Valneva vax – promising news
Promising news about the Valneva vax, which is much more traditional and broad-based (not spike focused) than the mRNA ones and — oh — might not be part of the planned “You’ll be happy…” mental control system. Good news at least for people based outside N. America, who might be able to obtain it. (AFAIK from a recent website visit there, Health Canada has no agreement with Valneva). Another good reason to flee abroad. From The Scotsman today — more at the link below.
Covid Scotland: Valneva reports positive results from trial of Livingston-made vaccine, dropped by UK Government
The Covid-19 vaccine being made in Scotland has produced positive phase three trial results, manufacturer Valneva said on Monday.
Manufactured in Livingston, West Lothian, it was set to be the only Covid vaccine on order from the UK Government made in Scotland.
But the government cancelled an order of 100 million doses of the vaccine last month.
At the time Valneva said it had been served notice over allegations of a breach of contract, which it “strenuously” denied.
In new phase three results reported on Monday, the firm said the vaccine – VLA2001 – had successfully met its measurement points, and was well-tolerated in subjects.
The “very encouraging” results suggest it will be at least as effective, and potentially more so, than the AstraZenea vaccine, said Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics at Bristol University and Trial Chief Investigator.
Professor Finn said he is “cautiously optimistic” that the vaccine will be approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
In September UK health secretary Sajid Javid told MPs it was clear to the UK Government that Valneva’s vaccine candidate “would not get approval” from the MHRA. This statement was later amended to say that the vaccine had “not yet gained approval”.
Valneva Chief Medical Officer Juan Carlos Jaramillo said on Monday that the company aims to send a final submission to the MHRA in November, and “potentially expects an initial approval” by the end of the year.
Dr Jaramillo refused to comment on contract negotiations with the UK Government, but said further updates would be given in the coming days.
He added that regardless of contract negotiations, the manufacturing operation in Scotland will continue.
Professor Penny Ward, a pharmaceutical expert at King’s College London, said the UK Government’s decision “might yet be regretted” following the positive results.
Unlike phase three trials for the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, the Valneva candidate was not compared against a placebo, as the trial was undertaken while vaccines were already available on the NHS for older adults, and this was considered unethical.
Instead it was compared to the already-approved AstraZeneca vaccine, with the benchmark that it must prove to be just as effective or better.
Professor Finn said: “The low levels of reactogenicity and high functional antibody responses alongside broad T-cell responses seen with this adjuvanted inactivated whole virus vaccine are both impressive and extremely encouraging.
“This is a much more traditional approach to vaccine manufacture than the vaccines so far deployed in the UK, Europe and North America and these results suggest this vaccine candidate is on track to play an important role in overcoming the pandemic.”
Ditto for Covaxin.
Covaxin is a traditional vaccine made in India. It is currently seeking an EUA from the WHO.
I am not an anti-vaxxer.
But I am a “you won’t experiment on Mike’er.”
If Covaxin (or Sinovac – another traditional vaccine) was authorized in the United States, I would seriously consider it. But I doubt that will happen for obvious reasons of Big US Pharma profits.
As Chris likes to suggest we consider an up down choice vs a left right choice..
What are the paradigm choices here?
Vaccine vs no vaccine seems left right to me.
Whereas if we frame this as compliance vs arbitrary standards vs noncompliance, perhaps that is more up/down
Iie, without mandates, and with early antiviral options, I doubt many here would consider a vax for our health or survival chances
Which makes me wonder. If we find the least objectionable way to comply with the current level of arbitrat requirements.
What will their next requirements be?
Point taken. I’m not a vax touter but I am not an anti-all-vaxes-on-principle person either.
A little more info here for anyone interested: