You know I’m no fan of the current Russian government (nor any Russian government for the past few hundred years, come to think of it) but I’ve actually been cautiously optimistic about Sputnik V, the vaccine against COVID-19 they rushed into production last year. I wouldn’t take Putin’s word that the vaccine worked, but studies published in credible medical journals like The Lancet suggested it might actually work.
However, one European country that bet big on Sputnik V, Slovakia, is expressing some buyer's remorse:
Russia called on Slovakia on Thursday to return hundreds of thousands of doses of the Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine, citing contract violations, in an escalating row between the two countries after a Slovak watchdog raised doubts about the shot.
Earlier on Thursday, Slovakia's SUKL drug agency said the batches of Sputnik V vaccines it had received differed from those reviewed by international scientists and by the European Union regulator.
Slovakia imported 200,000 doses of Sputnik V last month, the second European Union nation to do so after Hungary, despite a lack of EU regulatory approval.
Though approving the shot for therapeutic usage of the vaccine as an unregistered drug and receiving an initial shipment, it had not begun administering the shot, and the Slovak health ministry also requested its drug agency conduct a review.
The agency said it found that the dosage form of the vaccine - the way the medicine is presented, such as in a solution - differed from the product currently being scrutinised by the European Medicines Agency as part of a rolling review of the shot, required for EU approval.
SUKL said the batches sent to Slovakia also showed different characteristics from those used in studies published in The Lancet.
The Russian Direct Investment Fund, Russia's sovereign wealth fund responsible for marketing the vaccine abroad, vigorously denied these claims, describing them as "fake news".
It said the Slovak side had not tested the shot in a specially-certified laboratory, adding that this was in violation of contract obligations and "an act of sabotage".
RDIF said it had requested the Slovak government send some batches to a European Union certified laboratory for additional tests, as well as send the main shipment back to Russia.
Hey, it could have been just one bad batch, right? It’s not like drug manufacturers in the West don’t mess up on occasion.
But the fact that Sputnik V’s manufacturer has adopted the “Donald Trump railing against news channels on his Twitter feed” PR strategy does not inspire confidence:
Even if the Russians are using Sputnik V as a propaganda tool, I still want it to work against a virus that’s claimed so many lives. Same thing with some of the Chinese-made vaccines being distributed to developing countries. Getting COVID-19 under control all over the world is the top priority, and if an authoritarian government actually helps, so be it.
But it’s easy for a dictatorship to move mountains to produce a product. Allowing the culture of openness and debate needed to produce a viable product is that much harder.
Incidentally, you’d think the professional anti-vaxxers would be all over this story. But as of this writing, neither Robert F. Kennedy Jr. nor Naomi Wolf have mentioned it at all. Make of that what you will.
Not long ago, the Paramount movie studio launched a streaming service under its own name. Actually, that’s not quite true. They plastered their name onto an existing service, CBS All Access, added some new content, and waited for the money to roll in.
They might be waiting for a while.
Maybe the Flashdance or Love Story TV series might turn things around, but so far, consumers have responded to Paramount+ with indifference or outright mockery. The market for streaming services is saturated, and unless you have a brand name like Disney or HBO that people instinctively associate with quality entertainment, the time to launch yet another paid service has likely passed.
Paramount has some strong franchises, like Star Trek and the Tom Cruise Mission: Impossible movies, but no one rushes out to see a movie just because Paramount made it.
That’s why I think Sony Pictures has the right idea, teaming up with Netflix instead of going it alone:
At a time when every other studio wants to be a Netflix competitor, Sony Pictures has decided to become one of its top suppliers.
Culver City-based Sony has signed a multiyear deal to release movies on Netflix after they hit theaters and home video, the companies said Thursday.
The agreement replaces Sony’s previous pay-TV pact with premium cable network Starz, which is owned by Lionsgate. Starz had been the exclusive premium cable home for Sony movies for more than a decade.
The deal begins with Sony’s 2022 lineup and will stretch through 2026. It will include the upcoming releases “Morbius,” “Where the Crawdads Sing” and “Bullet Train,” followed by future installments of series including “Venom,” “Spider-Man,” “Jumanji” and “Bad Boys.”
[…]
In a key part of the new arrangement, Netflix will get right of first refusal to show Sony movies that bypass theaters and go straight to streaming. Those films will be in addition to the 15 to 20 pictures Sony releases in theaters annually. The deal represents a boost to Netflix’s burgeoning film business, which plans to release 70 original movies this year.
Sony is now the only major Hollywood movie studio without its own streaming service. Maybe they’re kicking themselves for not getting into that business sooner. (And, no, Crackle doesn’t count.) But like Warren Buffett said about investing - “be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful” - it’s probably better to miss the bandwagon altogether than to be the last one jumping aboard.
Greatest comic ever? Greatest comic ever.