# It's difficult to compare vaccines



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Speaking on the phone with family members today, I found that they have misconceptions about "comparing" Covid vaccines. The same issue has come up on CMF and I think many people have the wrong idea about these efficacy numbers.

These efficacy % numbers we hear in the media are not a useful way to compare Pfizer / Moderna / AstraZeneca:

different trials can use different criteria / definitions
very different demographics; different ages
trials happened at different times in the pandemic
and in different countries!
variants may be present at those different times/countries
There's a great Vox video here, which I'm also pasting below. I took a graph out of the video, and added AstraZeneca's clinical trial to it. Notice how the Pfizer clinical trial was during a very different stage of the pandemic; it was an easier / lower risk environment, and few variants were present.

The AstraZeneca US clinical trial, however, occurred during the worst phase of the pandemic as shown below. It also included participants in Latin American countries, so the numbers can't be compared directly to Pfizer's trial.











Here's a good video explaining why you can't compare the vaccines


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

Best approach is take which ever one you can and ignore the names of them. I am 59 and had my first shot a week and a half ago.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Thanks J4B. The graph above does a lot better job explaining the conflicts involved, within the different clinical trials, then anything I was able to do. The other thing involved, that *plays a huge roll, in which vaccine's "get lucky"* and end up with the higher efficacy numbers is human covid intervention precautions. They played a huge roll in adjusting the numbers up and down. Those covid precautions were implemented at different times and at significantly different levels in different parts of the world. The good news is that most covid precautions should adjust the efficacy numbers lower in the trials, so in the real world without precautions the vaccines should provide equal or better efficacy results.

All the clinical trials can really do is confirm they are safe, which is the primary purpose and secondary that they are effective. Only the real world will confirm efficacy rates and so far we have had 100s of millions of people vaccinated and I have not heard of many being rushed to the hospital or dying from Covid-19.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

Sometime to keep in mind, the annual Flu shot we get each year has been 40% *effective*, meaning it's prevented illness 40% of the time. So with that in mind the current COVID-19 Vaccines are all very good.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the comparisons are getting ahead of the science.

The clinical trial process for the AZ has not been concluded yet.

They still need to be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An article from a month ago on what the FDA requires for approval.

The main question for regulators and governments today is the low efficacy rate for AZ against the virus variants, particularly against the SA variant. That is why some countries have already decided they will not use the vaccine.

This new study does not improve the efficacy rate against the variants.

The "need" for a vaccine due to shortage of the other vaccines, may prompt the FDA to approve the AZ......but if the other vaccines are sufficient to provide supply.......they may not.

We shall see.









FDA could reject AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine on efficacy and manufacturing shortfalls: analyst


It was bad enough when a study released last week concluded that AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine was largely ineffective against the aggressive B.1.351 variant that recently emerged in South Africa. | It's not just the worrisome data showing AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine was largely ineffective...




www.fiercepharma.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Another article on the FDA approval from yesterday.









FDA, CDC advisers say to expect a lot of questions about AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine | CNN


AstraZeneca is expected to apply in the next few weeks for emergency use authorization for its Covid-19 vaccine in the US, and if and when it does, advisers to the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will likely have questions.




www.cnn.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I think the comparisons are getting ahead of the science.
> 
> The clinical trials for the AZ have not been concluded yet.
> 
> They still need to be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA.


Again more anti-vaxxer lies/exagerations/misrepresentations.

The AZ vaccine has completed the required trials and is approved for use in Canada.

There is no requirement for FDA approval.
There is no "peer review" at all. I honestly think you don't know the meaning of the words you use.
Do you even know what "peer review" means?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

With the talk of requiring FDA approval, maybe sags is telegraphing a move to the US? 


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

As for "peer review", having published the study and/or having it indpendently reviewed certainly gives more confidence.
At the end of the day, the FDA or Health Canada or whatever the regulatory group in play does their own review that is going to count more for the decision being made.

IOW, it's not a requirement.


