comment bringing up how many hiv vaccines appear and fail trial. The flu and covid are different from hiv in the way this comment describes.
> Influenza mutates and mostly escapes natural immunity all the time
You're right, it does, and the parent comment is also right that your immune system will fight it and win again most of the time.
HIV is special because your body will fight it, but lose the battle given enough time. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus targets your immune system, and gradually weakens it until you can't fight even common fungus spores.
COVID storms the gates and the soldiers fight it back, HIV sneaks into the castle and attacks the barracks in a war of attrition.
Can anyone speak to these nanoparticles and why this technique hasn't been seen before? Maybe more generally why we haven't targeted this part of the virus that doesnt change?
It wasn't languishing, that word implies people knew about it but weren't paying attention or trying to make it work. mRNA based drugs hadn't launched because repeat dosings created serious side effects, as the body seemed to start reacting to the lipid capsule. From an article in 2017:
"for its chemists, those [lipid] nanoparticles created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients."
"the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines"
Note the following paragraphs:
"mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects [snip] The indefinite delay on the Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses, covering almost everything that isn’t a vaccine"
In 2017 mRNA was considered "tricky" and with "nasty side effects". It was considered safe for vaccines by Moderna only because, they claimed, vaccines don't require repeat doses. This is surprising given that some countries now want to make mRNA vaccination a regular yearly event.
The reason they didn't focus on vaccines originally is related to that belief - vaccines are traditionally something you take once and are then protected for decades or for life. They are cheap and often bought by governments that demand bulk discounts, thus they are poor business compared to drugs that may require you to take them every week.
We didn't know what part of the virus would change before the virus started changing. A small number of patients developed broadly-neutralizing antibodies (bnABs), which not only wiped out Covid classic, but kept working well against the other variants too. Once we found out what part of the spike protein those antibodies bound to, then we knew what to target. But it's still not easy to raise antibodies to recognize specific sites on a protein - the more "context" you include, the more likely it is that your immune system will find another, less effective, handle on the protein to grab and call it a day.
I suppose we knew about pan-coronavirus conserved sites before, but it (imo) would have been too risky to try targeting those sites with the first mRNA vaccines - one experimental technology at a time.
Without really knowing the first thing about it, I'm curious if the nanoparticles discussed here are the same or similar to the "virus-like particles" that Medicago describes as being the key to their vaccine technology:
Nanoparticles are what the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine are packaged in.
They're lipid particles that are chemically very similar to your cell walls so they just fuse with the wall and then release their payload inside the cell.
That doesn't have anything to do with the target though. The stalk of the virus is difficult to target and not really possible with the existing way that influenza vaccines are manufactured with an inactivated virus process. So you wind up with the whole proteins and no good way to target segments. By using mRNA technology you can specify which protein you want to target or which segment of protein you want to target. It can also be useful to make edits to the protein sequence like the prefusion stabilization in the mRNA vaccines.
When you get the inactivated influenza vaccine you're still getting HA stalks attached to the HA protein and for whatever reason the immune system doesn't target the stalk sections well. So the idea is that you hit the immune system with a payload of only HA stalks and then hopefully the immune system pumps out antibodies specific for that which will then be resistant to genetic drift.
Why should i believe this vaccine protects me and people around me from Influenza? Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of a bad case?
The newsworthy aspect of this is "broad, sustained protection". The parent comment directly questions this, and it's a very reasonable thing to ask; particularly with recent events showing a questionable job at it.
If you make a claim for a new solar cell technology that doesn't degrade over a century, people can question whether that claim is true or not, without implying that solar technology should not be researched.
And there's certainly no need to speculate on people's intentions, like questioning if someone is making excuses for big oil.
I consulted my official reference for reasonable and it didn't decree either comment reasonable or unreasonable. It's almost like it's not even much of a statement.
When a comment leads with a provable falsehood, that "the" COVID vax (already a rampant simplification) "only" reduces risk of a bad case, and that, by implication, there's no reduction in transmission or reduction in duration or reduction in severity of mild cases, there's not much charity to be given.
Using your analogy, it's like if someone questioned the claimed efficiency of solar panels "given the Earth is flat after all". It shows a fundamental divergence from observed fact and science.
