Coronavirus Thread

[leicsmac]

A small observation here:

 

Provided the release was accidental (which I think most everyone here agrees on), other than for scientific purposes (like knowing the facts of the virus), there is no real relevance to where the outbreak originated anyway.

 

The hardcore proponents of the lab leak theory that I have seen have mostly been in it for the way @yorkie1999 suggested above: virus leaked from a lab in China --> virus was leaked from a lab in China --> blame Yellow Peril boogeyman rather than simple act of nature, because human-shaped boogeymen are much easier to target.

[VLC86]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

With all due respect, given China had basically a 2/3 month head start on this, I'd say it'd be incredibly naive to think that they wouldn't be able to cover their tracks and tie off any loose ends. It's also really in nobodies best interest for it to come out that something like this could leak from a lab.

 

Could a zoonotic leap not happen inside a lab where they're testing animals with viruses? 

 

Assuming it is from market, or a similar market. Is this a real freak occurrence, or would we not expect this type of thing to happen a lot more regularly in china due to the really poor health and safety standards over there?

 

I'm just not willing to accept lack of evidence of a lab leak being the cause in China. They can quite easily make people or evidence disappear. I swear they literally sealed people in buildings

 

Let's not forget Peng Shuai who had the audacity to claim she had been sexually assaulted by someone in government before randomly disappearing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Peng_Shuai

 

I hope one day there is a definitive answer that is agreed upon by scientists world wide that requires no government/pharma input.

This is where the accidental lab leak becomes plausible in my book. Not the only wet market in china but the only lab (recently opened at that) approved to experiment in such a way. 

[filbertway]

16 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

Is there any evidence to support your view either? Both opinions based on speculation.

Absolutely none and it's not what I think happened.

 

As I said, I think it's just one of a few logical theories, and that it wouldn't be hard for the government to clear any evidence. So I don't see lack of evidence as a good argument in this instance.

 

Zoonotic transmission from a market/farm is a logical theory as well.

 

[kenny]

6 hours ago, Lionator said:

They weren’t experimenting with vaccines. They have a lab (WIV) which studies coronaviruses in bats. 
 

It either did escape by mistake or it was just an unfortunate coincidence it was circulated in Wuhan. 

I'm surprised anyone is 100% aware of what they were doing there.

 

They did very well to produce a vaccine quicker than anyone else and come out of the pandemic quickly.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, kenny said:

I'm surprised anyone is 100% aware of what they were doing there.

 

They did very well to produce a vaccine quicker than anyone else and come out of the pandemic quickly.

... the Chinese?

 

Current evidence suggests both the vaccine and their administration of the whole thing has quite a few flaws.

[kenny]

Just now, leicsmac said:

... the Chinese?

 

Current evidence suggests both the vaccine and their administration of the whole thing has quite a few flaws.

They came out much quicker than any one else and thier vaccine appeared to be effective against the original strain. (Perhaps the one the knew about already....)

 

What appears to have thrown them is the multiples of mutated strains that their vaccine doesn't seem to help with.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Let's not forget Peng Shuai who had the audacity to claim she had been sexually assaulted by someone in government before randomly disappearing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Peng_Shuai

 

Non sequitur and completely unrelated to the topic under discussion.

 

1 hour ago, Costock_Fox said:

Is there any evidence to support your view either? Both opinions based on speculation.

Yes - and you'll find it thoroughly detailed in the history of this thread which I don't expect you to trawl through but I recalled that it was discussed several times and in particular, December 2021. I've looked back and that discussion begins on page 1130.

 

Actually, only one theory is purely based upon speculation. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Absolutely none 

Completely and absolutely false - the available evidence points to natural origins. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of a lab leak beyond the speculative, although that is not to say that the possibility should not be seriously considered. Moreover, although there are some peer reviewed papers that advance the theory, it remains largely in the province of opinion pieces and sensationalist column space. 

