Undercomplexity. The state is asked to open the truth about vaccines

The proportion of coronavirus vaccinated in Russia is much lower than in many developed countries - only 42% of residents. Despite agitation, a significant part of Russians does not trust vaccines.

A group of doctors, scientists and popularizers of medicine collects signatures under the appeal " Open data !". The authors ask the Government of the Russian Federation not to hide information about pandemia and vaccination. They believe that only complete publicity will help to break the resistance of convinced "anti -Vaxes" and convince the hesitation.

Information about the well -being of vaccinated is not published anywhere

"Trust is built on openness, and the only way to calmly and reasonably fend off unreliable statements is to refer to official or scientific data. In the USA, Israel and Europe, statistics on side effects, infection and death are regularly published, including breakdown in various vaccines and age groups. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about Russia. Now only a small one has been published. A fraction of the information that is going to pandemia, as well as about the course of vaccination and efficiency and safety of vaccines, ”the authors of the appeal prepared by the ANO“ Collective Immunity ”write.

The document mentioned five areas in need of information openness.

1. Rospotrebnadzor collects, but does not publish statistics on coronavirus genomes and transfers to the international database only part of the information about coronavirus circulating in Russia.

2. In Russia, data on vaccination outside civil circulation are collected, but they are also nowhere to be found.

3. In general, there is not a single official state resource where the vaccination course would be covered in detail on the data.

4. Information about the well -being of vaccinated is collected on the "public services". They are not published anywhere.

5. Data on the incidence and mortality from Covid, hospitalizations due to Covid and severity of the disease are not published depending on the following factors: vaccination status (including breakdown on specific vaccines), demographic indicators and various health indicators.

But the most important question is about the quality and safety of Russian vaccines.

The interlocutor of Radio Liberty, the head of the Grais group on the independent verification of the Epivaccoron vaccine, Andrei Krinitsky, is of particular interest in disclosing all vaccination data. He collects information about the Vaccine developed at the Vector Center, which, according to a number of researchers, is not able to protect from infection with coronavirus. A multi -month correspondence with the Ministry of Health has not set points on this issue: "Epivaccoron" continue to produce (more than 12 million doses have been produced) and even export. Moreover, the New Gazeta found that doctors replace drugs for immunization. In different regions of Russia, patients agreed to vaccination with a “companion V”, and received Epivaccoron.

- Andrei, the initiative is connected with the correspondence of Epivaccores that began in the first half of the year. Did you manage to achieve something ultimately?

- According to Epivakkoron, it was not possible to achieve a significant result, unfortunately. The drug is still pricking the population, and the publication of data on its effectiveness is delayed. The developer is repeatedly violated by the promised time of publication of the results of the III Vaccine test phase.

"Epivaccoron" flowed in my blood

It’s early to put the point, we continue our social activities, send official letters. As a result, the popularity of the drug is very low. We consider this the result of our educational work. According to surveys, from 1% to 4% of people trust Epivaccoron. At the beginning of the history of Epivakkoron, about 9% of respondents trusted.

- After all, you, too, at first reacted to her with enthusiasm and even became a volunteer on trials?

- Yes, Epivaccoron flowed in my blood. The first injection was made on December 3. At first, we even banned in our chat scientists who criticized this drug.

-When there was a suspicion that something was wrong with the vaccine?

- In early January. We all began to check antibodies on commercial tests. Injected with the "satellite" and the ill -foured on them had antibodies, but we did not. Then we began to prepare the first open letter, after which the vaccine developer opened us free access to a special test system to determine special antibodies. It already looked strange. Further, the developer said that he had an antibodies to all 100% of volunteers. And we got 71%in calculations. Such a strong discrepancy only increased suspicion, and we began to prepare our own additional studies.

- I’m afraid that readers can conclude that you were a supporter of vaccination, and became an “antivakser”. This is not so. Claims only to Epivakkoron?

Our participants began to get coronavirus, hard, with the defeat of the lungs

- At first I came to the clinical trials of the Sputnik V, but I received a placebo there. Together with the volunteers, we quickly found out that the "satellite" is a really working vaccine, and I went to check the next drug on the list - "Epivaccoron". We created a chat system and can be confidently said - the "satellite" is an effective and fairly safe vaccine. Now this is confirmed by data from different countries and scientific reviewed publications.

We are active supporters of vaccination and from the very beginning of the project methodically and consistently campaigning for vaccination by working vaccinations, we dispel the myths of opponents of vaccination. Unfortunately, we cannot still praise the same as the “satellite”, our third vaccine is “covivak”. Unlike Epivaccorons, Kovivak has some efficiency, but it is very small. It seems that Kovivak is suitable only as a boost for ill or previously vaccinated by other acting vaccines. I definitely cannot recommend the "covivak" to the elderly and weakened people.

- Then back to the conversation about Epivakcoron. You said that you conducted additional research. What were they?

- We conducted our most important study in Novosibirsk. Scientist Alexander Alekseevich Chepurnov agreed to test our blood for the ability to protect the cells from coronavirus. To do this, we took tests from those who have exactly developed antibodies according to the tests of the Vector GNC. They allocated plasma from it, froze and sent by plane. About 30 samples. To exclude the interest of the scientist in a certain result, we added test tubes with plasma people who are not vaccinated with "epivaccorone". Where we, of course, did not say. This is called "blinding". And they disclosed the data only after receiving the results. So I learned that under the New Year was infected with coronavirus, and the rest of our participants had no protective antibodies from coronavirus. That is, there is antibodies in the test of the vector, but they are not able to neutralize coronavirus. Then this experiment was repeated by several more laboratories, with the same result. In total, about 60 people vaccinated by "epivacorone" were checked. Everywhere zeros!

