Astra Zeneca



Which lie? Multiple sources indicating funding provided by the UK in April 2020. Prove otherwise....

What have the UK Conservative government got to do with the clusterfuck of EU vaccine procurement? This is a disagreement between the EU and AZ. I have a big straw if you would like to clutch at that??...
The claim refuted here is that the British Government funded the plant in the Netherlands (on the word of Hancock and AZ CEO). Some of the redtops even claim that the Dutch Gov. refused to fund it, but the British Gov. did and that is why the British Gov. were claimaing 50% of the output from that plant which they didn't get because they were telling porkies about funding the Dutch plant.

What what I understand, the British funding went to AZ to fund the British trials and a plant in Wales. No money went from the British Government to any of the plants based in the EU.

PS - the multiple sources seem to be The Daily Mail, The Express and the Telegraph - none of them reputable. I provided an academic paper producing on the funding of the Oxford Vaccine. The biggest funders were the EU Commission, the Bill Gates Foundation and the Welcome Trust.
 
The claim refuted here is that the British Government funded the plant in the Netherlands (on the word of Hancock and AZ CEO). Some of the redtops even claim that the Dutch Gov. refused to fund it, but the British Gov. did and that is why the British Gov. were claimaing 50% of the output from that plant which they didn't get because they were telling porkies about funding the Dutch plant.

What what I understand, the British funding went to AZ to fund the British trials and a plant in Wales. No money went from the British Government to any of the plants based in the EU.

PS - the multiple sources seem to be The Daily Mail, The Express and the Telegraph - none of them reputable. I provided an academic paper producing on the funding of the Oxford Vaccine. The biggest funders were the EU Commission, the Bill Gates Foundation and the Welcome Trust.
You understand wrong
Don't worry it's not a new thing
I didn't realise the Irish Times was an academic paper. Every day is a school day eh?
 
Last edited:
The claim refuted here is that the British Government funded the plant in the Netherlands (on the word of Hancock and AZ CEO). Some of the redtops even claim that the Dutch Gov. refused to fund it, but the British Gov. did and that is why the British Gov. were claimaing 50% of the output from that plant which they didn't get because they were telling porkies about funding the Dutch plant.

What what I understand, the British funding went to AZ to fund the British trials and a plant in Wales. No money went from the British Government to any of the plants based in the EU.

PS - the multiple sources seem to be The Daily Mail, The Express and the Telegraph - none of them reputable. I provided an academic paper producing on the funding of the Oxford Vaccine. The biggest funders were the EU Commission, the Bill Gates Foundation and the Welcome Trust.

You're coming across as a right knacker again

Give up man
 

CEF

Winger
The claim refuted here is that the British Government funded the plant in the Netherlands (on the word of Hancock and AZ CEO). Some of the redtops even claim that the Dutch Gov. refused to fund it, but the British Gov. did and that is why the British Gov. were claimaing 50% of the output from that plant which they didn't get because they were telling porkies about funding the Dutch plant.

What what I understand, the British funding went to AZ to fund the British trials and a plant in Wales. No money went from the British Government to any of the plants based in the EU.

PS - the multiple sources seem to be The Daily Mail, The Express and the Telegraph - none of them reputable. I provided an academic paper producing on the funding of the Oxford Vaccine. The biggest funders were the EU Commission, the Bill Gates Foundation and the Welcome Trust.
Nope, none of these funded a penny of the Oxford vaccine. Why do you keep saying this?
 
Nope, none of these funded a penny of the Oxford vaccine. Why do you keep saying this?

Cos he's a troll

He posted earlier that the EU should take legal action to stop companies signing bad contracts with the EU - he seems to ignore the obvious fact that the EU and their fuck knows how many contract lawyers also agreed to that 'bad' contract

I'll not post what I really think about him because I'll cop another ban
 
  • Like
Reactions: CEF
You understand wrong
Don't worry it's not a new thing
I didn't realise the Irish Times was an academic paper. Every day is a school day eh?
I never claimed that it was.

This is what I was referring to and which I posted a link with a summary earlier in this thread.
Nope, none of these funded a penny of the Oxford vaccine. Why do you keep saying this?
Because it is true. Read this:

You could also have a look at the link above.
 
Last edited:
I never claimed that it was.

This is what I was referring to and which I posted a link with a summary earlier in this thread.