 

The jury is still out in the field of virology, although the overwhelming consensus and consilience of evidence favours zoonotic leap. Zoonotic spillover of coronaviruses has occurred throughout human history.

 

However, in the interest of balance - here is a very good article weighing up the possibility of both which I stress should be afforded equal levels of scrutiny. My issue was that both of you solely pointed fingers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology whilst completely neglecting to mention the Huanan wet market. 

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-suggests-pandemic-came-nature-not-lab-panel-says

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

They came out much quicker than any one else and thier vaccine appeared to be effective against the original strain. (Perhaps the one the knew about already....)

 

What appears to have thrown them is the multiples of mutated strains that their vaccine doesn't seem to help with.

Indeed.

 

So overall, they're really not going to be better off than anyone else, which is why any kind of conspiracy angle really makes no sense.

[kenny]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Indeed.

 

So overall, they're really not going to be better off than anyone else, which is why any kind of conspiracy angle really makes no sense.

PPPPP in action.

[filbertway]

44 minutes ago, Line-X said:

 

Completely and absolutely false - the available evidence points to natural origins. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of a lab leak beyond the speculative, although that is not to say that the possibility should not be seriously considered. Moreover, although there are some peer reviewed papers that advance the theory, it remains largely in the province of opinion pieces and sensationalist column space. 

 

The jury is still out in the field of virology, although the overwhelming consensus and consilience of evidence favours zoonotic leap. Zoonotic spillover of coronaviruses has occurred throughout human history.

 

However, in the interest of balance - here is a very good article weighing up the possibility of both which I stress should be afforded equal levels of scrutiny. My issue was that both of you solely pointed fingers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology whilst completely neglecting to mention the Huanan wet market. 

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-suggests-pandemic-came-nature-not-lab-panel-says

Wow, apologies for the confusion on this one. I thought Costock was asking me if I had any proof that my view was correct (assuming my view was that it was a lab leak).

 

I must have read and quoted the wrong post, so sorry on that  

 

For clarification, I thought I was saying I have no proof of it being a lab leak. Also that it isn't my view that it definitely happened that way. Just that I believe it to be one of a couple of logical theories

 

Peng Shuai was purely an example to show why I personally can't accept "no evidence" as an argument that something didn't happen.

[SpacedX]

49 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Wow, apologies for the confusion on this one. I thought Costock was asking me if I had any proof that my view was correct (assuming my view was that it was a lab leak).

 

Please don't apologise - the confusion was on my part too.

 

49 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

 

Peng Shuai was purely an example to show why I personally can't accept "no evidence" as an argument that something didn't happen.

But in the case of the origin of SARSCoV-2, we are not talking about the official Chinese narrative or state suppression of information here - although as far as I am aware, they did not grant access to an independent enquiry, which is fully understandable. All that we do know from independent scientific enquiry, points towards natural origin.

 

Regarding the case of Peng Shuai, it's fairly conclusive that the authoritarian state is complicit in her silencing. However, what we do know is that the WTA has received confirmation she was "safe and comfortable" but was yet to meet with her, which they hope to do this year.

Edited 25 January 2023 by Line-X

[Bordersfox]

Some analysis of risk/benefits of vaccination (in relation to Omicron) based on data released by the UK government a few days ago and evidence available from clinical trials.  

 

 

[Dunge]

I wouldn’t mind stuff like that if it wasn’t presented as a subliminally propaganda-based video.

 

For instance: There are potential holes in the analysis. He says that there is a risk of around 1/800 for a given vaccination, based - he says - on original data from clinical trials. I have no reason to challenge the 1/800 as a number, but is there not some important context missing in how he then uses it? Surely it would make sense if those chances were non-independent for an individual? ie. Is the 1/800 chance of a bad reaction to a vaccination based on the chance of anyone to any single vaccination, or is it an overall figure? Surely it makes sense that it’s the latter - that having a bad reaction to one vaccination gives you a massively elevated risk of a bad reaction to another vaccination of the same type? And then, on the other side of that coin, it therefore makes sense that your chance of a bad reaction to a booster vaccination given no reaction to the first would be equally decreased? So I question the technical usefulness of this “1/800” figure given where the guy himself said it came from - actually the providers already have a fair idea of booster risk based on whether someone had a bad reaction to the original dose, and it would change massively.

