What now for the EU ?

Can't we all sit down and have a discussion about whether the GPMG gunner really needs it And whether he would be better served by someone with fu*ckall experience in logistics but who can do Matlab (or have a username of Mattlb) and can waffle about 'just in time' (but not actually there)?

We value you Lobster mong. What do you think will happen now for the EU?
I’m sure this post sounded well good in your head.

BTW previously Truxx in his wisdom explained he had no idea how the EMA works, when arguing why we should get rid of it (he also called it a gravey train...) but now years late he’s still claiming to be an expert on medicines.
 
Can't we all sit down and have a discussion about whether the GPMG gunner really needs it And whether he would be better served by someone with fu*ckall experience in logistics but who can do Matlab (or have a username of Mattlb) and can waffle about 'just in time' (but not actually there)?

We value you Lobster mong. What do you think will happen now for the EU?
People still seem to be getting confused what soldier first means. It doesn’t mean being an infanteer.
 

Oyibo

LE
People still seem to be getting confused what soldier first means. It doesn’t mean being an infanteer.
Agreed, but a loggy needs to get the shit to where it's needed. And on time.

And the crusty knob is derailing another thread.
 

Oyibo

LE
People still seem to be getting confused what soldier first means. It doesn’t mean being an infanteer.
What now for the EU?
 
I’m sure this post sounded well good in your head.

BTW previously Truxx in his wisdom explained he had no idea how the EMA works, when arguing why we should get rid of it (he also called it a gravey train...) but now years late he’s still claiming to be an expert on medicines.
"Keep posting your drivel though - it's people like you who have ruined what used to be the best place to discuss current affairs on the web.

Wibble you say?
"

I'd like to hear how you claim the EU is going to expand federalisation while its currency is collapsing.

 
Last edited:
Agreed, but a loggy needs to get the shit to where it's needed. And on time.

And the crusty knob is derailing another thread.
The blokes a bluffing fool. Just because he happened to walk past the ACIO once does not give him insight into military anything, especially logistics, anymore than knowing a friend of a friend of a friend who deals with logistics for a civilian company gives him insight to the various levels of the supply chain.
 

Oyibo

LE
The blokes a bluffing fool. Just because he happened to walk past the ACIO once does not give him insight into military anything, especially logistics, anymore than knowing a friend of a friend of a friend who deals with logistics for a civilian company gives him insight to the various levels of the supply chain.
Which one's a bluffing fool?

What do you think will happen to the EU (as per the title of the thread)?
 

Oyibo

LE
When the EU hits rock bottom we can generously offer them to join the British Empire.



( I may not be fully up to date with the news )
Good Lord man no. At best they may be allowed to be 'protectorates'.

Get with the program you crazy cat
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
I’m sure this post sounded well good in your head.

BTW previously Truxx in his wisdom explained he had no idea how the EMA works, when arguing why we should get rid of it (he also called it a gravey train...) but now years late he’s still claiming to be an expert on medicines.
In that post he was agreeing with me and @javaguzzisti . Given that both of us work in QA/QC for the pharma industry (well did. I believe java retried recently) and have rather extensive experience of the regulatory framework AND we provided cited sources...

How the EMA works is hereby symplified thusly. First copy every single regulatory update put forth by the MHRA. Second, pass the new regulatory framework down to the various member-states national regulatory agencies (well except the MHRA as they wrote it in the first place and we just copied their homework). Thirdly be entirely reliant on those same.member-states regulators for inspection and enforcement. And then pretend there is no problem at all when the French regulators get into bed with national big pharma, are complicit in covering up major pharmacovigiance issues and then fraudulently publish reports of the safety of said national big pharma flagship products that have killed at least ten thousand patients over a decade.

Your response was "these things happen". Which is an utterly disgusting attitude. I did not get into this industry to kill job lots of patients- quite the ******* opposite- and if I was aware of any hint of a patient safety issue I would be screaming it from the ******* roof tops. And not soliciting brown envelopes from industry reps for assistance in covering up a ******* massive scandal.

The UK leaving the EMA will do nothing but improve quality and patient safety, as it means an MHRA inspection framework must be adhered to before an import license is granted, rather than the current model of "EMA? I'm sure it'll be fine and not at all a bag of shite from Cyprus or France."
 
In that post he was agreeing with me and @javaguzzisti . Given that both of us work in QA/QC for the pharma industry (well did. I believe java retried recently) and have rather extensive experience of the regulatory framework AND we provided cited sources...

How the EMA works is hereby symplified thusly. First copy every single regulatory update put forth by the MHRA. Second, pass the new regulatory framework down to the various member-states national regulatory agencies (well except the MHRA as they wrote it in the first place and we just copied their homework). Thirdly be entirely reliant on those same.member-states regulators for inspection and enforcement. And then pretend there is no problem at all when the French regulators get into bed with national big pharma, are complicit in covering up major pharmacovigiance issues and then fraudulently publish reports of the safety of said national big pharma flagship products that have killed at least ten thousand patients over a decade.