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> As for "peer review", having published the study and/or having it indpendently reviewed certainly gives more confidence.
> At the end of the day, the FDA or Health Canada or whatever the regulatory group in play does their own review that is going to count more for the decision being made.
> 
> IOW, it's not a requirement.
> ...


I know what a peer review is, my point is that sags just vomits out words without knowing what they mean.

I know it's not a requirement, it isn't even normal for clinical approval trials. The reviewer is the agency that grants approval, and they are not a "peer".

I just want to make it abudantly clear to as many as possible, that they should be very skeptical of anything antivaxxers like sags are claiming. It should be obvious that they don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You don't have a clue.

The FDA relies on advisors from the CDC and experts from all over the world.

Who do you think does the analysis.........a bunch of computer geeks in the FDA office ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> You don't have a clue.
> 
> The FDA relies on advisors from the CDC and experts from all over the world.
> 
> Who do you think does the analysis.........a bunch of computer geeks in the FDA office ?


What don't I have a clue about?
I know that the FDA, CDC, and actually all the global organizations work together.
Who does the analysis? the reviewers.

My point was much simpler.
You said the clinical trials were not concluded. 
I pointed out that the *required* clinical trials have been completed and the AZ vaccine is approved.

You falsely claimed FDA approval is *required*. This is not true. It simply isn't, and you have refused to provide any support that such an approval is required.
Canada has approved the AZ vaccine, and there is no requirement that we wait for the approval of a foreign agency to approve this (or any) vaccine. 

You are making false statements, you are actively spreading COVID19 disinformation.

The AZ vaccine is approved for use in Canada.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The FDA has to approve the clinical trials throughout the multi-levels and conclusion.

The clinical trials continue after FDA approval and under their direction to study side effects and efficacy.

Canada didn't conduct any AZ clinical trials. We have relied on the clinical trials and approvals in other countries.

The Canadian regulator says it is monitoring the US trials and certainly will be interested in FDA approval.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The FDA has to approve the clinical trials throughout the multi-levels and conclusion.
> 
> Canada didn't conduct any clinical trials. We have relied on the clinical trials and approvals in other countries.
> 
> The Canadian regulator says it is monitoring the US trials and certainly will be interested in FDA approval.


You just keep doubling down.
*FDA approval is not required.*
We all know this, yet you keep saying that the FDA has to approve it. 
I'd actually prefer they hold off approving it for as long as possible.

Canada has approved the AZ vaccine, the trials required for that approval have been completed. 
This is the approval that matters for Canadian use.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/astrazeneca-approved-1.5929050




Of course they're monitoring the US trials, they should be monitoring everything.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> The AstraZeneca US clinical trial, however, occurred during the worst phase of the pandemic as shown below. It also included participants in Latin American countries, so the numbers can't be compared directly to Pfizer's trial.


Timing obviously does play a role ... 

_So far, studies suggest that the vaccines currently in use can recognize the emerging variants — but they don’t provide as much protection against these new strains. The variant from South Africa, for example, *reduced Pfizer-BioNTech’s antibody protection by two-thirds*, according to a February study. *Moderna’s neutralizing antibodies dropped six-fold with the South Africa variant*._

As pointed out in the video, any vaccine that eliminates severe outcomes (both short and long term) should be considered a worthwhile vaccine to get.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> ... The FDA relies on advisors from the CDC and experts from all over the world.
> Who do you think does the analysis.........a bunch of computer geeks in the FDA office ?
> ... The FDA has to approve the clinical trials throughout the multi-levels and conclusion ...


This makes no sense to me .... why would the FDA relay on people outside the US to review data from a clinical trial for AZ being run _in the US_?
It makes it sound like you think the FDA has outsourced it's evaluation parts of the approval process.

Not to mention that there are past examples where other countries approved a drug and the FDA refused to approve it as they didn't like the data or lack of it from other countries.




sags said:


> ... Canada didn't conduct any AZ clinical trials. We have relied on the clinical trials and approvals in other countries.