 

Also the ending was disappointing, typical of the conspiracy theory spiel of “I’d say it’s this, but I won’t and I’ll yet you work it out for yourself instead because you’re really smart” is so overdone now as to effectively be patronising.

What I think can be taken from the figures is good news - that this is further evidence if it were needed that the worst is over, that it was ultimately a question of either vaccinations or a round or two of infections, then the human immune system itself could pick up most of the rest of the slack. We’ll have to keep a keen eye out for other variants, as the guy alludes to unintentionally as he repeatedly stresses that this is about omicron, but hopefully this is a sign of being able to move beyond this crisis properly.

[leicsmac]

Hitchens Razor applies again, just as it has many times throughout this thread.

[Dunge]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hitchens Razor applies again, just as it has many times throughout this thread.

Never seen that before; I like it.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Never seen that before; I like it.

Wouldn't say I saw eye to eye with Christopher Hitchens on everything, but he was spot on with that.

 

Just unfortunate that we're now left with his far inferior brother.

[Bordersfox]

16 hours ago, Dunge said:

I wouldn’t mind stuff like that if it wasn’t presented as a subliminally propaganda-based video.

 

For instance: There are potential holes in the analysis. He says that there is a risk of around 1/800 for a given vaccination, based - he says - on original data from clinical trials. I have no reason to challenge the 1/800 as a number, but is there not some important context missing in how he then uses it? Surely it would make sense if those chances were non-independent for an individual? ie. Is the 1/800 chance of a bad reaction to a vaccination based on the chance of anyone to any single vaccination, or is it an overall figure? Surely it makes sense that it’s the latter - that having a bad reaction to one vaccination gives you a massively elevated risk of a bad reaction to another vaccination of the same type? And then, on the other side of that coin, it therefore makes sense that your chance of a bad reaction to a booster vaccination given no reaction to the first would be equally decreased? So I question the technical usefulness of this “1/800” figure given where the guy himself said it came from - actually the providers already have a fair idea of booster risk based on whether someone had a bad reaction to the original dose, and it would change massively.

 

Also the ending was disappointing, typical of the conspiracy theory spiel of “I’d say it’s this, but I won’t and I’ll yet you work it out for yourself instead because you’re really smart” is so overdone now as to effectively be patronising.

What I think can be taken from the figures is good news - that this is further evidence if it were needed that the worst is over, that it was ultimately a question of either vaccinations or a round or two of infections, then the human immune system itself could pick up most of the rest of the slack. We’ll have to keep a keen eye out for other variants, as the guy alludes to unintentionally as he repeatedly stresses that this is about omicron, but hopefully this is a sign of being able to move beyond this crisis properly.

Actually he tends to leave the viewer to draw their own conclusions because he's had videos removed and a threat from YouTube to remove him if he goes against the general public health narrative.  Ergo he presents the relevant data and doesn't do much else.  Which I like. 

 

That's why he is also very careful to only post videos utilising data from sources that are acceptable to YouTube.  Pharma and governmental usually.  It's extremely dangerous to censor those we disagree with as YouTube has sought to do, particularly when all that is being presented quite clearly, is some data.  

 

He is absolutely not a conspiracy theorist. His early take on vaccines and lockdowns was entirely supportive of the government guidance and regs on both.  However, as more data has become available he has gradually moved toward a different view as have I.  He mentions Omicron several times I would assume to again avoid falling foul of YouTube.  To make it abundantly clear he is not saying this data is relevant to earlier waves of COVID.

