Secretary for Culture Development is wrong to say that immunizations against Covid are experimental

A publication made on Twitter by André Porciuncula, secretary of Incentive and Promotion to Culture, responsible for the budget of the Rouanet Law, misleads by stating that vaccines against the coronavirus do not prevent the transmission of Covid-19. In addition, the same post, verified by the Comprova Project, distorts reality by stating that immunizing agents are still in the experimental phase.

Vaccine developers Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Instituto Butantan, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Fiocruz performed tests on thousands of volunteers. With these scientific procedures, all managed to prove that the vaccine can reduce transmission and contamination generated by Covid, without compromising the health of the population.

The tweet’s content also claims that the vaccine passport generates “hateful segregation, based on the false premise that the vaccine prevents contamination and transmission.” The document, requested in some cities across the country, aims to ensure more security in public spaces where a large number of people are concentrated, such as concerts and events.

The measure was adopted in view of the advances in the flexibility of commercial activities in the country, generated by the reduction of contaminated and dead people after the massive immunization of Brazilians by the SUS (Unified Health System).

André Porciuncula was contacted for the article, but he did not return until the publication of this text. Given the imprecise data that induce a different interpretation of what reality is, Comprova classified the publication as misleading.

How do we check?

Initially, we were looking for information provided by the WHO (World Health Organization) about the approval process for a vaccine. We also checked data on the website of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), of the United States, of the EMA (European Medicines Agency), which monitors the health of the European Union. As widely publicized, immunizers are not experimental. The same information is reinforced from the access to all platforms, where it is made clear that strict and science-based methodologies were used.

We interviewed the specialist in vaccinology and professor at UFPel (Federal University of Pelotas) Odir Antonio Dellagonstin and the doctor in immunology and professor at UFSC (Federal University of Santa Catarina) Daniel Mansur.

The article also contacted the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) to check what methods were adopted by the agency when approving an immunizing agent for use in national territory. So far we have not had any feedback.

Finally, André Porciuncula, author of the post verified here, was contacted via email. At the time of publication of this article, there has been no return.

Verification

Differently from what André Porciuncula claims, the vaccines developed by pharmaceutical companies Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Instituto Butantan, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Fiocruz are proven to be effective against Covid-19. The conclusion was defined after tests on thousands of volunteers.

In previous verifications, Comprova also showed that the vaccines in use against the coronavirus are proven to be safe and, if they do not prevent 100% of those immunized from becoming infected or transmitting, they significantly reduce these risks. Updated data on the protection generated by immunizers were explained in a recent article, published in UOL.

An example that illustrates the advancement of protection generated by vaccines is Pfizer, which has been widely used for booster doses. The immunizing agent can maintain 95% prevention against infections.

For teenagers aged 12 to 15, Pfizer’s vaccine is 100% effective, according to the results of a clinical trial released by the drugmaker on Nov. 22, the data of which will be sent for peer review.

The effectiveness of immunizing agents was also analyzed by health regulatory agencies in several countries, including Anvisa, in Brazil, and the FDA, in the United States. The evaluations focused on the way in which the immunizing agents were produced, based on data presented by the laboratories and advice made by members of the institutions.

In addition to these institutions, the WHO itself has evaluated, based on the safety and efficacy of immunizing agents, which ones are included in the list of approved for use. In view of the evidence presented by drug companies from scientific studies, the applied immunizing agents cannot be considered as experimental.

The tests were designed to test safety and effectiveness because until then, it was necessary to contain the number of infected safely, so that health systems were not overloaded.

After this stage, volunteers continue to be followed up to answer other questions: how long does the immunity provided by the vaccine last? What is the advantage of taking doses from different manufacturers? What is the need for a booster dose?

term ‘experimental’

UFSC infectology professor Daniel Mansur says that the term “experimental”, cited in the publication by the secretary of cultural incentive, was used pejoratively, but it shouldn’t.

Mansur explains that all existing vaccines have gone through experimental phases, but that “doesn’t mean they haven’t had all the safety steps checked.”

The infectologist also added that immunizing agents undergo safety steps and that some of the pharmaceutical companies have more than 30 years of experience in the development of RNA vaccines, which guarantees efficient protocols.

“From the moment [a vacina] enters into circulation, it ceases to be experimental and becomes something proven. So, I think in that sense the connotation of experimental, as something bad, is the problem. [da postagem], but this phase that people might be calling experimental is restricted to phases 1, 2 and 3 that are necessary. [antes da aprovação das vacinas]”, says Mansur.

In Brazil, Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccines, produced in the country by Fiocruz, have already received definitive authorization for application. The immunizing agents from the Butantan Institute and Johnson & Johnson received emergency authorization that is valid for as long as the pandemic lasts.

Permanent monitoring

All vaccines in use in the world — and not just those developed against the coronavirus — must be constantly monitored so that safety is continuous, according to WHO recommendations.

On this subject, professor and vaccinologist at UFPel Odir Dellagostin explains that after approval of the emergency use of immunizers, the assessment moves to phase four, in which vaccinated individuals are under monitoring so that it is possible to detect any type of change in the observed data during testing. Any serious adverse effects detected are reported and investigated.

“Fortunately, these serious adverse effects have been very rare. Most, after investigation, end up being discarded, that is, it is identified that these effects are not due to the vaccines. Safety and efficacy continue to be monitored permanently, as well as occurs with other vaccines, even the more traditional ones”, he says.

Why do we investigate?

In its fourth phase, Comprova checks suspicious content about the federal government, elections or the pandemic that has reached a high level of viralization. The verified post reached 3,200 interactions until the 22nd of November.

Checking content like this is important, as misinformation can put people’s health at risk. As mentioned above, contrary to what the post makes us believe, immunization is one of the main ways to contain the pandemic.

Comprova has already checked other contents criticizing the vaccines developed to fight the coronavirus, such as the live of a doctor stating that the vaccines are experimental and the one that falsely claimed that the immunizers would be capable of generating HIV, cancer or HPV, which they cannot. proceeds.

For Comprova, misleading is content that uses inaccurate data or that induces an interpretation other than the intention of its author; or that it confuses, with or without the deliberate intention to cause harm.

Comprova performed this verification based on information available on the 22nd November 2021.