Because it is true. Read this:

You could also have a look at the link above.
Firstly Medicines Law and Policy do not produce academic papers. As you will no doubt have seen there are no citations, no peer review etc etc
Your second link is a good piece. The last pie chart nicely shows that 95% of funding given to Oxford is from the UK government. Well done on finding that...:)

All of which has f**k all to do with anything I have been asking
 
Last edited:
I think the very last pie chart is the telling one .
We know that the British Gov. funded the AZ trials. The 2nd last slide is the one that shows the research funding that the Jenner Institute/Oxford university got to develop the vaccine in the first place.
Firstly Medicines Law and Policy do not produce academic papers. As you will no doubt have seen there are no citations, no peer review etc etc
Your second link is a good piece. The last pie chart nicely shows that 95% of funding given to Oxford is from the UK government. Well done on finding that...:)

All of which has f**k all to do with anything I have been asking
So, you are just going to dismiss the first paper although it is a compilation of all the material in the public domain.

As for the last slide - that concerns British funding of the AZ trials which has already been acknowledged by me. Now can you acknowledge that the British Government did not fund the development of the oxford vaccine, that there are multiple funders including the Bill Gates Foundation, the Welcome Trust and the European Commission?
 
Last edited:
We know that the British Gov. funded the AZ trials. The 2nd last slide is the one that shows the research funding that the Jenner Institute/Oxford university got to develop the vaccine in the first place.
ChAdOx was the initial development for the MERS (pg.24). EU funding secured when the UK were still part of the EU. Tech developed but not progressed due to the disappearance of MERS/SARS and no funding for any subsequent commercial development.
ChAdOx nCoV-19 was the COVID-19 one last year (pg.25). UK Government funding for the specific commercialised vaccine
So, you are just going to dismiss the first paper although it is a compilation of all the material in the public domain.

As for the last slide - that concerns British funding of the AZ trials which has already been acknowledged by me. Now can you acknowledge that the British Government did not fund the development of the oxford vaccine, that there are multiple funders including the Bill Gates Foundation, the Welcome Trust and the European Commission?
1. The first is not a paper so no I wont
2. No that funding was for the R&D which is not exclusively clinical trials. See above for rest of the answer

You are a pathetic "ah but what about" WUM who has a lot to say about nothing. Probably time you gave up to be honest. You dont have the faintest idea of pharmaceuticals, contracts with drug companies, basic law yet try and purvey this air of authority on the matter. Step away from the keyboard
 
Last edited:
We know that the British Gov. funded the AZ trials. The 2nd last slide is the one that shows the research funding that the Jenner Institute/Oxford university got to develop the vaccine in the first place.

So, you are just going to dismiss the first paper although it is a compilation of all the material in the public domain.

As for the last slide - that concerns British funding of the AZ trials which has already been acknowledged by me. Now can you acknowledge that the British Government did not fund the development of the oxford vaccine, that there are multiple funders including the Bill Gates Foundation, the Welcome Trust and the European Commission?
Also worth noting that medRxiv is a portal for unpublished papers which have not been peer reviewed. Their website is also quite explicit and states "Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behaviour and should not be reported in news media as established information"
 
ChAdOx was the initial development for the MERS (pg.24). EU funding secured when the UK were still part of the EU. Tech developed but not progressed due to the disappearance of MERS/SARS and no funding for any subsequent commercial development.
ChAdOx nCoV-19 was the COVID-19 one last year (pg.25). UK Government funding for the specific commercialised vaccine

1. The first is not a paper so no I wont
2. No that funding was for the R&D which is not exclusively clinical trials. See above for rest of the answer

You are a pathetic "ah but what about" WUM who has a lot to say about nothing. Probably time you gave up to be honest. You dont have the faintest idea of pharmaceuticals, contracts with drug companies, basic law yet try and purvey this air of authority on the matter. Step away from the keyboard
Yep, without ChAdOx development, there would not have been a Covid-19 vaccine. Dr Teresa Lambe of the Jenner Institute modified it over a weekend to produce the Covid-19 vaccine.

The UK Government funding to AZ was for the trials of the Covid-19 vaccine, not the actual development of the vaccine.

1. You won't believe that, but you believe every rubbish headline in the Express/Daily Mail? I see!
2. It was for the trials.

I know enough about vaccine law, pharmaceuticals not to believe a word the Express/Telegraph/Daily/Boris Johnson says about them.

Banging out personal insults on your keyboard just suggests you are a loser.
 
