Slight amendment.In fact, if you don't see the EU's actions regarding vaccinations as the punitive and disastrous actions they are, I question your ability to think.
Slight amendment.In fact, if you don't see the EU's actions regarding vaccinations as the punitive and disastrous actions they are, I question your ability to think.
Well, OK let's try a sensible discussion:
A paper (well, pre-print) from last year on the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine and single vs double dose efficacy. Immediately what stands out to me, is that I'm sure they've justified their use of prior here. No literature etc cited to support why they chose it.
I suspect this is part of the problem we have seen from the start until the end of this pandemic, from when to lockdown to side effects of the vaccines (and one that can be extrapolated from the point I was making about the above paper, without having to understand the paper) - different assumptions between various different groups, means that different organisations are coming to different conclusions. And now we are seeing the same with regards to the various vaccines and their associated risks.
What do you think?
Are you referring to the Froggy version, or the all be it free version from their friends over the border? just asking, like.![]()
German minister defies EU by saying he wants Russia to supply Sputnik vaccine
Berlin could act independently of EU but would require regulator’s approval of Covid jabwww.theguardian.com
All for one(self)
So U.K. government, WHO and most of the world come to one conclusion.Well, OK let's try a sensible discussion:
A paper (well, pre-print) from last year on the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine and single vs double dose efficacy. Immediately what stands out to me, is that I'm sure they've justified their use of prior here. No literature etc cited to support why they chose it.
I suspect this is part of the problem we have seen from the start until the end of this pandemic, from when to lockdown to side effects of the vaccines (and one that can be extrapolated from the point I was making about the above paper, without having to understand the paper) - different assumptions between various different groups, means that different organisations are coming to different conclusions. And now we are seeing the same with regards to the various vaccines and their associated risks.
What do you think?
Of course not.Peer reviewed was it?
Of course not.
concerns about the testing methodology have been covered extensively. A small subset was given an incorrect dose. (Not enough to impact on the trial results. By happy coincidence it worked better.)
did you know that when they tried penicillin out on Guinea Pigs it killed them. They then tried it out on mice and discovered it was a wonder drug.
He also appears to have no medical or scientific background either .But the writer of the pamphlet has declared no interest or funding it must be completely impartial...
Are you referring to the Froggy version, or the all be it free version from their friends over the border? just asking, like.![]()
"Spahn said he was reacting to the commission’s announcement that it would not sign a contract with the Sputnik V producers, as it had done with other manufacturers.
“As a result, I explained to the EU health ministers’ council that Germany would be holding bilateral talks with [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia']Russia[/URL], in the first instance, to find out when and what amounts [of the vaccine] we could get,” Spahn told the broadcaster WDR. He stressed that [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia']Russia[/URL] would “need to provide data” if Sputnik V was to receive the necessary approval.
Hours earlier the head of the southern state of Bavaria, Markus Söder, attracted widespread criticism after announcing that he had signed a “pre-contract” with Sputnik V’s producers. On condition that Sputnik passed the relevant safety checks, Bavaria would expect to receive 2.5m doses of it in July, to be produced by the company R-Pharm in the Bavarian town of Illertissen, he said."
Did somebody send you that by telegram?It's the Ruski one.
From the bottom of the article:
"Spahn said he was reacting to the commission’s announcement that it would not sign a contract with the Sputnik V producers, as it had done with other manufacturers. “As a result, I explained to the EU health ministers’ council that Germany would be holding bilateral talks with [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia']Russia[/URL], in the first instance, to find out when and what amounts [of the vaccine] we could get,” Spahn told the broadcaster WDR. He stressed that [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/russia']Russia[/URL] would “need to provide data” if Sputnik V was to receive the necessary approval. Hours earlier the head of the southern state of Bavaria, Markus Söder, attracted widespread criticism after announcing that he had signed a “pre-contract” with Sputnik V’s producers. On condition that Sputnik passed the relevant safety checks, Bavaria would expect to receive 2.5m doses of it in July, to be produced by the company R-Pharm in the Bavarian town of Illertissen, he said."
Seems it's not a federal matter any more, more each state for itself, re Bavaria.
So U.K. government, WHO and most of the world come to one conclusion.
the trading block that is failing to vaccinate its population comes up with another conclusion to support their incompetence and protect their ‘for profit’ vaccine manufacturing programme.
not to worry. Russia’s riding to the EUs help now
![]()
Germany starting talks to buy Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine
Malta, meanwhile, pushed for a joint EU approach.www.politico.eu
Any medical papers on the research conducted by the Russians on Sputnik V?
Did you see the French government research paper that took into account variability in mortality recording?
it appears we’re no worse than other countries. We just test more people and record deaths differently.
lovely article today about how the U.K. economy is going to outstrip the US and EU economies this year by a good margin.
I did look at the material.Well, I suspect before you engage in this debate, you should first familiarise yourself with material first - as your first sentence is wrong.
Try again![]()
Of course not.
concerns about the testing methodology have been covered extensively. A small subset was given an incorrect dose. (Not enough to impact on the trial results. By happy coincidence it worked better.)
did you know that when they tried penicillin out on Guinea Pigs it killed them. They then tried it out on mice and discovered it was a wonder drug.
I did look at the material.
I also picked up that the author teaches Business Stratgey.
![]()
Phebo Wibbens - Faculty Profile | INSEAD
Phebo Wibbens is an Assistant Professor of Strategy at INSEAD in France. He teaches the MBA elective MAACS (Mergers, Acquisitions, Alliances and Corporate Strategy), as well as PhD course sessions on competitive strategy, corporate strategy, and research methods In his research, Prof.www.insead.edu
Well, OK let's try a sensible discussion:
Good to know.Is that similar to business strategy?
BTW they also teach research methods...
always good when an MBA lecturer specialising in mergers and acquisitions strays in epidemiology.
So our esteemed scientific expert is pushing out a paper written by a teacher with no practical experience in that field who taken complex scientific data and done a pretty basic statistical review of scientific data he has no experience at dealing with.Who, entirely predictably, has never run a merger or acquisition in his entire life.
The risk of blood clot arising from the AZ vaccine is significantly lower than the risk of blood clot arising from the common contraceptive pill.
See Systematic Review of Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Venous Thrombosis
It's all relative.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So our esteemed scientific expert is pushing out a paper written by a teacher with no practical experience in that field who taken complex scientific data and done a pretty basic statistical review of scientific data he has no experience at dealing with.
why do you think our resident Holocaust denier isn’t quoting more reputable peer reviewed papers?
Did somebody send you that by telegram?