Specialists who are not related to the developer and Rospotrebnadzor, or criticize Epivaccoron, or are silent about her

We also conducted a series of laboratory tests for T-cell immunity, but did not receive a clear result. Epivaccoron also does not form a clear T-cell immunity. And then our participants began to get coronavirus, hard, with lung defeat. Some have not recovered so far.

- Have you suffered the disease asymptomatic?

- Yes, I got infected about a week after the second injection of Epivaccorons and did not notice it in any way. And he did not infect anyone, fortunately.

- Did other specialists confirmed the conclusions of Chepurnov?

-Officially, none of the laboratories spoke about the reaction of the virus-neutralization, they did the experiment in a closed one. The experiment can be confirmed by another experiment. But no one disputed our experiment itself, even the Vector GNC itself. We sent them a protocol and the design of the experiment, they could not find mistakes there. Their only criticism was that we did not disclose the name of the laboratory. On the other hand, the own experiment of the “Vector” GNC was criticized by scientists, as it was put incorrectly. They did not have a comparison with the blood (plasma) of the ill, which is very important! The so -called positive control. Specialists who are not related to the developer and Rospotrebnadzor, or criticize Epivaccoron, or are silent about her.

According to insiders, after our third open letter, the Ministry of Health gathered the plasma of his employees, vaccinated by Epivaccorone (about 20 samples), and gave it to two laboratories for verification. I received a zero result everywhere, and they all immediately re -surpassed the "satellite".

- But the official answers of the Ministry of Health are designed in a completely different spirit.

If we officially recognize the failure of Epivaccorons, then who will be responsible for the spent state money?

- The official answers of the Ministry of Health contradict their own official documents of the Ministry of Health and adopted laws, are given in violation of the adopted deadlines for the response of requests of citizens. These are formal unsubscribes that are just chickens to laugh. But some actions of the Ministry of Health regarding the "epivacian", nevertheless, are good. “Epivaccoron” was limited to cancer patients, in the methodological recommendations for the prevention and treatment of coronavirus, a cunning test system of GNC “Vector” is not recommended for use, and a number of good solutions. Forestering employees of the Ministry of Health also agree with our position, openly saying that they cannot recommend Epivaccoron and Kovivak, since they did not go through the III phase of research and the result was not published. At least so.

- Is it possible to say that during this year the international community of scientists and enthusiasts arose who are trying to figure out what is happening in Russia around vaccination?

- You cannot call it international, this is our internal Russian problem. So far, this drug is not exported, fortunately. They themselves made a mistake, to fix it ourselves. Among the critics of the drug, there are formally foreign scientists, but in fact they are Russian and were born with us. And with them, by the way, the Vector GNC collaborates, there are joint scientific articles.

- And did the explanation arise in your community: why does Epivaccoron continue to use? What are the motives? It is unlikely that disinterested ...

- It is not necessarily selfish. Since the time of the USSR, it is not customary to recognize mistakes in our scientific tradition. Unfortunately, because the mistake is the most important part of science. It is impossible to create a new one, not mistaken along the way. Without recognition of the error, progress slows down, resources are spent on empty. Partly, because of this, the parties may be afraid of loss of position. But these are only my fantasies. After all, if you recognize the failure of Epivaccorons officially, then who will be responsible for the spent state money? More than 4 billion rubles were sent for research and production of the drug!

- Your new petition is dedicated not only to Epivakcorone. What other problems in this area need discussion? What, in your opinion, is unfounded from society?

Closure of data on side unwanted phenomena does not contribute to the growth of trust in the "satellite"

- In the petition itself, the answer is given to this question. We try to convince fellow citizens of the benefits of coronavirus vaccination with effective vaccines. And that they are safe enough. In our country, this is only a "satellite". Openness is needed so that we can prove these theses. Fear of side effects is a significant problem. Because of this, the vaccination campaign is skidding. On fear and distrust, anti-Vax-leaders easily play, increasing their popularity. The closeness of data on side unwanted phenomena does not contribute to the growth of trust in the "satellite". Without effective immunoprophylaxis, we will not be able to bring the end of the pandemic and return to normality. We need openness as a measure of counteracting antivax propaganda.

- Many are prone to in principle not to trust the official Russian data related to the epidemic. The statistics of deaths from the consequences of Covid look especially implausible. Do you mean these problems in your appeal?

- Not ready to say that many do not trust, this is a topic for a separate study. We ask you to open the so -called "wet" data, or primary. Of course, depersonalized. And then the question of the selected calculation methodology is already. In any case, it is important, along with conclusions, also publish the methodology of counting. As Professor Elena Ventzel wrote: "Statistics, as a section of probability theory ... This is a science that gives bad answers to questions that other theories give even worst answers ..."

- The motivation for antivax is different, but many are afraid of Russian vaccines also because they are in no hurry to legalize in many countries. What would you answer such an argument in the dispute?

- That in Ukraine there is access to the recognized WHO vaccines, and their vaccination level is noticeably behind ours. This is an invented excuse so as not to vaccinate. I am for the admission of all effective vaccines to Russia, but not only purely scientific aspects are already going into force. This is important for traveling abroad. But there is rather the hope that WHO finally recognizes the "satellite".

- To whom is your petition addressed? Official responses to previous letters are disappointed. Do you think it will be different now?

- The main initiator of the petition is ANO "Collective Immunity", our group in Epivaccoron has an indirect attitude to this. The main goal of the petition to raise confidence in vaccination in Russia. It is addressed to the leadership of departments related to health and the fight against pandemia. Talking about data opening has been going on for a long time. Each such collective request is slowly changing traditions, attitude to openness. Maybe our petition will not convince officials, but will bring a little closer to the future result. At some point, the voice and arguments are covered, and the departments will open the data. This is a global trend. Look at other countries - a lot of data is available for independent expert analysis.