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

[Thaiger]

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

[ThaiEyes]

“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. 

[Vince]

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. 

 

 

 

[Poolie]

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!

[Stonker]

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 !

[Vince]

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. 

[Stonker]

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.

[Vince]

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). 

[Stonker]

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.

[DiJoDavO]

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? 

[Stonker]

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 .

[DiJoDavO]

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. 

 

[Vince]

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. 

[Stonker]

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.

[Stonker]

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.

[DiJoDavO]

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

[Guest1]

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.

[joseph]

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

 

[Vince]

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?

[satpete]

but even russians do not trust Sputnik,

look at their vaccine percentage

[Vince]

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). 

[Vince]

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. 

[Vince]

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. 

[Stardust]

Then the headlines must be a fake study for propaganda! 

[Guest1]

18 hours 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).

Unlucky, exactly that is the case:

As older you get, as lesser your immune system is responding! I thought that EVERYONE got that in 2020, when in some areas 80% of the Covid related death were 70+. On top, that got communicated, even that a vaccinated 80 years old is, because of age and immune system responds ,  in best case just as protected as a 20/30 years old (before Delta and Omicron, 2020, ok ;-) unvaccinated, not over weighted, no diabetic, ...., hence like a 20 years old sound person. 

That is, why AGE is the main risk factor! 

Btw: The first Omicron death in Thailand was a 86 years old woman in Songkla, vaccinated 2x with Pfizer. She got the Virus from her nephew, who came from Phuket home or just to visit.