OPEN LETTER

OPEN LETTER Data on the Russian vaccine in a reputable journal worried scientists: 'We are looking for clarifications!' According to a study based on the first 2 phases of clinical trials on 76 subjects, Sputnik V. proved to be safe and effective. By: Tanja RudežPosted: September 16, 2020 2:15 pm Volnoter Ilja Dubrovin receives a dose of coronavirus vaccine Sputnik V Volnoter Ilja Dubrovin receives a dose of coronavirus vaccine Sputnik V Natalia Kolesnikova / AFP Facebook Twitter Messenger E-mail A group of scientists from around the world have expressed concern over repetitive data patterns in a study of the Russian Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine recently published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. Recall, according to this study, based on the first two phases of clinical trials on 76 subjects, Sputnik V proved safe and effective, and side effects in a few people were limited to mild, short-term effects, such as headache or redness at the injection site. The vaccine, named Sputnik V., in honor of the first artificial satellite launched into space by the Soviet Union in 1957, was the first approved vaccine against coronavirus. According to the journal Nature, 38 researchers addressed the authors of the Russian study in an open letter and warned that some data in the study were duplicated and that they were not analyzed in detail. "Although the research described in this study is potentially significant, the way the data is presented raises some concerns that require access to the original data in order to fully investigate it," the open letter said. They are looking for clarifications It was published on the blog of molecular biologist Enrico Bucci, who heads a small Italian company Resis dedicated to the commercialization of tools and services to improve the integrity of data research in scientific publishing. - We do not state that there was a violation of the scientific procedure, but we are looking for clarifications - says Bucci. - The basic data of the study should be available. We have a lot of questionable data in terms of their presentation. The data may be good, but we cannot judge - said one American epidemiologist Michael Favorov and one of the signatories of the open letter. He pointed out that the decision of the Lancet to publish the study without basic data seems unusual