Jump to content

News Forum - Study shows 2 doses of Sputnik vaccine better than Pfizer


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

A Russian and Italian study showed that neutralising antibodies against the Omicron last longer in people who have had the Sputnik V vaccine from Russia than in people with the Pfizer vaccine. The study was done on a very small scale though, with just 51 people who received the Sputnik V vaccine and only 17 people with Pfizer. It was also bankrolled by the Russian Direct Investment Fund, the same organization that markets the Sputnik V vaccine internationally. The test compared the blood serum of the people who received the 2 different vaccines, both in Moscow at the Gamaleya Institute […]

The story Study shows 2 doses of Sputnik vaccine better than Pfizer as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The study was done on a very small scale though, with just 51 people who received the Sputnik V vaccine and only 17 people with Pfizer. It was also bankrolled by the Russian Direct Investment Fund, the same organization that markets the Sputnik V vaccine internationally.”

So many things wrong with this “study”. The small subject numbers. Were they even randomized? The conflict of interest funding. The lack of peer review outside of Russia…😕

Instead they should keep this info to themselves as, “This looks interesting” and do a real study with way more patients and publish the study for review by other virologists. 

  • Like 8
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ThaiEyes said:

The study was done on a very small scale though, with just 51 people who received the Sputnik V vaccine and only 17 people with Pfizer. It was also bankrolled by the Russian Direct Investment Fund, the same organization that markets the Sputnik V vaccine internationally.”

So many things wrong with this “study”. The small subject numbers. Were they even randomized? The conflict of interest funding. The lack of peer review outside of Russia…😕

Instead they should keep this info to themselves as, “This looks interesting” and do a real study with way more patients and publish the study for review by other virologists. 

A small n study is not necessarily bad. 

Randomization is not even necessary. It's an A-B design (before shot - after shot) which is not very strong, but you can't reverse a vaccine to get a stronger A B A design ( or ABAB ideally - double reversal).

Self funding by vendor is a bit less than optimal, but even valid results can be self-funded. It just gives them an interest in falsifying or misreporting results. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vince said:

A small n study is not necessarily bad. 

Randomization is not even necessary. It's an A-B design (before shot - after shot) which is not very strong, but you can't reverse a vaccine to get a stronger A B A design ( or ABAB ideally - double reversal).

Self funding by vendor is a bit less than optimal, but even valid results can be self-funded. It just gives them an interest in falsifying or misreporting results. 

It is if it's Russian.

It has to be!😅

  • Like 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Vince said:

A small n study is not necessarily bad. 

Randomization is not even necessary. It's an A-B design (before shot - after shot) which is not very strong, but you can't reverse a vaccine to get a stronger A B A design ( or ABAB ideally - double reversal).

Self funding by vendor is a bit less than optimal, but even valid results can be self-funded. It just gives them an interest in falsifying or misreporting results. 

Sorry, but it is necessarily bad and randomisation is necessary.

The tests could well have been comparing 85 year olds who'd had Pfizer with 20 year olds who'd had Sputnik Light, which would account for the difference - who knows?

You also don't know if the test conditions in Moscow were the same as in Italy, and the Sputnik Light samples could have all been tested in Moscow and the Pfizer samples all tested in italy.

Do that and you don't have to falsify or misrepresent any reports 😱!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, but it is necessarily bad and randomisation is necessary.

You are thinking of large randomized clinical trials (rct). Single subject or small-n are different and do not. 

 

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

The tests could well have beeo Cmparing 85 year olds who'd had Pfizer with 20 year olds who'd had Sputnik Light, which would account for the difference - who knows?

This would be a problem in generalization of results but if this is testing immune response (a subject I have no familiarity with) it might not make a difference (that is if immune response doesn't vary much by age to matter). Just a guess. 

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

You also don't know if the test conditions in Moscow were the same as in Italy, and the Sputnik Light samples could have all been tested in Moscow and the Pfizer samples all tested in italy.

So then you randomize location?

Reproduction of results in any research is key RCT or small-n. Agreed if that is your point. 

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Do that and you don't have to fasify or misrepresent any reports 😱!

Even legit data can be fluffed up or cleaned to make it more impressive. Money makes people do crazy things. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Vince said:

You are thinking of large randomized clinical trials (rct). Single subject or small-n are different and do not. 

Well, they do if they're to be taken seriously!

14 minutes ago, Vince said:

This would be a problem in generalization of results but if this is testing immune response (a subject I have no familiarity with) it might not make a difference (that is if immune response doesn't vary much by age to matter). Just a guess. 

Immune response varies enormously dependent on a number of factors - age, health, medical conditions, etc - that's why you need a number of subjects and for them to be randomized.  Unless the samples are similar, it's completely meaningless.

Throw in the unknowns about who tested what participants, as well as the other unknowns (the Pfizer participants could have been tested after six months and the Sputnik Light participants after three) and just based on the limited information available, the study is meaningless and should never have been published with the headline it had here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, but it is necessarily bad and randomisation is necessary.