And that's any different than the FDA saying they will accept foreign clinical study results as part of the application for approval in the US?




sags said:


> ... The Canadian regulator says it is monitoring the US trials and certainly will be interested in FDA approval.


It gives more confidence when multiple countries review the clinical studies held in multiple countries all agree the benefits outweigh the risk. It does not stop individual countries from coming to different conclusions for approval/not approved ... as has happened in the past.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> You just keep doubling down.
> *FDA approval is not required.*
> We all know this, yet you keep saying that the FDA has to approve it ..


It seems like this version has all other gov't health agencies as a subsidiary of the FDA!! 

That's despite the FDA being the odd agency out with many others having granted approval, which has happened in the past.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Again more anti-vaxxer lies/exagerations/misrepresentations.


sags is correct that the AZ clinical trial result has not yet been published or peer reviewed.

But what you say is also correct, that FDA approval is not required to use the vaccine in Canada.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Does it matter? Do people have a choice? Just take what you can get and be thankful for it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> sags is correct that the AZ clinical trial result has not yet been published or peer reviewed.
> 
> But what you say is also correct, that FDA approval is not required to use the vaccine in Canada.


no he isn't.




__





DEFINE_ME






www.thelancet.com





They've been publishing results of the clinical trials of the AZ in peer reviewed journals for months.

Also the clinical trials required for Canadian approval are done. That's how we got approval.


Of course some countries and researchers are running additional trials of their own. And while they will likely provide useful data, they're not a requirement for Canadian.
The issue I have is that sags is spreading false information.

But really many countries, including Canada, have completed their trials and approval process.
The approval process for AZ is DONE. To claim otherwise is wrong and misleading and the type of nonsense that contributes to vaccine hesitancy.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> They've been publishing results of the clinical trials of the AZ in peer reviewed journals for months.


They published their previous clinical trial from UK/Brazil/South Africa. Maybe you are not aware of this but AstraZeneca has a completely new clinical trial from the US + Peru + Chile. This trial just ended a few days ago.

This new phase III trial has a better age range of people. This US/Peru/Chile result has not yet been published BUT the preliminary results look very good and it appears to prevent all hospitalizations.

In fact Fauci just commented this morning, "The fact is, this is very likely a very good vaccine" -- referring to AZ's newest clinical trial.

I agree that FDA approval isn't required and Health Canada has already made its decision. But the new AZ clinical trial result will of course be very interesting to see. It's fresh data, during the worst part of the pandemic (as I illustrated in the graph in the first post).


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> sags is correct that the AZ clinical trial result has not yet been published or peer reviewed ...


Makes me wonder what The Lancet published as they seem to think it's an AZ clinical trial.








Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial


ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities.



www.thelancet.com





It seems that that data allegedly not published nor peer reviewed somehow has an analysis suggesting more studies.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/astrazeneca-lancet-covid-vaccine-oxford/2020/12/08/482ca0f0-34b5-11eb-9699-00d311f13d2d_story.html




Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Makes me wonder what The Lancet published as they seem to think it's an AZ clinical trial.


That's their old UK-based clinical trial. As your linked articles say, the analysis of the previous trial suggested the need for a new trial due to some open questions (back then) and insufficient data on older people.

Addressing that, now there is a much newer (US centered) clinical trial which only wrapped up in the last few days. It's fresh, and everyone is waiting to see the detailed results. It hasn't been published yet, but it's imminent. We'll know very shortly and the results are very important.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> They published their previous clinical trial from UK/Brazil/South Africa. Maybe you are not aware of this but AstraZeneca has a completely new clinical trial from the US + Peru + Chile. This trial just ended a few days ago.
> 
> This new phase III trial has a better age range of people. This US/Peru/Chile result has not yet been published BUT the preliminary results look very good and it appears to prevent all hospitalizations.
> 
> ...


So, you agree, sags is spreading misinformation when he says the clinical trial isn't done.

In the context of a general discussion on vaccines "the clinical trial" would clearly refer to the trial or trials required for approval.

