Read on Twitter
BREAKING: I am talking to scientists about this right now and will provide an update, but all media reports on clinical issues should be viewed very cautiously.
Follow if interested. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/15/health/covid-19-vaccine-trial-astrazeneca-nih-fda-kaiser/index.html
Follow if interested. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/15/health/covid-19-vaccine-trial-astrazeneca-nih-fda-kaiser/index.html
There are a few things I am picking up that lead me to a broader point having to do with disclosure, transparency & the media and our breathless interest in these clinical trials.
First it is not at all uncommon for there to be adverse events during a trial. They have to be made public and reviewed independently as this one was.
The UK believes this event was unrelated to the trial but not enough has been disclosed about it yet.
Even if adverse events occur, if they are rare or minor, they should not limit the promise of the vaccine.
Even if adverse events occur, if they are rare or minor, they should not limit the promise of the vaccine.
If it causes a moderate to severe concern in 1/250,000 people but can create significant herd immunity, if 300 million people took a vaccine, 1200 would be expected to have an adverse event.
Since we are losing that many people on many *days*, this would be a reasonable risk.
Since we are losing that many people on many *days*, this would be a reasonable risk.
It is perilous to watch a trial so closely and reach conclusions about a vaccine based on an individual event like this. It can easily be over-interpreted. And wise that can create needless skepticism in a vaccine.
Media coverage can inflate people’s concerns the same way it over inflated a vaccines promise every day there is not an adverse event.
All of this is why it’s sensible to let the NIH and other scientists review the data. If they’re not getting the data, they may raise a fuss publicly so they can have it to review.
Remember the US has (mistakenly in my view) adopted the “we won’t play with others” on a vaccine strategy. Don’t be surprised if people are wary about our involvement in anything.
The NIH should be public about any concerns they have ONCE they have reviewed samples and other data. If they disagree with the UK, they should say so.
What the NIH should be careful not to do is play into unnecessary vaccine skepticism by understanding that the media
Is covering this very closely and will blow up every utterance. It’s the same problem the WHO had.
Is covering this very closely and will blow up every utterance. It’s the same problem the WHO had.
Bottom line in my view is the same message I always have. This requires what feels like a lot of patience but all this is happening very fast. We need a good patient process, not a rushed one, to sort things out.