The tests could well have been comparing 85 year olds who'd had Pfizer with 20 year olds who'd had Sputnik Light, which would account for the difference - who knows?

You also don't know if the test conditions in Moscow were the same as in Italy, and the Sputnik Light samples could have all been tested in Moscow and the Pfizer samples all tested in italy.

Do that and you don't have to falsify or misrepresent any reports 😱!

I heard in the test they asked the patients to cough to see if their scrotum jumped, one lady refused.....🤓.......🤣

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stonker said:

Well, they do if they're to be taken seriously

Speaking only to RCT vs small n, no they do not. 

In small n the subject acts as their own control. Randomization would make no sense. Small n designs aren't as well known as RCT. 

Small n is also called "single subject" but that's a misleading name:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_design

1 minute ago, Stonker said:

 

Immune response varies enormously dependent on a number of factors - age, health, medical conditions, etc - that's why you need a number of subjects and for them to be randomized.  Unless the samples are similar, it's completely meaningless.

There are ways to control variability. 

And even if variable my point was to range - if a healthy person has a 50% change and a sick one a 10% change, I can still say I see an effect. Generalization may be a problem. 

1 minute ago, Stonker said:

Throw in the unknowns about who tested what participants, as well as the other unknowns (the Pfizer participants could have been tested after six months and the Sputnik Light participants after three) and just based on the limited information available, the study is meaningless and should never have been published with the headline it had here.

It's probably meaningless, agreed, but we need more information to know that. 

If someone reproduces the results - or cannot* - that would be important to know too. (*Failures are often under reported though). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vince said:

Speaking only to RCT vs small n, no they do not. 

In small n the subject acts as their own control. Randomization would make no sense. Small n designs aren't as well known as RCT. 

Small n is also called "single subject" but that's a misleading name:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_design

There are ways to control variability. 

And even if variable my point was to range - if a healthy person has a 50% change and a sick one a 10% change, I can still say I see an effect. Generalization may be a problem. 

It's probably meaningless, agreed, but we need more information to know that. 

If someone reproduces the results - or cannot* - that would be important to know too. (*Failures are often under reported though). 

I'm completely lost by what point you're trying to make.  You can't do "single subject" for acceptable clinical tests - it's just not possible.  It's like eating an omelette cooked by Gordon Ramsay and concluding that all omelettes are great.

... and just the details here on numbers and split locations tells anyone with a minimal medical background that the tests as published so far are meaningless. Sorry. but I just don't understand what point you're making.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThaiEyes said:

It was also bankrolled by the Russian Direct Investment Fund, the same organization that markets the Sputnik V vaccine internationally.”

Now we also have to mention that of course America says Pfizer is the best, UK says AZ is the best, China says Sinovac is the best en so does Russia with Sputnik. 

They should work on a bigger scale, yes, but if we talk about who's funding what, I guess Pfizer is the worst. Nearly (if not all) major news networks are sponsored by Pfizer. How will anything negative be published on Pfizer? 

  • Like 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DiJoDavO said:

Now we also have to mention that of course America says Pfizer is the best, UK says AZ is the best, China says Sinovac is the best en so does Russia with Sputnik. 

They should work on a bigger scale, yes, but if we talk about who's funding what, I guess Pfizer is the worst. Nearly (if not all) major news networks are sponsored by Pfizer. How will anything negative be published on Pfizer? 

Yes and no - mainly no. China actually rates Sinopharm as more effective than Sinovac (they have more invested in Sinopharm, coincidentally), the UK has rated both Pfizer and Moderna as more effective than AZ, with less adverse effects, and the US rates Pfizer and Moderna pretty much on a par, and Pfizer certainly doesn't sponsor nearly if not all major news networks.

Lets not spoil a good story, though 😂.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Yes and no - mainly no.

Because whenever I say something, it's always no in your eyes. Next time I'll say the sky is blue, you would argue it's green. Nearly every single reply of you to anyone, starts with "not correct" or in some sort of way. 

21 minutes ago, Stonker said:

China actually rates Sinopharm as more effective than Sinovac

You get the point. Still a Chinese vaccine. 

26 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Pfizer certainly doesn't sponsor nearly if not all major news networks.

I guess you've missed my post showing a video which shows this very clearly. For someone who talks exactly like the mainstream media it's weird that you missed it. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

I'm completely lost by what point you're trying to make.  You can't do "single subject" for acceptable clinical tests - it's just not possible.  It's like eating an omelette cooked by Gordon Ramsay and concluding that all omelettes are great.

That's generalization not causality. 

We can conclude from one omelette that the eggs were made into something delicious and Gordon was the cause

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

... and just the details here on numbers and split locations tells anyone with a minimal medical background that the tests as published so far are meaningless. Sorry. but I just don't understand what point you're making.