If you're referring to additional trials, they should be identified, sure they're interesting, but if they aren't required for approval, they're really just FYI.
I would be absolutely stunned if the FDA phase 3 trial is "AZ's newest clinical trial".
I would assume that they'd likely be starting trials on youth after the adult trials progressed far enough for them to be approved. 
Also if you want to expand the definition of "the clinical trial" to all trials for all time, well they're still running clinical trials on Aspirin, sure it's interesting, but again not required to approve the drug for use.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> That's their old clinical trial which was UK only. As your linked articles say, the analysis of the previous trial suggested the need for a new trial.
> 
> And now, there is a much newer (US centered) clinical trial which only wrapped up in the last few days. It's fresh, and everyone is waiting to see the detailed results.


That's the point.
sags said the trial results weren't published, and they were.

He continuously makes false/misleading statements.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

This may be a little off topic but I don't want to start a new discussion. Regeneron and EI Lilly have both developed anti-viral cocktails to treat people who have contacted covid. If received at an early stage both reduce the risk of hospitalizations by 70% . It looks like a very important tool in treating covid infected people. Does anyone know whether these treatments have been approved in Canada and secondly are we using it it to treat covid patients? If the answer is no what is the holdup?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> That's their old UK-based clinical trial. As your linked articles say, the analysis of the previous trial suggested the need for a new trial due to some open questions (back then) and insufficient data on older people ...


Then you agree that the claim of "that the AZ clinical trial result has not yet been published or peer reviewed" is bogus then.
After all, if there is no study data to review - how can anyone say that more studies are required, based on reviewing what was published?

The point is not whether newer and better info is available but that at least one phase 3 trial was completed, published and peer reviewed.




james4beach said:


> Addressing that, now there is a much newer (US centered) clinical trial which only wrapped up in the last few days. It's fresh, and everyone is waiting to see the detailed results. It hasn't been published yet, but it's imminent. We'll know very shortly and the results are very important.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.


In terms of having more data, particularly US based data - it makes sense that this particular phase 3 trial will be important.

In terms of claiming there are no results published/reviewed, it makes no sense. 
Why would an ex-US trial be ignored and a US one be all that matters?

Seems overly selective to me.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The previous AZ trials were sloppy and poorly conducted, which prompted the FDA to require new clinical studies. Errors in dosing levels and the exclusion of some age groups were problems for the early trials. The early warnings not to include anyone over 65 in vaccinations, was because that age group was not included in the patient groupings.

The only documents published from the latest AZ trial, conducted under the auspices of the FDA, is an overview from the company.* It was posted yesterday on the Astrazeneca website*.

The data and details will be submitted to the FDA as part of the continuing clinical trial process.

It will have a peer review, questions will be asked, more study may be required,......or it could be approved without change. Clinical studies will have to continue after the approval to measure side effects.

After that........the company can request the end to the clinical trials.

People are confusing the "patient" part of the clinical trials with the whole clinical trial process.

The clinical trial process begins long before any patients are enrolled and ends long after the patients are no long being studied.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

And the US is already questioning the data in the latest AZ trials.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-canada-astra-zeneca-us-questions-1.5960612











U.S. Health Officials Question AstraZeneca Vaccine Trial Results (Published 2021)


According to federal officials, an independent panel of medical experts said the encouraging results announced on Monday might have relied on outdated information.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

zinfit said:


> This may be a little off topic but I don't want to start a new discussion. Regeneron and EI Lilly have both developed anti-viral cocktails to treat people who have contacted covid. If received at an early stage both reduce the risk of hospitalizations by 70% . It looks like a very important tool in treating covid infected people. Does anyone know whether these treatments have been approved in Canada and secondly are we using it it to treat covid patients? If the answer is no what is the holdup?


Very good question. There seems to be very good progress on treatments... but I wonder if Canadian hospitals are using any of them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The previous AZ trials were sloppy and poorly conducted,


Please substantiate this claim. 


> which prompted the FDA to require new clinical studies.


FDA has specific trial requirements that may be unique, particularly with respect to demographics.
Often manufacturers will run US specific tests.


