Vaccine taskforce head Kate Bingham shared UK plans with private firms

[SirGalahad]

See the article she published in the lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32175-9/fulltext

and a full rebuttal of the times article here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-statement-regarding-kate-bingham-and-the-vaccine-taskforce



Looks like eggs on someone else's face?

Lol is that the rebuttal. The webinar was on the 21st of October.

https://twitter.com/FalkMarques/status/1319330815847915526

So the webinar was before the article in the lancet on the 27th.

This is the rebuttal

"The fact of her appearance and the content of her presentation received approval from officials at the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy in line with the process governing such engagements. Kate Bingham focused on publicly available information and said little that expert delegates at the conference could not deduce themselves."

The last line is the telling. So they admit she said something that was material and non public but try to hide behind the fact that somone knowlegeable could possibly deduce it themselves- that is not actually the test of what is material and non public. So they admit she released material and non public data.


If it was public information can someone point out where it was available prior to the 21st?

So first you defended it by making spurious points and then you said it was official but sensitive can be fairly vague and now it was cleared according to the same department that is trying to defend her actions.

 

[Trazor]

Is this true then?

"The head of Britain’s vaccine taskforce is facing calls to resign after disclosing “official sensitive” government documents to a $200-a-head conference in America last week".

It was the favourite rag of JohnD that posted that.

 

[JohnD]

If, as mottie, trazor and motorbiking suggest,

The venture capitalist, married to a Tory minister, gave financiers a list of medicines the government is monitoring

it is true, then I see no reason why a newspaper should not say it.

 

[Trazor]

If, as mottie, trazor and motorbiking suggest,

it is true, then I see no reason why a newspaper should not say it.

A truly misrepresentative trolling response.

 

[JohnD]

A truly misrepresentative trolling response.

I asked if there is someone saying this is not true

"The venture capitalist, married to a Tory minister, gave financiers a list of medicines the government is monitoring"

You responded but didn't deny it.

Do you want to deny that it is true?

 

[JohnD]

It was the favourite rag of JohnD that posted that.

When was it in Private Eye?

What makes you think I read that issue?

 

[JohnD]

JohnD is a subscriber as well

Why do you feel impelled to post made-up nonsense that is not true?

 

[Trazor]

I asked if there is someone saying this is not true

"The venture capitalist, married to a Tory minister, gave financiers a list of medicines the government is monitoring"

You responded but didn't deny it.

Do you want to deny that it is true?

That innocent headline is not the reason this thread was created.

Do you want to deny that is true

 

[motorbiking]

Lol is that the rebuttal. The webinar was on the 21st of October.

https://twitter.com/FalkMarques/status/1319330815847915526

So the webinar was before the article in the lancet on the 27th.

This is the rebuttal

"The fact of her appearance and the content of her presentation received approval from officials at the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy in line with the process governing such engagements. Kate Bingham focused on publicly available information and said little that expert delegates at the conference could not deduce themselves."

The last line is the telling. So they admit she said something that was material and non public but try to hide behind the fact that somone knowlegeable could possibly deduce it themselves- that is not actually the test of what is material and non public. So they admit she released material and non public data.

It means nothing of the sort - it may mean she shared opinion as well as fact and information publicly available. If she followed the protocol for getting her presentation approved, I really can't see what she did wrong.

 

[Trazor]

When was it in Private Eye?

What makes you think I read that issue?

??????????

 

[Trazor]

Why do you feel impelled to post made-up nonsense that is not true?

You post and quote links from the FT that require a subscription.

You would need a subscription to know the content you posted.

Do you want to deny that is true

 

[JohnD]

??????????

You (probably falsely) claimed it was in Private Eye.

Here.

It was the favourite rag of JohnD that posted that.

 

[JohnD]

Times articles are subscriber based.

JohnD is a subscriber as well

That is not true.

 

[JohnD]

I repeat my earlier question:

Why do you feel impelled to post made-up nonsense that is not true?

 

[Trazor]

You (probably falsely) claimed it was in Private Eye.

Here.

That would be an impossible guess for me to know, that you subscribe to Private Eye.

How much is your subscription to the FT, I may subscribe.