Maybe the VP was eating the brains of COVID-infected pangolins? (Isn’t that disease Mad Cow disease?)
If you get it from Bovine Spongiform Encephelopathy-tainted beef, then it’s called Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD). Most cases of non-variant CJD have undetermined causes.
Because they need to get the word out that it wasn’t from their vaccine. I would think that relevant.
Get what word out? Why do I care if one of their many VPs died of something completely unrelated? I don’t follow corporate news anything like that closely.
You’re absolutely right. An unexplained death of a VP of a vaccine manufacturer is none of anybody’s business. It’s right up there with the goings on of the British Monarchy on things to care about.
And yet you posted it here for no apparent reason.
Here, have some FUD to go with that FUD.
Well, if it were truly unexplained, and if the VP were working with the viruses, or there was rumor of a hit job, or something exotic, it might possibly be news. But since it’s an ordinary, explained death… I suppose if he’s one of their top people it’s probably the business of stockholders, so I guess it would be public. But it’s certainly not very interesting.
There’s little legitimate news with the British Royal Family yet it’s a well established tabloid topic.
Europe doesn’t just have a supply issue, they have a demand issue.
From Forbes: Only 36% of the surveyed Europeans strongly agree with the statement that vaccines are safe.
And yet you still haven’t explained why you felt it was relevant to this thread.
And do you think the over-reaction from some of the European authorities to the AZ story has helped or hindered vaccine acceptance?
More trouble for AZ.
I just came to post that. You want conspiracy theories that cast doubt on the vaccine? Welp, they got published today.
U.S. Health Officials Raise Concerns Over AstraZeneca Data https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-health-officials-raise-concerns-over-astrazeneca-vaccine-data-11616485793
The statement was a significant deviation from what are usually carefully scripted drug trial releases—done in coordination with medicines regulators and with regard to how they might affect public perception of safety, as well as how they might affect a company’s share price. A drug monitoring board such as the one that raised its concerns typically works closely with a drugmaker to execute and analyze trial results.
The article says there are no concerns with blood clots raised by the US trial, it’s the effectiveness of the vaccine the monitoring board is questioning.
The times article says it was the monitoring organization (that helps keep tab of the trial results) that contacted the NIAID and said
Dr. Eric Topol, a clinical trials expert at Scripps Research in San Diego, said it was “highly irregular” to see such a public display of friction between a monitoring board and a study sponsor, which are typically in close concordance.
(Probably both paywalled, but this was my morning news alert.)
They aren’t very clear about their concerns. It may well be that exposure to new variants was limited at the point that the trials were done and to that extent efficacy data may not be current but there is little that can be done about that and the same issue affects pretty much all vaccines.
We’ll have to see what their precise issues are.
Over-reaction is your opinion. And that has to be weighed against the expertise of 20 medical groups.
and I already stated that I thought failure to do it would harm public perception of the vaccine. I’ll go further and say that they’ve demonstrated how serious they took it and that will help acceptance of all the vaccines.
Yeah, we don’t know, but that was my guess as well. And of course, we don’t necessarily have updated numbers on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, so I can see why AZ might want to use older, more comparable numbers. But that doesn’t make it right to be misleading, as opposed to just trying to get the word out about how it compares overall and vs variants.
I’ve said all along that I’ll get whatever vaccine I’m offered, but I will say, based on efficacy, I hope I’m offered one of the other choices. I particularly would prefer one that’s shown more effectiveness vs variants.
Well, I just got notified that I’ve been selected to schedule at a particular site, which only uses Pfizer and Moderna. Yay! (Mostly for getting vaccinated, and a tiny bit for getting my preference – not that AZ was even an option yet).
I believe the Astrazeneca vaccine was meant as a hedge to back up the vaccines currently in use in the US. That might explain why it’s taken so long to approve and why the reserve of Astrazeneca was released to Canada and Mexico.
With Merc engaged to produce the Johnson and Johnson vaccine that should cover the shortfall J&J has experienced.
or, they cut deals with a lot of companies to hedge their bets, and others completed their US trials earlier. Since the US has now purchased enough vaccine from Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J to vaccinate everyone even accounting for a bit of waste (and they expect to receive that this year) the others, AstraZeneca and Novavax, become less critical to approve and obtain quickly.
It does make sense to release what we have (and can’t use) to countries that can use it.
I think it should be reiterated that “we” don’t really have them to release so much as the government was forcing private companies to sell to America first.