Check out the measles vaccine. 95% on first, 99% immunity on second dose. Immunity lasts for years. Herd immunity was (at least temporarily) achieved. Also Tetanus or Diphtheria vaccines.
This is my bar for a 'good' vaccine.
What the Covid vaccine provides is a fucking joke. And it pulls all other vaccines through the mud.
Current flu vaccines are often not super protective because they have to make an informed guess as to which flu strain will be circulating months in advance, and sometimes the guess is off.
A vaccine that can target more strains at once may be more reliable than what we've got, which is why they're researching them.
Sign me up. I'll gladly be in the human trials for this.
The potential benefits to society are huge. Economic impact: How many people each year have to take time off work because they're sick with the flu? Societal impact: how many people each year die years earlier than they otherwise would have from the flu?
And if it means I also don't spend 72 hours sweating in bed with fever dreams every year (as I do), I'm down to be the first one lined up to get the jab.
You don't. You know losers who blame their problems on whatever Fox News told them was bad. What the heck does "unknown chemicals" even mean? You don't know what the chemicals in a fresh-picked Apple are- does that mean you shouldn't eat it until you get a bio-chem degree?
Trust in experts is being purposely eroded by the right so that they can manipulate you into listening to them instead of people who actually know things.
I don't want to get the vaccine just for myself. I want to help test it so that we can assess it's safety, and then get it out publicly fast. I want to see lives saved.
Frankly, it would have been idiotic for vaccine makers not to use the New and Improved (TM) definitions of vaccine effectiveness to promote old vaccines as more effective now.
Not the OP but it's probably a reference to the sudden (?) slippage of effectiveness definitions visible from the start of COVID. There are at least four but maybe more:
1. Redefining effectiveness to mean the generation of proxy bio-markers, not improved health outcomes. COVID vaccines and treatments are now routinely being waved through trials because they generated antibodies, even if those antibodies don't actually reduce infection, sickness or death (e.g. because they're generated against the wrong version of the spike protein).
2. The Pfizer COVID trial had more deaths in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm i.e. negative effectiveness against death. This was ignored on the basis that the difference wasn't statistically significant. That's a logically incorrect way to use the concept of statistical significance, but a remarkably common problem in science. If more people who take the vaccine die than those who don't, this might be just a fluke if the numbers are small, but it might also be a real effect. The outcome you'd expect from this situation is to gather a larger sample to ensure that you won't accidentally kill more people than you save, but, public health people don't think like that. Instead they said, we can't be sure the problem is real, so we'll assume it isn't.
3. Post-trial, COVID vaccine effectiveness was computed by public health agencies using statistically invalid methodologies. There are at least two sub-problems:
3a. Effectiveness numbers were not the ratio of raw case rates split by vaccine status. They don't like these numbers because they fear bias, e.g. if people who refuse vaccines lead generally healthier lives, it would make the vaccines look bad. So they adjust the numbers, normally using test negative case control study designs which compare test positivity ratios instead of case numbers. Unfortunately this approach requires that people don't control whether they get tested or not, a condition that is clearly very much violated in the case of COVID testing. Vaccinated people are far more likely to be concerned by COVID and thus far more likely to be testing themselves regularly, there were also of course the various testing and vaccination mandates to contend with. In such a scenario the methodology artificially increases perceived effectiveness by massive amounts e.g. -400% measured effectiveness was "bias adjusted" up to +50% effectiveness in the UK.
3b. People aren't classified as vaccinated until some time after they actually get the shot. This should cause all stats to split into at least three categories: unvaccinated, vaccinated pending, vaccinated activated but they don't do this. Instead people are described as unvaccinated even if they aren't. This creates a form of time bias due to slippage in the denominator - if you take the vaccine and get sick during the 'pending period' this gets allocated incorrectly to the unvaccinated bucket but if you don't, they count that time without infection as a benefit for the vaccines. You could make water look temporarily effective with this approach. It gets worse if the vaccine actually makes you more likely to get infected, as in this case the methodology will turn negative effectiveness into positive effectiveness. The bias introduced by this approach wears off with time (unless you get boosted and it begins again of course). It's possible that this is part of the explanation for why real world measured effectiveness numbers started falling almost immediately from their initial highs.
