I am not privy to the contracts but I think some kind of indemnity was offered in view of the need to deliver quickly and avoid any reticence. Rather than throw brickbats at the Pharmaceutical industry we should be very grateful that the resources existed that enabled the development, and testing, to be such a pace. If they report excess profits as a consequence then windfall taxation is the right way to deal with it, rather than restrictive contracts at the development stage. That's what we have done with the energy companies.

Big Pharma make billions, and also spend billions on research, most of which result in products that never see the light of day. Campbell makes millions and doesn't, so far as I am aware, spend a 1p on research.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

AstraZeneca and its partnership with Oxford always impressed me with its attitude towards supplying the third world at cost.

That it's now becoming endemic and continuing doses are likely to be required it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they start to expect a modest return. If you read the article it is only modest.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

[Link]

Article from DM discussing potential links between wearing face masks and health issues such as cognitive decline and still births.

Typical sensational and misleading headline from the Mail.

The article itself says "may" and "can cause" these things along with this:-

"independent doctors have questioned the conclusions of the study — which never directly looked at health complications and mask use, describing the link as 'unlikely'".

Many things may or can happen. I may keel over in 5 minutes. One day I will! I may get hit by a bus next time I take a walk.

Of course, proper research studies should always be done and any concerns addressed. Worrying people unnecessarily could easily encourage them to take unwise actions. It helps sell newspapers and drive people to websites though. Which do of these do you believe is more important to the Mail?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It’s neither that I don’t care nor that it’s obvious! It’s that the inferences are untrue.

Requiring users to help fund their own regulation regime is done in many industries. It’s another form of targeted taxation and encourages participation and cooperation from the outset.

When you are recruiting from a specific pool of expertise it’s inevitable that some will come from your competitors, some from universities and research establishments and some from regulators. Nothing unusual in that either.

The important thing is to ensure the terms of reference within the regulation bodies are watertight, work is subject to peer review, done by teams and not by individuals, and subject to exterior oversight. Anyone found compromising the standards for personal gain then risks losing everything.

As I believe that to be the case these are just cheap slurs intended to further undermine confidence and typical of a YouTuber with eyes on his bank account.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Regulators manipulating figures to suit their own agenda is something I've witnessed on more than one occasion. You either accept it as an inevitable consequence of 'peer review', else you put your head in the sand.

I disengage, I turn the page.