Read on Twitter
BS alert of the day: In this article, the FT tells us that Western "disbelief that Russian researchers are capable of outdoing western drug companies may be rooted more in geopolitics than science".
Sorry, but no. /1 https://www.ft.com/content/5e320e6b-1182-47a6-993e-0bb7f6c7bc2d
Sorry, but no. /1 https://www.ft.com/content/5e320e6b-1182-47a6-993e-0bb7f6c7bc2d
Scientists and reasonably well educated officials in the West (and I realize that the latter are increasingly hard to come by, but still) are perfectly aware that there are excellent scientists in Russia. /2
In fact, recognition of Russia's scientific prowess is just about the only nice thing that Western leaders say about Russia anymore, save for a few cursory words on art and culture. /3
The problem isn't, as the article suggests, that Russian researchers may have short-circuited the methodological strictures of supposedly hidebound Western researchers. /4
Nor is the problem that the West is skeptical of announcements from a gov't that still denies it poisoned the Skripals or shot down MH-17. /5
Rather, the problem is that without a randomized controlled trial, no one -- including the people who developed the Russian vaccine -- can possibly know whether it works. To suggest otherwise would be like testing the brakes on a car without turning on the engine. /6
I want to be clear about this: I'm rooting for this vaccine -- and every other vaccine under development -- to work. And so are the scientists who developed it, and who are now (as of yesterday) launching Phase 3 trials. /7
Russia will rightly limit Sputnik 5's release until Phase 3 trials are completed, which is why mass rollout still isn't slated until 2021. The Kremlin may do a lot of nefarious things, but is apparently not experimenting on its own subjects. /8
What the Kremlin did do, though, was to take a vaccine that was no further along in its tests than many others -- and, indeed, less further along than several -- and give it legal approval. It did that for PR reasons, rather than medical or scientific reasons. /9
Just as the Kremlin distorted what had actually been achieved, the FT article, unfortunately, distorts the response. The article writes "[US Sec of Health & Human Svcs] Alex Azar sniffed: 'It is not a race to be first'".
I'm no fan of the Trump Admin, but 'sniffed'? Really? /10
I'm no fan of the Trump Admin, but 'sniffed'? Really? /10
Also, it's "Gamaleya", not "Gamalaya". /END
PS - I'm criticizing the piece, not its author. Henry is, IMO, generally very good at his job, and it's an incredibly hard job to do. So Henry, if you're listening, please take this as constructive post-publication peer review (hidebound Western researcher that I am)!
