It reads like a smear campaign.
> The DSMB expressed concern that AstraZeneca may have included outdated information from that trial, which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data
[because... the data reviewed does not appear to cover the California varient, etc...]
The fact that it is kept vague and not including a reason is not helpful and leads to speculation on how terrible AZ are for not being able to submit proper data. They do confirm that this question has nothing to do with the blood clots which this data helps disprove any proper link.
Otherwise, keeping things vague provides maximum room for maneuver for both groups to resolve the issue without either group losing too much face. This way things can get chalked up to "mis-understandings" of what the requirements were, and AZ can reclarify their data in light of these new requirements.
What’s going on over at AZ? I’m not claiming conspiracy, but clearly there was a miscommunication somewhere.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/pres...
“We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data. We intend to issue results of the primary analysis within 48 hours.”
This wouldn't be the first I have seen News Agencies deliberately avoid carrying comments because the PR on the other side of the table happened to not respond "immediately" or "in time" etc;
Unfortunately, it’s the related stuff, manufacturing, procurement, trials, contract signing, that was done by AZ and they have almost entirely done a horrible job.
They failed for 8 years to get this particular vaccine platform to work, and read some of the other comments, they probably caused more of the infamous string of clinical trial screw ups than AZ.
There is an excellent investigative report by Le Figaro (in French) that details the many issues the vaccine faced:
https://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/astrazeneca-le-laboratoire-...
These include friction between AZ and Oxford, the latter insisted on retaining much more control than they would normally have, and this led to serious flaws in the design of experiments for the trials, including not having sufficient numbers of over-65. Furthermore, they mixed samples with different inoculation protocols, raising all sorts of red flags within the scientific community. It does seem the vaccine is effective and safe, but the unforced methodology errors did them no favors, and explain why the FDA and EMA are taking an exceptionally hard look at the data.
Furthermore, production is outsourced to a number of companies with varying level of expertise, and they are poorly supervised by AZ, for instance EU commissioner Thierry Breton performed an inspection in the Belgian subcontractor that has been having problems that led to AZ not meeting its contractual commitments to the EU (and a diplomatic crisis between the EU and UK), and found production and quality control issues the AZ headquarters were unaware of.
In my eyes the fact that so much of vaccine production is in private hands is a classic example of "privatising profits" because everyone paid for the research with their taxes.
Gates is a super billionare only looking out for his bank account, through the good old "philantrophy PR" scheme. He is actively doing class warfare by close sourcing vaccines. Completely in line with the rest of his endeavours.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullahi_v._Pfizer,_Inc.
[3] - Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78 (£1.61). - Johnson & Johnson: $8.50 (£6.30). - Sanofi/GSK: €7.56. - Pfizer/BioNTech: €12. - CureVac: €10. - Moderna: $18.
“Pfizer argued that it was not required to obtain informed consent for experimental drug trials in Africa, and that any case should be heard in Nigeria”
From the Wiki article
>Pfizer subsequently settled the case out of court with a $75 million settlement that was subject to a confidentiality clause.
Does the confidentiality clause also suppress media or is that a separate payment to whoever is putting their nose into it? I'm curious how these stories get out, and are there others that don't ever reach Wiki articles?
Somehow, I’d still take the vaccine. I remain convinced that none of this is done with malicious intend.
But that confidence is based mostly on a general trust of institutions and procedures in healthcare. It’s a deep reservoir of trust, built up over time. AZ is certainly taking from it more than it is contributing.