> Errors in dosing levels and the exclusion of some age groups were problems for the early trials. The early warnings not to include anyone over 65 in vaccinations, was because that age group was not included in the patient groupings.


Errors in dosing? Source?
Exclusion of some age groups in early trials, or at the beginning, this is NORMAL.
They almost always start with "young healthy people", then expand to people with pre-existing issues.



> The only documents published from the latest AZ trial, conducted under the auspices of the FDA, is an overview from the company.* It was posted yesterday on the Astrazeneca website*.


I assume you're talking about one of the FDA trials, I don't think it is "the latest trial", it's just one you happen to have read.



> The data and details will be submitted to the FDA as part of the continuing clinical trial process.
> 
> It will have a peer review, questions will be asked, more study may be required,......or it could be approved without change. Clinical studies will have to continue after the approval to measure side effects.


Yes, but again, FDA trials aren't "peer reviewed" they're reviewed by the regulatory agency, which is not a "peer". 



> After that........the company can request the end to the clinical trials.
> 
> People are confusing the "patient" part of the clinical trials with the whole clinical trial process.
> 
> The clinical trial process begins long before any patients are enrolled and ends long after the patients are no long being studied.


I think you made a number of claims which are simply false or misleading.

1. Claim of sloppy trials - I think this is false. There are often errors, but I do believe they have addressed them.
2. Sloppy trials is why the FDA required FDA supervised trials in accordance with their procedures - again I think this is likely false. 
3. Errors in dosing - possible, I'd like to see supporting claims, and to know if these errors would impact the results in a negative or misleading way.
4. Exclusions in age groups. There is a normal progression from young and healthy adults to other groups. I don't think they were "excluded" they just tend not to test new drugs on babies and the elderly.
5. I don't think you have any reason to suggest that the trial you are refering to is "the latest".

So yeah, 5 misleading or outright false statements.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Please substantiate this claim.
> 
> FDA has specific trial requirements that may be unique, particularly with respect to demographics.
> Often manufacturers will run US specific tests.
> ...


I believe the FDA had issues with their first trial.they made some mistake in second dosages..A small sample got a 1/2 dose and they had better results. They didn't have enough over 55 in their trials.that is why tjey had to do second trials.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

zinfit said:


> This may be a little off topic but I don't want to start a new discussion. Regeneron and EI Lilly have both developed anti-viral cocktails to treat people who have contacted covid. If received at an early stage both reduce the risk of hospitalizations by 70% . It looks like a very important tool in treating covid infected people. Does anyone know whether these treatments have been approved in Canada and secondly are we using it it to treat covid patients? If the answer is no what is the holdup?


This site lists what has been approved for vaccines and for treatment.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Retired Peasant said:


> This site lists what has been approved for vaccines and for treatment.


Thank you. The Eli Lilly product has been approved. The Regeneron product isn't on the list. This may sound un Canadian but why not just adopt FDA approvals. The FDA has a very demanding and vigorous process. I believe the final panel that approves new vaccines has 24 of the most respected experts in the field. I am not sure what Health Canada adds to the process other than duplication and employment for redundant science. Does anyone know whether our treatment approach to covid includes the Eli Lilly product?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I have a chemist friend who has a background in drug testing and has been following the Covid story carefully. He looked into the merits of the different vaccines and concluded there are some he will take and some he won't. I don't remember all the details but I did write down his conclusions. Pfizer and Modena - Good, Astrazenica and J&J - Bad.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I have a chemist friend who has a background in drug testing and has been following the Covid story carefully. He looked into the merits of the different vaccines and concluded there are some he will take and some he won't. I don't remember all the details but I did write down his conclusions. Pfizer and Modena - Good, Astazenica and J&J - Bad.


