Vaccine review is a scientific issue and should not be politicized

01 view

Written by: Commentary Editing Room

2021-02-17 16:30

Last update date: 2021-02-17 16:30

Kexing Vaccine, which had been in dispute for a period of time, submitted the third phase of clinical trial data during the Lunar New Year. The Government Vaccine Advisory Expert Committee held an emergency meeting to discuss this Tuesday (16th).

The convener of the committee, Liu Zexing, held a press conference on the same day and stated that the committee believes that the benefits of vaccinating Kexing vaccine are higher than its risks and will recommend emergency use.

There are some voices in the market who have raised various questions about the use of Koxing vaccine, but there are many prejudices and hypotheses lacking scientific evidence.

Just like the fight against the epidemic, vaccines are a scientific issue, and politics and prejudice should never replace the spirit of science and then influence public policy.

According to the data submitted by Kexing, the overall protection rate of the vaccine in reducing symptomatic infections (ie prevention of disease) was 50.66%, while the protection rate of two injections 28 days apart increased to 62.3%.

Although many people question the low rate, as experts have pointed out, the risk of vaccination is low. Even if the protection rate only exceeds the WHO threshold, it is still worth vaccinating. It can be said that "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages."

Although Kexing's clinical report contains fewer elderly people, there are only 600 elderly people out of the 10,000 people in the third phase.

However, expert Xu Shuchang also stated that 11.89 million people have been vaccinated with Kexing vaccine. Among them, about six adults will experience pain at the injection site and half will have headaches, but the symptoms are mild and disappear within one to two days after the injection, and there are no serious adverse reactions. , Proved that the safety of the vaccine is sufficient to reach the level of emergency use.

▼The side effects of the vaccine protection rate of Kexing, BioNTech Fosun and AstraZeneca▼

+2

+2

+2

Emergency Special Affairs Office

Some objections questioned that Kexing’s Phase III clinical trial had not yet been published in academic journals, and even believed that it violated professionalism and called for adherence to the professional bottom line, which is specious.

Vaccine research is published in international journals mainly to ensure whether there are any missing peer-reviewed studies, but there are always a lot of procedures involved or unnecessary delay in time.

In addition, the 12 members of the Hong Kong Expert Committee have independently reviewed the third-phase data submitted by Kexing, and their judgement itself is sufficiently professional.

As one of the experts in the respiratory system specialist Liang Zichao pointed out, the most important thing is the data. It is better if it can be published in academic journals, but it is only a secondary issue.

He pointed out that many experts themselves will evaluate these academic journals and have the ability to criticize whether the vaccine is reliable from the data.

Of course, experts are not beyond doubt, but the questioning must be based on science, rather than simply throwing out "unwaited journals" and so on to completely obliterate the data and effectiveness of the vaccine.

And Liu Zexing also pointed out that he not only believes that Kexing's third issue of data can be published in medical journals, the committee's review criteria are even more demanding, rather than lowering the standards.

Vaccine expert consultants unanimously recommended Kexing vaccine for emergency use in Hong Kong.

The picture shows Professor Liu Zexing, the convener of the committee (photographed by Li Zetong)

The general public can still choose

Some opposition voices described the approval of the use of Kexing as "forcing the public to be white rats," which is even more exaggerated and untrue.

Except for certain high-risk groups, vaccination is not inevitable, and it is not mandatory to receive specific Kexing vaccination. The public can choose whether to vaccinate or not and what vaccine to receive according to the situation.

Even if Ma Zhongyi, the president of the Public Medical Doctors Association, is worried that because other vaccines are out of stock, frontline doctors may compulsively vaccinate Kexing vaccine, but this should not be the reason for Kexing vaccine in itself, but a problem that society must weigh.

Which vaccine to always vaccinate not only involves the subjective choice of the individual, but also depends on objectively whether the product arrives.

Now that the expert committee has reviewed and approved emergency use, it is sufficient to prove that Kexing has no serious adverse reactions and experts believe that it is safe to use.

How to arrange the vaccination plan depends on the wisdom of government officials and the advice of experts.

[New Coronary Pneumonia] Vaccine protectionism will only go astray

[New Coronary Pneumonia] The government's new phase of priorities-increasing citizens’ confidence in vaccines

[New Coronary Pneumonia] Treatment of vaccine science is the only standard

China Kexing's new crown vaccine vaccine panic in the mainland 01 view