 

I don't know what's confusing about the 1/800.  These are pharma trials own numbers.  For every 800 people trialled with the vaccine 1 person had a serious adverse reaction to it.  I'm not sure what else that number can mean personally.  As he mentioned the Pharma companies are still refusing to release a lot of data particularly about younger people trialled (who are both less impacted by COVID but may be more likely to have a reaction to vaccination).  I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I absolutely do believe there is an agenda behind refusing to release all the data they have available. 

[Dunge]

4 hours ago, Bordersfox said:

Actually he tends to leave the viewer to draw their own conclusions because he's had videos removed and a threat from YouTube to remove him if he goes against the general public health narrative.  Ergo he presents the relevant data and doesn't do much else.  Which I like. 

 

That's why he is also very careful to only post videos utilising data from sources that are acceptable to YouTube.  Pharma and governmental usually.  It's extremely dangerous to censor those we disagree with as YouTube has sought to do, particularly when all that is being presented quite clearly, is some data.  

 

He is absolutely not a conspiracy theorist. His early take on vaccines and lockdowns was entirely supportive of the government guidance and regs on both.  However, as more data has become available he has gradually moved toward a different view as have I.  He mentions Omicron several times I would assume to again avoid falling foul of YouTube.  To make it abundantly clear he is not saying this data is relevant to earlier waves of COVID.

 

I don't know what's confusing about the 1/800.  These are pharma trials own numbers.  For every 800 people trialled with the vaccine 1 person had a serious adverse reaction to it.  I'm not sure what else that number can mean personally.  As he mentioned the Pharma companies are still refusing to release a lot of data particularly about younger people trialled (who are both less impacted by COVID but may be more likely to have a reaction to vaccination).  I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I absolutely do believe there is an agenda behind refusing to release all the data they have available. 

Yes. Exactly. It means for every 800 people trialled with the vaccine, 1 person had a serious adverse reaction to it. Which is not the same as 1 person having a serious adverse reaction for every 800 people who have previously had a vaccination without an adverse reaction.

 

And I do not trust this man, simply from his own words and style in the video you’ve shown, and his interpretation of the statistics. Not because of anything else, just that.

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Yes. Exactly. It means for every 800 people trialled with the vaccine, 1 person had a serious adverse reaction to it. Which is not the same as 1 person having a serious adverse reaction for every 800 people who have previously had a vaccination without an adverse reaction.

 

And I do not trust this man, simply from his own words and style in the video you’ve shown, and his interpretation of the statistics. Not because of anything else, just that.

This isn't the first time he's featured in this thread. He knows exactly the target audience that he wishes to snare and you only have to take a cursory look at the nutcases in the YT comments section to understand that. He knows full well what he's doing and the confirmation bias that people seek. Yet more opportunistic populist appeal to authority using his medical credentials as leverage and to bamboozle the unwary. 

 

The paper in question which was published last year is a reanalysis of a Pfizer and Moderna phase III clinical trials conducted by Joseph Fraiman et al. The aim of the paper is to highlight the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes in accordance with the Brighton Collaboration. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets from he FDA and their renewed commitment to sharing further updates and information with the public as they become available.

 

The section cherry picked in this video finds that approximately twice as many individuals in the vaccine group than in the placebo group experienced multiple SAEs (there were 24 more events than participants in the vaccine group, compared to 13 in the placebo group. It is from this that Campbell extrapolates the 1/800 figure which is entirely disingenuous due to significant limitations that the paper highlights later in the discussion. Also, the authors emphasise that their reanalysis is preliminary, to point to the need for more involved investigation and data. The risks of serious AESIs in the trials represent only group averages. "SAEs are unlikely to be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others".The purpose of this publication is to prompt further analysis and concludes, correctly, that the need for comparison of SAEs and harm-benefit for different vaccine types is essential and that this work is already underway. Also, that transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data - (in particular, participant levels pertaining to demographic subgroups) is needed to properly evaluate these questions. 