Not sure I agree. The Moderna and Pfizer trials were done last summer in the USA when the infection rates were lower. JNJ trials basically parallel the peak second wave during the fall/winter spell when the infection rate was much higher. The JNJ included large samples from Brazil and South Africa were the variants were the dominant virus. JNJ clearly is more protective against these two variants. Not one person in the JNJ trials was hospitalized. Hospitalizations and death rates should be the key measure for vaccines not efficacy rates. There real doubts about the ability of the Pfizer or Moderna to combat the South African variant.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

zinfit said:


> This may be a little off topic but I don't want to start a new discussion. Regeneron and EI Lilly have both developed anti-viral cocktails to treat people who have contacted covid. If received at an early stage both reduce the risk of hospitalizations by 70% . It looks like a very important tool in treating covid infected people. Does anyone know whether these treatments have been approved in Canada and secondly are we using it it to treat covid patients? If the answer is no what is the holdup?


I don't have any info on the Regeneron or Eli Lilly but I heard Pfizer is moving on trials for their anti viral pill.









Pfizer begins clinical trials of COVID-19 antiviral pill -


Pfizer has begun clinical development of an antiviral pill against COVID-19, which could be prescribed to patients at the first sign of infection.




pharmaphorum.com


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

OptsyEagle said:


> I don't have any info on the Regeneron or Eli Lilly but I heard Pfizer is moving on trials for their anti viral pill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Pfizer pill would be a great advance if it works. Between vaccines and anti-viral meds it would put covid into the same category as the cold or seasonal flu.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

zinfit said:


> The Pfizer pill would be a great advance if it works. Between vaccines and anti-viral meds it would put covid into the same category as the cold or seasonal flu.


Plus, maybe we are finally on our way to get some real cold medicine. Not that Robittusson, Benylin, NeoCitran and other over the counter crap that they have been selling in the drug stores for years, but something that actually makes you feel better. Something that stops that virus from replicating and wrecking your entire day. I am talking about something that works.

Darn it, we put a man on moon for gods sakes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Optsy........all it takes is a commitment to science and providing the capital.

Maybe there should be a "research tax" on all "over the counter" medications to pay for the research.

Companies that are making billions selling cold medications aren't otherwise financially motivated to find a cure that eliminates the need for their vast array of products.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I used to invest in small bio-pharma companies that develop new drugs and treatments and then hope to sell or licence the rights to them to big pharma companies.

Often times they were just penny stocks........and you could buy a lot of shares.

I would see it all the time. A promising drug or treatment gets developed, proceeds through Stage 1 and 2 clinical trials and then get bought up by big pharma........never to be seen again.

As in investor...I had to buy and sell before the big pharma got involved.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It's mainly the government (the public) which funds basic scientific R&D and early research, which comes long before product development. If Canada really doesn't want to be left out to dry in the future, we need stronger funding of Canadian universities and basic research, including the NRC. For many years, the Harper Cons chipped away at the NRC until all the remained was the shell of what was once a great R&D institution.

Even today, the NRC is mainly trying to do business commercialization which isn't anything like it used to do. It will take decades of strong funding to build this back, after what Harper destroyed.

These Conservative policies caused very significant harm to our country because we've lost vital core R&D capabilities. At the provincial level, Conservatives also cut funding to universities.

Here's my personal example of this, but in high-tech (not medicine). Years ago, I started working with partners at the NRC and related institutions. I was making progress in my field of R&D. But then I hit a wall. Because it was the Harper years, the budgets were getting slashed and all the projects were dying (Conservatives love to kill scientific projects). I kept searching for work opportunities, *but had to go to the US* where there actually was well-funded R&D programs, thanks to very powerful government funding.

It took me only about 12 months in the US until I was able to get SEVERAL MILLION $ of funding (originated from the US Government) to develop my own technology. Suddenly I had the resources to develop new technology. Today, there's an American company which owns the resulting tech.

While I write this .... literally as I am typing this out ... my phone is dinging with text messages from an American business contact, encouraging me to come back to America, where I can get more funding to develop new technologies. And it's because the US government spends massive amounts of $$$ on R&D.

The exact same thing happens in biology and medicine. So people like me end up in the US, and contribute to American technology development instead of helping strengthen Canada.