Your response was "these things happen". Which is an utterly disgusting attitude. I did not get into this industry to kill job lots of patients- quite the ******* opposite- and if I was aware of any hint of a patient safety issue I would be screaming it from the ******* roof tops. And not soliciting brown envelopes from industry reps for assistance in covering up a ******* massive scandal.

The UK leaving the EMA will do nothing but improve quality and patient safety, as it means an MHRA inspection framework must be adhered to before an import license is granted, rather than the current model of "EMA? I'm sure it'll be fine and not at all a bag of shite from Cyprus or France."
My point was don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not a disguising attitude - a rather sensible, and unemotional one.

BTW - none of the people who actually make (read discover) the drugs, or investigate their efficacy, agree with you. So already you argument is losing weight. I also suspect none of of the people in Glasgow (as one example) who lost out on the chance to trial a lifesaving drug because of leaving the EU agree with you either. Cancer Research also does not seem to agree with you: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/future_of_clinical_trials_after_brexit.pdf
Henry Wellcome's trust also disagrees with you: https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/brexit-and-beyond-clinical-trials.pdf

A few snapshots after the vote is available here: Number of UK clinical trials in decline since Brexit vote -




And I'm not sure if you are being deliberately honest by not explaining that leaving the EMA may harm how quick we (the UK) get access to drugs because the market size means companies will put the majority of their effort in getting drugs accepted for the bigger market.

But sure, tell us all how harming the UK pharma industry is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
@Whey_Aye_Banzai is bashing buttons because he's upset I didn't give a post which he could use to boast about his working class credentials. The ones gained by having a jet setting father, or his penchant for dinner parties.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
My point was don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not a disguising attitude - a rather sensible, and unemotional one.

BTW - none of the people who actually make (read discover) the drugs, or investigate their efficacy, agree with you.
Make? Make is manufacturing. What you are referring to as "make" is r&d. And r&d types have something of a record of getting things very very wrong which is why the whole pharmacovigiance thing is rather important and deliberately compartmentalised away from the research egg heads. Examples off the top of my head... Sodium valporate inhibiting neural tubule formation in the fetuses of pregnant women. Thus leading to thousands of babies being born worldwide with severe spinabifida. Or you know what let's just play the trump card. Thalidomide...
 
Make? Make is manufacturing. What you are referring to as "make" is r&d. And r&d types have something of a record of getting things very very wrong which is why the whole pharmacovigiance thing is rather important and deliberately compartmentalised away from the research egg heads. Examples off the top of my head... Sodium valporate inhibiting neural tubule formation in the fetuses of pregnant women. Thus leading to thousands of babies being born worldwide with severe spinabifida. Or you know what let's just play the trump card. Thalidomide...
Make - I'm talking about drug discovery - I used make for laymen (and I've had my (albeit limited) experience on working at the pre-clinical stage with rats - I've also previously worked in a lab where they had a contract to test a new anxiety drug and I saw all of the effort that went into producing that; whilst my partner is a neuropsych for AD drug trials). Fact is none of the serious people in the industry agree with you. And pulling out isolated examples of where it's gone wrong is not an argument. Just see the links you've ignored - everyone from Wellcome to Cancer Research have stated it's a bad thing.

In fact, you're almost heading down the anti-phrama and anti-vax line or reasoning. Which is fine for you, but don't pretend that less access to drugs or a less effective research capability is a positive thing.
 
Last edited:

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
Make - I'm talking about drug discovery. Fact is none of the serious people in the industry agree with you. And pulling out isolated examples of where it's gone wrong is not an argument.

In fact, you're almost heading down the anti-phrama and anti-vax line or reasoning.
The fact that you are unable to use anything approaching correct terminology- and never have been able to- rather undermines any claims to expertise in the field. I'm well aware you were talking about the r&d process rather than the mass manufacturing process. But that's because I have long experience in translating idiot into legible English. Remember your claims of "promising heart drug trial called off"? That was exactly the point you lost all credibility for your ill informed and biassed commentary.
 
The fact that you are unable to use anything approaching correct terminology- and never have been able to- rather undermines any claims to expertise in the field. I'm well aware you were talking about the r&d process rather than the mass manufacturing process. But that's because I have long experience in translating idiot into legible English. Remember your claims of "promising heart drug trial called off"? That was exactly the point you lost all credibility for your ill informed and biassed commentary.

Do you think calling the people who work in drug discovery egg heads and giving isolated examples of when they got it wrong adds to your credibility?

And why would I use or know the correct terminology? I said I had a bit of limited experience working at the pre-clinical stage with rats. But then I don't need credibility because I'm not the one calling all of the main players in the industry wrong.

BTW yes the study was called off, because of concerns about access to longitudinal data after we'd left.

You sound like someone who has hung around an industry, picked up a bit of terminology and now feel you are qualified to claim they are all wrong.

Remember - I don't need credibility in the field, because I'm convinced by the people who actually know what they are talking about.

Perhaps you can show your credibility by telling us all exactly which aspect of quality control you are involved in, and why all of the other agencies I provided links for - including one of the biggest scientific funders in the UK, are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Been woken by epic thunderstorms in the Lakes.
Dog thinks its the end of days and the electric and thunder sound like it.
I think Brexit did this to us.
 

Latest Threads

Top