 

Seriously, go to You Tube and read some of the lunacy in the comments section under this video and that his channel attracts. Beyond depressing. 

[Lionator]

On 28/01/2023 at 21:56, Bordersfox said:

Some analysis of risk/benefits of vaccination (in relation to Omicron) based on data released by the UK government a few days ago and evidence available from clinical trials.  

 

 

Campbell got paid off months ago by the same people who are currently lining Bridgen’s pockets too. Best not to listen anything he says re vaccines. Truth is only the vulnerable should really be getting boosters these days unless a new variant comes along. 

[Bordersfox]

46 minutes ago, Line-X said:

This isn't the first time he's featured in this thread. He knows exactly the target audience that he wishes to snare and you only have to take a cursory look at the nutcases in the YT comments section to understand that. He knows full well what he's doing and the confirmation bias that people seek. Yet more opportunistic populist appeal to authority using his medical credentials as leverage and to bamboozle the unwary. 

 

The paper in question which was published last year is a reanalysis of a Pfizer and Moderna phase III clinical trials conducted by Joseph Fraiman et al. The aim of the paper is to highlight the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes in accordance with the Brighton Collaboration. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets from he FDA and their renewed commitment to sharing further updates and information with the public as they become available.

 

The section cherry picked in this video finds that approximately twice as many individuals in the vaccine group than in the placebo group experienced multiple SAEs (there were 24 more events than participants in the vaccine group, compared to 13 in the placebo group. It is from this that Campbell extrapolates the 1/800 figure which is entirely disingenuous due to significant limitations that the paper highlights later in the discussion. Also, the authors emphasise that their reanalysis is preliminary, to point to the need for more involved investigation and data. The risks of serious AESIs in the trials represent only group averages. "SAEs are unlikely to be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others".The purpose of this publication is to prompt further analysis and concludes, correctly, that the need for comparison of SAEs and harm-benefit for different vaccine types is essential and that this work is already underway. Also, that transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data - (in particular, participant levels pertaining to demographic subgroups) is needed to properly evaluate these questions. 

 

Seriously, go to You Tube and read some of the lunacy in the comments section under this video and that his channel attracts. Beyond depressing. 

The paper as you mention above states:

 

'Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible'

 

It then references two articles one published in the BMJ which goes on to note:

 

"Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data.17 And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date, which is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as 15 May 2023 (NCT04368728).

The lack of access to data is consistent across vaccine manufacturers.16 Moderna says data “may be available … with publication of the final study results in 2022.”18 Datasets will be available “upon request and subject to review once the trial is complete,” which has an estimated primary completion date of 27 October 2022 (NCT0447042)"

 

So you've cherry picked a little yourself when quoting the paper, perhaps unintentionally.  It would have made more sense if you had made it clear that the reason  that "transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data - (in particular, participant levels pertaining to demographic subgroups) is needed to properly evaluate these questions" is due to pharma refusing to provide it.  

 

Let me make it clear I'm not anti-vax in any way shape or form. However, l am extremely sceptical about a lot of the information we as the public were fed during the last couple of years.  There is no reason Pfizer's data should not be available until 2025.  

 

It is very easy to point and shout at those you disagree with and call them lunatics.  And perhaps some are.  But there remain serious questions to be answered about the efficacy of vaccines as against risk and in particular why the base data isn't being released by those who have made vast profits during the pandemic. 

 

[Dunge]

42 minutes ago, Bordersfox said:

The paper as you mention above states:

 

'Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible'

 

It then references two articles one published in the BMJ which goes on to note:

 

"Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data.17 And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date, which is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as 15 May 2023 (NCT04368728).

The lack of access to data is consistent across vaccine manufacturers.16 Moderna says data “may be available … with publication of the final study results in 2022.”18 Datasets will be available “upon request and subject to review once the trial is complete,” which has an estimated primary completion date of 27 October 2022 (NCT0447042)"

 

So you've cherry picked a little yourself when quoting the paper, perhaps unintentionally.  It would have made more sense if you had made it clear that the reason  that "transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data - (in particular, participant levels pertaining to demographic subgroups) is needed to properly evaluate these questions" is due to pharma refusing to provide it.  