And that's how we end up being an incapable country that has to beg other countries for help.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

james4beach said:


> It's mainly the government (the public) which funds basic scientific R&D and early research, which comes long before product development. If Canada really doesn't want to be left out to dry in the future, we need stronger funding of Canadian universities and basic research, including the NRC. For many years, the Harper Cons chipped away at the NRC until all the remained was the shell of what was once a great R&D institution.
> 
> Even today, the NRC is mainly trying to do business commercialization which isn't anything like it used to do. It will take decades of strong funding to build this back, after what Harper destroyed.
> 
> ...


By blaming Harper you diminish your message. I lived in SK during the Harper era. He made a big donation to the U of SK to support a large animal vaccine research clinic at the University. He supported the Light Source syncatronon and invested a substantial sum in the production of energy from clean coal technology. I believe each province could come up with their own lists. I believe Harper just had a different approach to research. If he made mistakes Trudeau has had 6 years of big deficits and big spending to correct his mistakes.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

zinfit said:


> He supported the Light Source syncatronon and invested a substantial sum in the production of energy from clean coal technology. I believe each province could come up with their own lists. I believe Harper just had a different approach to research


It's possible, but all the federal researchers I happen to know had their areas severely cut.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

For those who might be keeping an eye on this, AstraZeneca updated its news release info after some criticism from the US regulators. They revised the 79% efficacy to 76%. It's noted in this article that this is nothing; it's a "rounding error". This criticism was being played up for dramatic effect in the media but you can see that the actual impact on results was about nothing.

As described at the start of this thread, those efficacy numbers aren't very meaningful and they also can't be compared between the different vaccines. The AZ shot is incredibly effective at preventing serious illness and death, which is what matters.

AZ is unfairly getting bad press. It's a very good shot offering very strong protection. Also noteworthy, from today's article:



> *Older volunteers got the most benefit from the shot, with 85% of those aged 65 and older protected against symptomatic Covid*. That finding is particularly important as it shows the vaccine benefits those most at risk from the virus, said Paul Griffin, director of infectious diseases at Mater Health Services and associate professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane.


I really hope anyone being offered the AZ vaccine takes it, ASAP. These vaccines are nothing short of miracle drugs.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

I took the AZ two weeks ago, with my COPD and what COIVD does to a persons breathing/lungs I decided it best to take the 1st vaccine offered to me. More than 20,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine have been given the pharmacies across the Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Public Health region. None left currently and waiting lists are building, so people where I live are on board with getting AZ. Our public health officer got the AZ this week so its good to see an effort for everyone to get the vaccine. Mind you I was at Tim Hortons the other day and the person serving me (approx age late 50's/early sixties) said they were not going to get the vaccine. They said this is because they never get the Flu shot and have never gotten the Flu. I would have assumed (incorreclty) that employers would mandate that all employees get the vaccine, so time will tell.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> It's possible, but all the federal researchers I happen to know had their areas severely cut.


I think that's clear it's your bias.
Some areas were cut, others were expanded.

Quite honestly we all know that there were likely a lot of projects that weren't worth the continued effort.

I'm sure Trudeau would cut funding for Oil & Gas related research, and dump piles of money into social justice research.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I think that's clear it's your bias.
> Some areas were cut, others were expanded.
> 
> Quite honestly we all know that there were likely a lot of projects that weren't worth the continued effort.


You are very biased and very partisan. You can lie to yourself all you want, but it's well known that Harper Conservatives made huge cuts to fundamental scientific R&D and it absolutely does hurt the future of our country.



> The Harper government is telling the National Research Council to focus more on practical, commercial science and less on fundamental science that may not have obvious business applications.
> . . .
> NDP science critic Kennedy Stewart called the shift in direction for the NRC "short-sighted" and said it could actually hurt economic growth in the long run, because it scales back the kind of fundamental research that can lead to scientific breakthroughs.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> You are very biased and very partisan. You can lie to yourself all you want, but it's well known that Harper Conservatives made huge cuts to fundamental scientific R&D and it absolutely does hurt the future of our country.