4. Public health agencies simply made up some claims of effectiveness, e.g. the claim that vaccines would stop the virus in its tracks by blocking transmission was entirely made up, with no scientific basis whatsoever. It was done to manipulate people into taking it even if they weren't in any risk group. When asked why they told people the vaccines blocked transmission, the answer from Dr. Debora Birx was "I think it w...
Can you point me to where they say there were more deaths in the vaccinated arm?
Because all I can find is
Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were con- sidered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo. No Covid-19–associated deaths were observed.
If this were, say, a hair-loss cure those numbers would be fine, just random chance. But for a drug that is supposed to save lives in the midst of what we used to be told was a world ending pandemic, these numbers are indicative of a bad joke.
The 15 and 14 deaths were deaths of all causes, not deaths due to Covid.
During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups
Here’s the statement about efficacy against severe Covid
Of 31 cases of severe, FDA-defined COVID-19 with onset post-dose 1, 30 occurred in placebo recipients, corresponding to 96.7% VE (95% CI 80.3-99.9) against severe COVID-19.
So, the vaccinated arm had a single severe Covid case, which may or may not have ended in the death of the patient, we are not told. But certainly, not more than one of the 15 deaths in the vaccinated arm can be attributed to Covid.
Why do you think that matters? You cannot simply look at effectiveness against a single endpoint and ignore other outcomes as otherwise you would conclude that cyanide is a 100% effective vaccination against any disease. The goal was to reduce death and illness, not merely move it around, yet the trial data didn't allow any conclusions on whether vaccines save lives or end them overall.
Nor did they allow for any assessment of reduction in "severe" COVID, hospitalization or transmission, despite many later claims about these things, as none of these terms were defined or measured in the RCTs:
Finally, the 95% effective number was clearly wrong. No real world data backed up that number and in fact measured, real world effectiveness started plunging immediately once the mass rollout began. By the time the UK stopped reporting case rates by vaccine status effectiveness was strongly negative, even!
It's unclear what went wrong with the trials, but since they ended various cases of trial fraud have come to light e.g. people who were very obviously crippled for life or killed by the vaccines yet who were written down in the trial as having mild "abdominal pain" or that the death wasn't vaccine related. There's no way to square any of these events with the trials having integrity.
This is hilariously late. One of the B strains (yamagata) is essentially extinct. There's only B Victoria circulating.
For Influenza A, this would be amazing. Currently the vaccine composition is 3 (H1,H3, Bvic) or 4 valent. This could reduce the total composition down to 2 (flu A + flu B).
But influenza A has 20+ dub types for the HA alone.
59 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 92.5 ms ] threadOK, progress, but not that far along yet.
There's a similar COVID vaccine, from Caltech and Oxford, in about the same stage of development.[1] Phase I testing in humans should start some time in the next year.
This is encouraging.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/e2-80-98all-in-one-...
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Klaus Schwaab and the WEF too, since they were running virtual scenarios on zootonic novel coronaviruses breaking out and mandatory lockdowns, etc... a year before COVID-19. Then he wrote that whole COVID-19 the great reset book. Seems like everyone's making a killing off these vaccines, and the world population, are well, just dying.
From a virus, which still hasn't been confirmed, to not have originated in a lab. Or a group of experimental vaccines rushed into production. One of the two.
[1] https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2020/04/hiv-hides-in-imm....
...yet
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_simplex_virus#Immune_ev...
COVID and influenza are much easier, because the human immune system can fight off those viruses reasonably effectively and most people recover. A vaccine just has to replicate having had the disease and recovered.
Here's an article from The Lancet on the many COVID vaccines using this approach now in test.[2]
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-developing-hiv...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602808/
Really?
Influenza mutates and mostly escapes natural immunity all the time. Essentially everyone has had the flu and recovered, and a lot of people (and almost all children?) have been vaccinated. Yet the flu still circulates. The whole point of this new vaccine candidate is to produce better protection than natural immunity or the current vaccine.
COVID is so new that the endgame isn’t really known, but reinfections with different variants seem to be fairly common. Certainly the other (non-COVID) human coronaviruses reinfect humans regularly. (They account for 1/3 of common colds by estimates I’ve seen, and there are only four of them. The average person gets many more than 12 colds in their life.)
You're right, it does, and the parent comment is also right that your immune system will fight it and win again most of the time.