 

Let me make it clear I'm not anti-vax in any way shape or form. However, l am extremely sceptical about a lot of the information we as the public were fed during the last couple of years.  There is no reason Pfizer's data should not be available until 2025.  

 

It is very easy to point and shout at those you disagree with and call them lunatics.  And perhaps some are.  But there remain serious questions to be answered about the efficacy of vaccines as against risk and in particular why the base data isn't being released by those who have made vast profits during the pandemic. 

 

Problem is, right from the start of this, people have stated that there are unanswered questions that demand answers, then when they get those answers those same people find more unanswered questions and complain that they haven’t been answered. And so it goes on. And eventually you get to a point where you’re fed up with answering these people because they’ve already made their minds up that they’re “really not sure about all this” and nothing will satisfy them.

 

And then unfortunately those people become very vulnerable to conspiracy theorists who tell them their fear is right and justified, and join our community/ranks now against the great lies that pervade our society.

 

It’s almost a form of grooming, which is why I’m increasingly annoyed by it.

Edited 30 January 2023 by Dunge

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Bordersfox said:

Let me make it clear I'm not anti-vax in any way shape or form. However, l am extremely sceptical about a lot of the information we as the public were fed during the last couple of years.  There is no reason Pfizer's data should not be available until 2025. 

 

I think it's fair to be sceptical and it would be a hell of a lot better if the pharma companies did release their information in a more timely fashion...however, such behaviour doesn't prove malicious and/or ignorant activity by itself and perhaps it would be best to not assume such activity on the part of the decent scientists involved (of course, they then answer to the execs who are all about the $$$ but again that doesn't prove bad things all the time by itself).

 

1 hour ago, Bordersfox said:

 

 

It is very easy to point and shout at those you disagree with and call them lunatics.  And perhaps some are.  But there remain serious questions to be answered about the efficacy of vaccines as against risk and in particular why the base data isn't being released by those who have made vast profits during the pandemic. 

 

There's not really much of a "perhaps" about it for some of them, sadly.

 

I personally don't have problems with people assuming malicious behaviour on the part of pharma execs - when you make a life chasing the next dollar no matter the cost, your ethical compass tends to get a bit twisted, so there's precedent (if unproven in this case). But often the assumptions go further than that and implicate the people deriving the vaccine itself - and not only is that inaccurate when only speculative and with no conclusive evidence to prove it, it's also incredibly mean-spirited; the vast majority of science bods get into the business to make this world a better place for everyone, not just themselves. There are far easier ways to make a buck if they were less ethical.

[SpacedX]

7 hours ago, Bordersfox said:

 

 

So you've cherry picked a little yourself when quoting the paper, perhaps unintentionally. 

 

Not at all - the fact that Big Pharma are sat on data and that in the US, the FDA pledges to share further updates was common knowledge and that was implicit to my post.

 

The main takeaway form my response to you was that this reanalysis does not mean that one in eight hundred are likely to have a serious adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. I'm aware that you yourself didn't state that, but the audience that Campbell selectively appeals to will. The Chinese whispers are already doing the rounds on social media.

 

In respect of the Stage III trail, the extrapolation of data surrounding the relationship between SAEs and harm benefit is exceedingly complex and governed by a myriad of variables that the authors are not yet privy to. Dr. John Campbell is being his usual disingenuous self. 

[fox_up_north]

I was speaking to a doctor, in a social context the other day, and the topic of covid came up. I was surprised to hear him say that "usually it takes 6-8 years for a vaccine to hit the market but this only took 18 months, which raises questions".

 

I could see his intent but I just ignored it. My own personal question would be why they can't pull their finger out for other things, then.