Daily Express did publish a note titled “Amendment: Russia Copied AstraZeneca Vaccine To Create Sputnik Vaccine After Data Theft.” In it it says:
“An article published on October 11, 2021, erroneously claimed that“ according to new reports, Russia copied the formula of the AstraZeneca vaccine and used it to create its own vaccine. ”
However, as we learned, this was not true, since the information about the inventor of the Sputnik V vaccine – the National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after A. Gamalei is widely known.
The article also contained false information. As an apology, we are pleased to clarify and publish the following statement from the Russian Direct Investment Fund:
Sputnik V is based on the well-studied human adenoviral platform, which has been proven to be effective and safe for decades. The developers of Sputnik V, the Gamaleya Center, have used the same human adenovirus platform to rapidly develop a Russian vaccine against COVID-19 that has been used in their previous groundbreaking research over the years, including Ebola vaccines in 2017 and MERS in 2019. year.
In contrast, AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector for its vaccine, rather than the human vector used by the Sputnik V developer.
In addition, the Russian vaccine is unique among all vaccines against COVID-19 in that it uses heterogeneous boosting (two different vectors, Ad26 and Ad5, for two vaccinations to achieve stronger and longer immunity), that is, a combined approach, while AstraZeneca uses the same vector twice.
Unlike some other vaccines in use today, Sputnik V has an excellent safety profile: very few serious adverse events have been reported compared to other vaccines, and no cases of myocarditis or cerebral venous thrombosis.
It is also important to note that the Sputnik V team and AstraZeneca are conducting joint clinical trials on the combined use of the two vaccines and have published safety and efficacy information. Last November, AstraZeneca received an offer to help improve efficacy and launched the world’s first trials of combined pertussis vaccines.
Rather than spreading fake stories, the UK media and government agencies should better protect AstraZeneca’s reputation as a safe and effective vaccine that is constantly under attack from competitors in the media with facts taken out of context. ”
At the same time, the Russian media do not pay attention to the fact that the note with the refutation and the statement of the RDIF was published on October 12 at 11:23 British summer time, and at 15:03 the last amendments were made to another material, in which said:
“UK security services now have evidence that [российский] the agent personally stole the development of a pharmaceutical company, along with other vital data. Russia was first accused of anti-UK, US and Canadian activities last year. Interior Minister Damien Hinds said yesterday that “state activities” were linked to “industrial espionage.”
A spokesman for the prime minister declined to comment on specific claims that intelligence sources have evidence that Russian agents stole a coronavirus immunization development at Oxford. He added: “I’ve seen reports of this. But, as you might expect, I’m not going to comment on the intelligence issues. ”
Thus, Daily Express, publishing her apology, did not at all refute the assertion that Russian agents had stolen the developments of Oxford University and AstraZeneca. On the contrary, after the publication of the refutation, the newspaper confirmed the fact of the abduction. She only admitted that the stolen materials were used to create Sputnik V as erroneous.
However, all this does not mean that the materials received from the spies were not used by the creators of the Russian vaccine: the explanations of the RDIF speak only of the adenovirus platform, which has indeed been used by the center for several years. Gamalea and is fundamentally different from the one used by AstraZeneca. The question of whether the stolen British-Swedish developments helped adapt this platform to the specific task of fighting the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not being considered, but one way or another, this information is unverified.