HIV is special because your body will fight it, but lose the battle given enough time. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus targets your immune system, and gradually weakens it until you can't fight even common fungus spores.
COVID storms the gates and the soldiers fight it back, HIV sneaks into the castle and attacks the barracks in a war of attrition.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
"for its chemists, those [lipid] nanoparticles created a daunting challenge: Dose too little, and you don’t get enough enzyme to affect the disease; dose too much, and the drug is too toxic for patients."
"the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines"
Note the following paragraphs:
"mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects [snip] The indefinite delay on the Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses, covering almost everything that isn’t a vaccine"
In 2017 mRNA was considered "tricky" and with "nasty side effects". It was considered safe for vaccines by Moderna only because, they claimed, vaccines don't require repeat doses. This is surprising given that some countries now want to make mRNA vaccination a regular yearly event.
The reason they didn't focus on vaccines originally is related to that belief - vaccines are traditionally something you take once and are then protected for decades or for life. They are cheap and often bought by governments that demand bulk discounts, thus they are poor business compared to drugs that may require you to take them every week.
I suppose we knew about pan-coronavirus conserved sites before, but it (imo) would have been too risky to try targeting those sites with the first mRNA vaccines - one experimental technology at a time.
https://medicago.com/en/our-technologies/virus-like-particle...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus-like_particle
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7905985/
(Disclosure: I was a participant in the phase 3 trial of Medicago's CoVLP/Covifenz vaccine)
They're lipid particles that are chemically very similar to your cell walls so they just fuse with the wall and then release their payload inside the cell.
That doesn't have anything to do with the target though. The stalk of the virus is difficult to target and not really possible with the existing way that influenza vaccines are manufactured with an inactivated virus process. So you wind up with the whole proteins and no good way to target segments. By using mRNA technology you can specify which protein you want to target or which segment of protein you want to target. It can also be useful to make edits to the protein sequence like the prefusion stabilization in the mRNA vaccines.
When you get the inactivated influenza vaccine you're still getting HA stalks attached to the HA protein and for whatever reason the immune system doesn't target the stalk sections well. So the idea is that you hit the immune system with a payload of only HA stalks and then hopefully the immune system pumps out antibodies specific for that which will then be resistant to genetic drift.
You shouldn't. It has only been tested "in cell culture and in mice". Its efficacy in humans will be determined in human clinical trials.
>Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of a bad case?
This table shows that it's still effective "against symptomatic disease" and "against infection".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-...
If you're looking for an excuse not to take it when it eventually becomes available, that's a long way off yet and seems a silly thing to worry about.
What other possible points for such a question... are you suggesting they just shouldn't even be researching?
In what way is a treatment that helps even 10% not better than nothing, when nothing is the only other option in existence?
I see no admirable way to unpack this question.
If you make a claim for a new solar cell technology that doesn't degrade over a century, people can question whether that claim is true or not, without implying that solar technology should not be researched.
And there's certainly no need to speculate on people's intentions, like questioning if someone is making excuses for big oil.
Using your analogy, it's like if someone questioned the claimed efficiency of solar panels "given the Earth is flat after all". It shows a fundamental divergence from observed fact and science.
This is my bar for a 'good' vaccine.
What the Covid vaccine provides is a fucking joke. And it pulls all other vaccines through the mud.
A vaccine that can target more strains at once may be more reliable than what we've got, which is why they're researching them.
The potential benefits to society are huge. Economic impact: How many people each year have to take time off work because they're sick with the flu? Societal impact: how many people each year die years earlier than they otherwise would have from the flu?
And if it means I also don't spend 72 hours sweating in bed with fever dreams every year (as I do), I'm down to be the first one lined up to get the jab.
Trust in experts is being purposely eroded by the right so that they can manipulate you into listening to them instead of people who actually know things.
I don't want to get the vaccine just for myself. I want to help test it so that we can assess it's safety, and then get it out publicly fast. I want to see lives saved.
And if I benefit from it, all the better.
Consume wherever you want, just don't be arrogant if others won't.
1. Redefining effectiveness to mean the generation of proxy bio-markers, not improved health outcomes. COVID vaccines and treatments are now routinely being waved through trials because they generated antibodies, even if those antibodies don't actually reduce infection, sickness or death (e.g. because they're generated against the wrong version of the spike protein).
