Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lampenrad 2017 days ago
This article is very US-centric and self congratulatory.

The vaccine is called BNT162b2, because it was fundamentally developed at Biontech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tozinameran

>Tozinameran[1] (INN), codenamed BNT162b2 and more commonly known as the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, is a COVID-19 vaccine developed by BioNTech and manufactured and distributed by Pfizer

https://www.thelocal.de/20201110/biontech-four-things-to-kno...

>While global headlines tend to lead with Pfizer's involvement, Şahin insisted to Spiegel: "It is our technology."

It bothers me how Americanized the Western media has become. If Biontech was a US company and Pfizer was European, exactly 0 US media would call it the „Pfizer vaccine“. Yet most European media outlets have adopted the US-spin and now call it „Pfizer Vaccine“ (or „Pfizer-Biontech“ at most).

> In a series of interviews over more than seven months, senior Pfizer executives and other managers shed new light on how the vaccine project took shape.

Reading the article, it doesn’t look like the spoke to anyone at Biontech.

> BioNTech simply plugged the genetic code for the spike protein into its software. On Jan. 25, BioNTech Chief Executive Ugur Sahin designed 10 candidates himself.

Ah yes, the Germans simply plugged it into their software. Disregard over a decade of fundamental research done by hundreds of scientists with hundreds of millions of Euros in funding. Now let‘s focus on all the hard work American pharmaceutical Managers did.

>To assemble its mRNA production network, Pfizer used its own money and didn’t take any from the federal government. Executives said they didn’t want to give agencies outside the FDA more leverage over the design of the trials.

Yes, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tozinameran

>In September 2020, the German government granted BioNTech 375 million euros ($445 million) for its COVID-19 vaccine development program at a time when Pfizer funded its portion of development costs without government funding.[20] BioNTech had also received 100 million euros ($119 million) in financing from the European Commission and European Investment Bank in mid-2020.[21] Also: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/pfizer-va...

And speaking of „Operation Warp Speed“: Coincidentally, „Light Speed“, the name Biontech gave its vaccine development effort, started in mid January. A time when almost nobody had even heard of the virus. Operation Warp Speed wasn‘t announced until April 29, three and a half months later.

4 comments

Thank you for this. Taking or redirecting credit for others’ work and investment, especially on such a massive effort is not right.
I am not sure why this post gets downvoted. I had the same feeling when reading this article. I would expected better from WSJ.
I don’t know for sure, but I think some of this is up to the reader’s interpretation.

> BioNTech simply plugged the genetic code for the spike protein into its software. On Jan. 25, BioNTech Chief Executive Ugur Sahin designed 10 candidates himself.

When I read this, I didn’t take it as dismissive of BioNTech but more (1) a brilliant demonstration of the technology they’ve developed and (2) admirable that the CEO is still in touch with the underlying research.

I completely agree. It's sad and disappointing to see this being labelled as Pfizer vaccine when it's actually the BioNTech vaccine. But I guess that's what you get when one company has a massive marketing department and the other doesn't.

Pfizer isn't even the only company distributing it, Fosun does the distribution is China...

But also, is it really a “record” time?

For example, Russia already has 3 vaccines: two of their own, and one Chinese.

I think it is record time, as I understand it if this vaccine (and many others) had been under the regulatory regimes in those jurisdictions they would have been ahead of that pace as well. As far as I can tell the 1st phase of the Spunik V trial was injecting everyone in the building where they were developing it and fully half the participants got a fever from the vaccine: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)31866-3/full...

(The fever thing I don't think is actually a big deal, but is certainly not desirable if you want people to take a vaccine!)

The vaccines in question mostly got out ahead of their production capacity anyway too, so the difference is not consequential.

> fully half the participants got a fever from the vaccine

A mild fever, with one participant getting a moderate fever. Very small sample size, so it's not clear how that compares to the Pfizer vaccine. That appears to cause severe enough fever on occasion (~0.1%) that "who pays for the rare precautionary hospitalizations?" could be a very a real issue in countries like the US without public health care. The % of temporary side effects reported is significantly more than most other vaccines.

As you say, the fevers are probably just temporary side effects of the immune response and the supermajority of people recover very quickly (~24hrs or less). But it is an issue that needs monitoring - the trials really aren't that big, so it'll take quite a bit more data to know if those vaccines are safer than covid itself for the not-at-risk population.

The point is that if many organizations developed vaccines in the same timeframe it’s not really a “record”.
In Soviet Russia, vaccine develops you.