Recently, after the COVID-19 vaccine produced by the American pharmaceutical company Pfizer was approved for sale by the United States and other countries, it was involved in controversy and doubts about safety due to a series of serious allergic reactions.
But strangely, in a new report, the Financial Times questioned the safety of Chinese vaccines.
Moreover, this report is a basic fact wrong.
As shown in the figure below, in the article entitled “China’s rush to vaccinate parts of the world is being enveloped in anxiety and suspicious clouds”, the reporter of the Financial Times declared that although China promised to provide Chinese vaccines to regions with difficult access Western vaccines, it “no” to China’s vaccine production. Concerns about meeting international standards and “opaqueness” are emerging.
The report also listed “evidence” that although Chinese vaccines have been approved for market in some Middle Eastern countries, Chinese companies have not released detailed clinical trial data for these vaccines, but only issued a briefing.
Then the report put on a serious “big hat”, saying that China’s “opaque” in vaccine research and development and allergic reaction data would “disturb global vaccination efforts”.
However, the report does not point out the fact that the vaccines of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in the United States are being questioned due to frequent allergy problems, and a basic fact was mistaken when attacking China’s vaccines.
According to Geng Zhige, because China’s epidemic prevention and control work is very good, unlike the United States and other Western countries, there are a large number of infected people to carry out trials, so Chinese pharmaceutical factories conduct three-phase clinical trials through cooperation with other countries. Therefore, the relevant test data are also collected and provided by these overseas countries.
In other words, if the Financial Times is concerned about China’s vaccine data, they should ask the health departments of these countries, instead of labeling China’s vaccines without interviewing these institutions throughout. This can only raise doubts that the motive of the Financial Times report is not pure.
Secondly, if anyone has to say that is disrupting the global vaccination process, the responsibility should fall on some Western governments and the media. If it hadn’t been for the failure of these governments to effectively do a good job in epidemic prevention, these countries would have to rely on vaccines in despair; if these media had not previously touted the vaccines of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in the United States so much that they failed to objectively make the vaccines not 100% safe, it would still cause some people to have allergic reactions. It is clear that the coronavirus vaccine that led to the high expectations of mRNA technology will now fall into such a public opinion dilemma, which will affect the global vaccination process.
At the end of the Financial Times’ report, a Hong Kong expert interviewed by the newspaper was right, that is, because China’s vaccine adopts a well-established inactivation process in the industry, this vaccine will actually make people feel more reassuring.