Yup that is the debate, can stupid people validate their anger? Optionally can angry people validated b e stupid as well? We know plenty of angry people, we know our share of stupid people too, but the combination is always out there for debate, was the stupid person debatably angry, was the angry person be optionally stupid? Yup, I could go on all day, so when I saw ‘Brussels angry with AstraZeneca: ‘had plenty of time for production’’ at Dutch news site NOS (at https://nos.nl/artikel/2365932-brussel-kwaad-op-astrazeneca-ruim-de-tijd-gehad-voor-productie.html), I thought I had hit the jackpot, I can vent all over that person. And it starts at the very beginning where we see: “The European Commission and EU countries are meeting this afternoon with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca to discuss the slower delivery of vaccines. Brussels hoped for 80 million doses in the first quarter of this year, but that seems to be only 31 million”, and we need to take careful notice of ‘Brussels hoped for 80 million doses’, where in the entire setup of business needs is ‘hope’ valid? It’s called a sales contract, and there the stipulations are made, that has been the case for decades, which jester got elected to that Brussels seat? As such, when I saw “We understand that there could be problems in the production phase, but we have invested large amounts of money to ensure that much of the vaccine would be produced before it was even approved. Then we expect production to actually take place”, here we need to take notice of ‘to ensure that much of the vaccine would be produced before it was even approved’, oh man, this is fantastic, this is the funniest jester since the one murdered in Venice (1497), I just cannot stop laughing. And they aren’t done with making jokes at the European Commission, we then get “The European Commission ordered 300 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and most of the doses of this vaccine should be in within the next six months”, which is fair enough, so please produce and publish the sales contract, it should stipulate the delivery time, and the amounts delivered, or at least a final date of delivery of all the ordered doses, where is that? As such, when we are given “It is not known exactly how much Brussels has paid AstraZeneca in advance, but it is likely to be hundreds of millions of euros. That money was intended to produce the vaccine in advance, so that large quantities would be ready by the time approval would follow. AstraZeneca received that money, but the question now is whether it actually produced”, can anyone explain to me who the thickheaded dickhead was that is relying on ‘intended to produce the vaccine in advance’, and where in the sales contract it is given? Creating a vaccine in advance (before approval) is dangerous, it also means that sanitising any system that was involved would take days if not weeks, so who was that stupid and if you are THAT stupid, are you allowed to be angry?
And I made reference to the timeline in OCTOBER 2020 in my article ‘As jobs become available’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/10/31/as-jobs-become-available/) I gave a clear setting (I looked it up) that the setting of “on top of that Sanofi is one source stating that they can make 2.5 million doses a day. This gets us to the 2 billion shots, taking 800 days to make and that is if everything goes right the first time. So there will be a waiting list that is well over 2 years and that is WHEN a vaccine is a reality”, so please reveal to us the name of this Jester of the European Commission, he is highly entertaining, optionally that person is in the wrong line of work, unless he produces the contracts that give us the time lines that they mention, and if it is EC contracts, we are all allowed to know, are we not? So when we decide to kick AstraZeneca, lets make sure that we are given the low-down on what was set on paper regarding deliveries. Because a simple abacus gave us the setting that the EC in Brussels had no validity, especially when we consider the places where this stuff could be made and what was agreed on. That part is openly missing pretty much everywhere, so why are these EC members paid a horrendous amount just to be this stupid? I wonder, don’t you?