2. The Pfizer COVID trial had more deaths in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm i.e. negative effectiveness against death. This was ignored on the basis that the difference wasn't statistically significant. That's a logically incorrect way to use the concept of statistical significance, but a remarkably common problem in science. If more people who take the vaccine die than those who don't, this might be just a fluke if the numbers are small, but it might also be a real effect. The outcome you'd expect from this situation is to gather a larger sample to ensure that you won't accidentally kill more people than you save, but, public health people don't think like that. Instead they said, we can't be sure the problem is real, so we'll assume it isn't.
3. Post-trial, COVID vaccine effectiveness was computed by public health agencies using statistically invalid methodologies. There are at least two sub-problems:
3a. Effectiveness numbers were not the ratio of raw case rates split by vaccine status. They don't like these numbers because they fear bias, e.g. if people who refuse vaccines lead generally healthier lives, it would make the vaccines look bad. So they adjust the numbers, normally using test negative case control study designs which compare test positivity ratios instead of case numbers. Unfortunately this approach requires that people don't control whether they get tested or not, a condition that is clearly very much violated in the case of COVID testing. Vaccinated people are far more likely to be concerned by COVID and thus far more likely to be testing themselves regularly, there were also of course the various testing and vaccination mandates to contend with. In such a scenario the methodology artificially increases perceived effectiveness by massive amounts e.g. -400% measured effectiveness was "bias adjusted" up to +50% effectiveness in the UK.
3b. People aren't classified as vaccinated until some time after they actually get the shot. This should cause all stats to split into at least three categories: unvaccinated, vaccinated pending, vaccinated activated but they don't do this. Instead people are described as unvaccinated even if they aren't. This creates a form of time bias due to slippage in the denominator - if you take the vaccine and get sick during the 'pending period' this gets allocated incorrectly to the unvaccinated bucket but if you don't, they count that time without infection as a benefit for the vaccines. You could make water look temporarily effective with this approach. It gets worse if the vaccine actually makes you more likely to get infected, as in this case the methodology will turn negative effectiveness into positive effectiveness. The bias introduced by this approach wears off with time (unless you get boosted and it begins again of course). It's possible that this is part of the explanation for why real world measured effectiveness numbers started falling almost immediately from their initial highs.
4. Public health agencies simply made up some claims of effectiveness, e.g. the claim that vaccines would stop the virus in its tracks by blocking transmission was entirely made up, with no scientific basis whatsoever. It was done to manipulate people into taking it even if they weren't in any risk group. When asked why they told people the vaccines blocked transmission, the answer from Dr. Debora Birx was "I think it w...
Are you sure about that?
Here’s the results of the trial
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
Can you point me to where they say there were more deaths in the vaccinated arm?
Because all I can find is
I think gp commenter was referring to https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v... with 15 deaths in the vaccine arm and 14 in the placebo arm.
If this were, say, a hair-loss cure those numbers would be fine, just random chance. But for a drug that is supposed to save lives in the midst of what we used to be told was a world ending pandemic, these numbers are indicative of a bad joke.
Nor did they allow for any assessment of reduction in "severe" COVID, hospitalization or transmission, despite many later claims about these things, as none of these terms were defined or measured in the RCTs:
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/covid-19-vaccine-trials...
Finally, the 95% effective number was clearly wrong. No real world data backed up that number and in fact measured, real world effectiveness started plunging immediately once the mass rollout began. By the time the UK stopped reporting case rates by vaccine status effectiveness was strongly negative, even!
It's unclear what went wrong with the trials, but since they ended various cases of trial fraud have come to light e.g. people who were very obviously crippled for life or killed by the vaccines yet who were written down in the trial as having mild "abdominal pain" or that the death wasn't vaccine related. There's no way to square any of these events with the trials having integrity.
https://thecovidblog.com/2021/07/08/maddie-de-garay-ohio-13-...
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/pfizer-study-subject-c4591...
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/23/concerns-of-fraud-in-pfi...
For Influenza A, this would be amazing. Currently the vaccine composition is 3 (H1,H3, Bvic) or 4 valent. This could reduce the total composition down to 2 (flu A + flu B).
But influenza A has 20+ dub types for the HA alone.