Like I said small n studies aka "single subject" are not well known. 

But they are popular in animal studies(i.e pharmaceutical) and are valid designs. Sorry, you are not correct. 

RCT is one style of research, it is not the only kind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DiJoDavO said:

Nearly every single reply of you to anyone, starts with "not correct" or in some sort of way. 

Only those that aren't correct - plenty are, and they get 'agreed 100%' or similar.

Isn't that the way it works 😂?

22 minutes ago, DiJoDavO said:

I guess you've missed my post showing a video which shows this very clearly. For someone who talks exactly like the mainstream media it's weird that you missed it. 

I did miss that - sorry to break it to you, but that isn't "nearly if not all major news networks" - there are quite a few more worldwide.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Vince said:

That's generalization not causality. 

We can conclude from one omelette that the eggs were made into something delicious and Gordon was the cause

Like I said small n studies aka "single subject" are not well known. 

But they are popular in animal studies(i.e pharmaceutical) and are valid designs. Sorry, you are not correct. 

RCT is one style of research, it is not the only kind. 

OK, I'll keep it simple.

If you think that accepted clinical research of this sort can be based on "single subject" studies you're in la la land.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stonker said:

 

I did miss that - sorry to break it to you, but that isn't "nearly if not all major news networks" - there are quite a few more worldwide.

Okok, they only sponsor the biggest ones, from where everything will just be copy pasted onto other networks. 

A big news network in the USA only has to write something, and it'll be seen everywhere. They don't need more than the big ones. And nearly, if not all, the biggest news networks in the USA are enough to change the narrative all over the world. 

Not a problem at all, isn't it?

25 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Only those that aren't correct - plenty are, and they get 'agreed 100%' or similar.

I've seen that there was some ice in Phayao today after a storm. Maybe I'm not looking carefully enough, but I've now literally seen ice/snow in Thailand more often than I've seen you fully agreeing with someone😂

  • Cool 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thaiger said:

It was also bankrolled by the Russian Direct Investment Fund, the same organization that markets the Sputnik V vaccine internationally

I trust this study as much, as I trust the study from the British University about AstraZeneca, which the very same University is partner in the development of it!

Aside:  Antibodies lasting longer,  is the question answered, how many antibodies still are "in 74% sputnik / 57% Pfizer" vaccinated people? And that 3 times more sputnik vaccinated (51! Lol) as Pfizer (17), plus no information about age, BMI, other risks, is not really a study! That is advertising.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesting and bantering aside I believe most rational individuals after considering the "research" would agree it's lacking true academic methodology. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Stonker said:

OK, I'll keep it simple.

If you think that accepted clinical research of this sort can be based on "single subject" studies you're in la la land.

Of course you are right. But I noticed something odd, and maybe you can help me?

This article mentions both RCT and small-n:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10088595/

"Single-subject research designs provide a quasi-experimental approach to investigating causal relationships between independent and dependent variables. They are characterized by repeated measures of an observable and clinically relevant target behavior throughout at least one pretreatment (baseline) and intervention phase. The N of 1 clinical trial is similar to the single-subject research design through its use of repeated measures over time but also borrows principles from the conduct of large, randomized controlled trials."

Is small-n a valid research model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, joseph said:

Jesting and bantering aside I believe most rational individuals after considering the "research" would agree it's lacking true academic methodology. 

That's likely, but it's not obviously true from the limited data. Small N research is a legitimate and widely used model. 

I'm not suggesting this is good research, but we need to know more to come to a good conclusion (about how bad it is). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, satpete said:

but even russians do not trust Sputnik,

look at their vaccine percentage

Many Americans think Pfizer and Moderna are untrustworthy. I think they are wrong. Trust is not necessarily a guide here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Guest1 said:

I trust this study as much, as I trust the study from the British University about AstraZeneca, which the very same University is partner in the development of it!

Aside:  Antibodies lasting longer,  is the question answered, how many antibodies still are "in 74% sputnik / 57% Pfizer" vaccinated people? And that 3 times more sputnik vaccinated (51! Lol) as Pfizer (17), plus no information about age, BMI, other risks, is not really a study! That is advertising.

@Guest1yes, we don't know enough. 

And it is probably propaganda. Agreed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Join Thaiger Talk Today!

    Sign up in 30 seconds and join the discussion on everything Thailand!

  • Latest Posts

    1. 11

      News Forum - Dozens of Thais rescued from Chinese gang phone scam centre in Cambodia

    2. 124

      News Forum - UK Pensions in Thailand losing up to 20,160 baht a year

    3. 1,733

      News Forum - Ukraine’s Zelensky defies Russia’s ultimatum to lay down weapons

    4. 1

      News Forum - Russell Crowe to question Bangkok governor candidates live on TV

    5. 9

      Thai Pop/Rock Bands Thread.

  • New Topics

  • Tell a friend

    Love Thaiger Talk? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use