Strongly opinionated, absolutely.
Biased, we all are, but I try to remain aware of it.
Partisan, no, i don't think so.

I strongly disagree with many things Harper did, the census cuts IMO were nearly sabotage.
I've routinely condemned many bad things policitians of all parties have done, and commended the good things they've done.

Partisan, I don't agree. I think you are particularly partisan towards the Liberals/DNC, and against the CPC/PC's & Republicans, so I understand how you could see me that way. I just think you're wrong.

I think Chretien, Mulroney and Harper were all good PMs, I think in General we've been lucky to have decent political leadership, I've been saying this for years, and I've even voted for all of the major political parties (ie NDP, Liberals, PC & CPC)
Just because I think Trudeau is uniquely unsuited to be our PM doesn't make me particularly partisan. 2/3 of the country voted against him in the last election.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A research expert was on CBC yesterday and said that Canada could have had a drug manufacturing base, but it was decided by politicians "10 years ago" that it wasn't a priority for spending, so efforts by drug companies to build weren't pursued by the government.

Today, the drug companies looked at the infrastructure needed to manufacture in Canada and decided it doesn't exist. Canada is going to have to build it from the ground up if we want it.

The government in charge "10 years ago" that made the decision was the Harper government.

As the researcher commented........it turned out to be a poor decision.

Of course, if someone predicted (and some scientists did) that a world pandemic would cost trillions of dollars more than supporting research and manufacturing.....they would have been accused of spreading FUD.

Even with the pandemic killing them, a lot of people still deny it.

Scientists are predicting dire consequences from climate change.

Likely conditions will have to get to the crisis stage for some people to pay attention.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> A research expert was on CBC yesterday and said that Canada could have had a drug manufacturing base, but it was decided by politicians "10 years ago" that it wasn't a priority for spending, so efforts by drug companies to build weren't pursued by the government.
> 
> Today, the drug companies looked at the infrastructure needed to manufacture in Canada and decided it doesn't exist. Canada is going to have to build it from the ground up.
> 
> ...


More partisan trolling. Do you have any evidence to support your claim? 





__





Pharmaceutical industry profile - Canadian life science industry


Profile of the industry, its size, structure, leading companies, sales, trade, leading products and R&D activities




www.ic.gc.ca





Canadas pharamceutical industry has been flat for 2 decades.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The Canadian scientific community has been saying for a very long time that our country needs to grow more institutions in fundamental scientific R&D.

Unfortunately this requires very long term vision, something many people (and politicians) don't have.

These kinds of investments in ourselves don't pay out in a year or two, or even in 10 years. They pay out over 30+ years, through multiple generations.

Canada has got to learn to start valuing this stuff more. And this is why 'business people' make such bad policy-makers. Their heads are stuck in simplistic thinking about immediate costs, and they don't have long term vision.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The Canadian scientific community has been saying for a very long time that our country needs to grow more institutions in fundamental scientific R&D.
> 
> Unfortunately this requires very long term vision, something many people (and politicians) don't have.
> 
> ...


I agree, but nobody is willing to put forth real effort in R&D. It doesn't get you elected.

I'll point out Trudeau hasn't put out a lot of money into fundamental scientific research either. 
Even when he does, it's into political stuff.
I'm sure we'll see lots of funding for social justice, climate change, pandemic etc.

Basic physic, chemistry, math, biology? I'd be surprised.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> I agree, but nobody is willing to put forth real effort in R&D. It doesn't get you elected.
> 
> I'll point out Trudeau hasn't put out a lot of money into fundamental scientific research either.
> Even when he does, it's into political stuff.
> ...


I think our universities have done a lot of great research. Eibo and HIV are two diseases were we made important contributions.there is a lot more to research then one government agency in Ottawa


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

zinfit said:


> I think our universities have done a lot of great research. Eibo and HIV are two diseases were we made important contributions.there is a lot more to research then one government agency in Ottawa


Yes, I think universities are a great way to fund the basic scientific R&D work.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Yes, I think universities are a great way to fund the basic scientific R&D work.


If they were funding science, not politics.


----------