Yep, without ChAdOx development, there would not have been a Covid-19 vaccine. Dr Teresa Lambe of the Jenner Institute modified it over a weekend to produce the Covid-19 vaccine.

The UK Government funding to AZ was for the trials of the Covid-19 vaccine, not the actual development of the vaccine.

1. You won't believe that, but you believe every rubbish headline in the Express/Daily Mail? I see!
2. It was for the trials.

I know enough about vaccine law, pharmaceuticals not to believe a word the Express/Telegraph/Daily/Boris Johnson says about them.

Banging out personal insults on your keyboard just suggests you are a loser.
Come on then whats your knowledge and experience of vaccine law & pharmaceuticals....
 
Last edited:

CEF

Winger
I never claimed that it was.

This is what I was referring to and which I posted a link with a summary earlier in this thread.

Because it is true. Read this:

You could also have a look at the link above.
The covid 19 vaccine was 100% funded by the UK tax payer. Prior to that there was no vaccine against Covid19, UK money paid for it to be developed and put through trials up to end result of mass roll out.
That paper basically just states that general vaccine research over the last 20 years had multiple funders. I don't think anyone thought that scientists just plucked a vaccine out of thin air, they were obviously going to base it on previous research/research already out there. Could apply the same to anything.
 

offmenut

Striker
I never claimed that it was.

This is what I was referring to and which I posted a link with a summary earlier in this thread.

Because it is true. Read this:

You could also have a look at the link above.
I think you're getting confused with who funded pre pandemic research into ChAdOx.
For r and d into the covid19, this is from the 2nd link you gave

Since January 1, 2020, the largest funding source for pandemic R&D into ChAdOx for pandemic R&D into ChAdOx was the U.K. government which contributed £33,354,469 (95.5%). On or after this date, charitable funders (Wellcome Trust) accounted for £1,217,835 (3.5%), PPP, specifically CEPI, accounted for £272,286 (0.8%) and research institutions accounted for £68,106 (0.2%) of R&D funding for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine
 
The covid 19 vaccine was 100% funded by the UK tax payer. Prior to that there was no vaccine against Covid19, UK money paid for it to be developed and put through trials up to end result of mass roll out.
That paper basically just states that general vaccine research over the last 20 years had multiple funders. I don't think anyone thought that scientists just plucked a vaccine out of thin air, they were obviously going to base it on previous research/research already out there. Could apply the same to anything.
Nope. The trials and manufacturing in the UK was was funded by the British Government. The vaccine was already been trialled at that stage.

This article on BBC wesite states: Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine: Bogus reports, accidental finds - the story of the jab

1. Professor Teresa Lambe designed the vaccine over the weekend (11 January, 2020).

She got to work straight away, still in her pyjamas, and was glued to her laptop for the next 48 hours. "My family didn't see me very much that weekend, but I think that set the tone for the rest of the year," she says.
By Monday morning, she had it: the template for a new experimental coronavirus vaccine. The first death from the new virus was reported around the same time, but it was still a month before the disease it causes was named Covid-19.

2. First jabs were in April (from vaccine manufactured in Oxford own facilitity and a facility in Italy).

3. At end of April, manufacturing deal was made with AZ.

4. UK Gov. funding in May.

In May, in a huge vote of confidence, the UK government agreed to buy 100 million doses and provided nearly £90m in support.
I think you're getting confused with who funded pre pandemic research into ChAdOx.
For r and d into the covid19, this is from the 2nd link you gave

Since January 1, 2020, the largest funding source for pandemic R&D into ChAdOx for pandemic R&D into ChAdOx was the U.K. government which contributed £33,354,469 (95.5%). On or after this date, charitable funders (Wellcome Trust) accounted for £1,217,835 (3.5%), PPP, specifically CEPI, accounted for £272,286 (0.8%) and research institutions accounted for £68,106 (0.2%) of R&D funding for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine
Since January 2020 is since January 2020. UK funding was May 2020 when the vaccine had already been trialled.
Come on then whats your knowledge and experience of vaccine law & pharmaceuticals....
Just what I read/hear from reputable authorities (like the FDA, EMA, etc). Definately NOT the Daily Mail ect.
Not surprising when you’ve got an Irishman involved is it after all they still argue about something that happened in 1690
There is no argument about what happened in 1690. That is factual. Its your fellow British countrymen who continue to bang on about it.
 
Last edited:

Top