You make some interesting claims, do you have any sources? Would be interested to read more.

> They have made crazy claims about their Covid research since March 2020 while serious scientists who have produced stuff that actually works were more focused on stuff in the lab. They continue to make outlandish claims, for example claiming they had developed the first ever monoclonal antibody drug for Covid. This was in the weeks after Trump and ex NJ Gov Christie were successfully treated with Regeneron's and Eli Lilly's monoclonal antibody drugs respectively, and of course the British press and Oxford boosters spread it around in the media.

From what I can tell, it looks like Oxford started their trial in September [1] and all other reference I can find for the other drug you are mentioning, "bamlanivimab", seems to come after that date. Not sure why this is such an issue? The trials for example started in October [2]. The second reference there also seems quite critical of the drug you are mentioning:

* Bamlanivimab showed no benefit in the ACTIV-3 trial involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

* Bamlanivimab failed to achieve the primary endpoint of viral load reduction in a trial involving outpatients with COVID-19 (BLAZE-1). It may have caused some debatable improvements in secondary endpoints.

* Eli Lilly is now testing a cocktail of bamlanivimab plus another antibody. The company seems to realize that bamlanivimab might have some efficacy, but it’s far from a wonder drug.

* The IDSA and NIH guidelines recommend against generally using bamlanivimab.

* Somehow, bamlanivimab has nonetheless achieved an Emergency Use Authorization via the FDA and is being used at some centers.

> The "studies" that were published that show "efficacy" had vanishingly few over 65s in the treated population but had over 65s in the control. If you look at it carefully, it's not clear the claimed efficacy is much more than a difference in population characteristics. Their apologists claim they performed worse than Pfizer/Moderna because it's possible the treated took more risks because they had symptoms from the vaccine and so knew they were immune. The only problem with this claim is that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines caused more flu-like symptoms.

A few things here:

1. It doesn't seem any of the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna or Oxford trials have enough data for over 65s. You can see MHRA public assessments here saying the same thing. Pfizer vaccine In this document on page 48 [3]. Oxford/AZ vaccine on page 53 [4]. Moderna (not the full public assessment report) page 9 [5].

For example, even the FDA says the same about the Moderna vaccine trial:

> The small number participants and cases in some subgroups, such as participants >75 years of age and participants in certain racial subgroups, limits the interpretability of the individual VE results, but are displayed for completeness. [6]

2. Oxford seem to be the only ones who have published their studies on the vaccines, unless I have missed anything? So it's hard to scrutinise the other vaccine studies.

3. Your last comment seems unsubstantiated.

> This is pure conjecture, but I suspect the UK and EU approvals have more to do with Brexit politics than actual science. It also has to do with the fact that the head of the Oxford team is from the "right" family background. Unlike the US, this sort of thing matters a lot in the EU, even the UK. The UK government is looking good but the reduction in UK deaths is only partially real. More than half the decrease in Covid deaths in the UK is fake because excess deaths went up simultaneously with a decrease Covid deaths. Of course the EU doesn't want to look bad post Brexit so they had to approve and show they were vaccinating their population just as quickly as the UK was. Despite the EU approval, Poland, Germany and France are taking steps to limit the usage of this vaccine in their countries. I wouldn't be surprised if more European countries do so as well.

That is pure conjecture, do you have anything to try and justify this? Especially for your last sentence there, it does seem odd countries are not allowing for over 65s considering there isn't enough data from the other vaccines (unless I have misunderstood this, happy to be corrected). They have more data, but it is still not enough data?

> I for one sincerely hope the Astra Zeneca vaccine is NOT approved by the FDA. Would you rather have a real vaccine or pretend to have been vaccinated and get infected later? Even if the Astra Zeneca vaccine has the claimed 70% efficacy (it doesn't against the new strains), and if R0 is >5 as it is for the new South African and UK variants, it will only slow, not stop the epidemic.

I think calling the vaccine not real is a bit inflammatory. Why is it not real? The new study pre-print seems to support that is a very good "real" vaccine [7]. It also does appear that all the vaccines are less efficacious against other variants such as the one in SA, but seems to be similarly effective to the UK one [8]:

> Oxford researchers say their analysis found similar levels of efficacy against the old variant (84%) and the "Kent" B117 one (74.6%), which was spotted in the South East in September and caused a sharp rise in cases before Christmas.
> Dr June Raine, chief executive of the UK's regulator, the MHRA, said the findings were "very reassuring". Dr Peter English, consultant in communicable disease control, said: "This is excellent news, as it indicates that the vaccine works effectively at preventing illness, even with the variant virus."

---

> I can't say this will cause Thalidomide like side effects but I would happily take a bet at 10-1 odds that within 5 years, data will come to light that shows serious problems with either the safety of efficacy of the Astra Zeneca vaccine. That implies that I think the chances there are problems are >10%, which is much too high for approval given the IFR of Covid.

The results from the UK rolling out the Oxford vaccine should be released next week I believe. I dare say you will be proved wrong. Mass issues with the vaccine would surely be out in the wild right now and be reported on.

All-in-all, this seems like quite a different understand of the information out there, and I think much of what you say isn't justified. You definitely seem to have a strong dislike for the Oxford team and the vaccine, nor do you seem to be fond of the UK and/or EU institutions from my understanding of your comment. I'd rather place my trusts in the MHRA, EMA and JCVI and similar agencies who have access to all the data and are happy with the information provided to them.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54120753
[2] https://emcrit.org/pulmcrit/bamlanivimab/
[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[4] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[6] https://www.fda.gov/media/144673/download
[7] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268
[8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55951920