So is there no evidence or report stating that such concerns have been addressed ? On what do you base that opinion ? So you looked at the references and the reference addressed the topic being discussed ?

[QUOTE=morpeth;12901454 1)It appears you do not understand the basics of libel laws which is not uncommon with people who have limited or no understanding of basic legal principles.

I clearly stated several times I did not know current status of drug safety in India , simply asking whether situation has improved since prior reports- you could provide not the slightest shred of evidence that it has.-as usual. You are terribly confused ,as
2) I indicated that a company entering into drug production in India isn't a fact showing whether prior concerns are no longer present.I also gave common sense example that companies routinely invest and do business in countries where there has been expressed safety and quality concerns with China being a well known example. I actually worked on a project as a consultant with a company - top in its field- that made a huge investment in China knowing full well the quality of the products was and continued to be a concern.

3) I never understand why you post irrelevant links.

4 May I suggest if you post in a public forum it shouldn't be a surprise people respond.[/QUOTE]




1) I am a barrister Morpeth---Gray's Inn. Changed career in later life and then did medico/legal jobs. I do know the meaning of 'libel'.

2) We are discussing vaccine production, of supreme importance.

3) You refuse to discuss the political opposition when insulting myself for supporting the Government. You know nothing about the opposition but a BBC link put to help, you describe as "irrelevant"?

4) Most people on this Forum give sensible non- insulting replies and stick to the topic. Could I suggest you do that.

PS (Being a trained 'arguer' means I foolishly feel compelled reply to you!)

The discussion was about safety not about vaccines. Maybe you are confused with another thread?

No I just pointed out it appears you are so partisan so as to lose objectivity I would guess anyone familiar with your posts would probably agree with. Your disregard for evidence has been noted by others as well . Many people are overly-partisan, but nice people hardly an insult.

1) I gave examples to you and pointed out that the production of vaccines for world use would not be entrusted by to a non-safe companies.

2) You have not explained how supporting a Government in power by a large majority is "so partisan". Obviously as with any government they make mistakes and I have pointed out some.
Morpeth you refuse to say what the point is of supporting the opposition when it is not possible that it could win an election. You have no knowledge of politics and refuse to say what your reasoning is.
Your total disregard for evidence regarding this and much else and your habit of then accusing and never explaining why.
(Other posters---- EMR seems to have been been removed!)

Perhaps as I suggested you could get back to the thread topic.

“I gave examples to you and pointed out that the production of vaccines for world use would not be entrusted by to a non-safe company.”

That obviously not evidence that the situation has improved overall. “would not be entrusted by to a non-safe company”, if only the world was so uniformly perfect.


“2) You have not explained how supporting a Government in power by a large majority is "so partisan". Obviously as with any government they make mistakes and I have pointed out some.”

I have explained. The simple logic is that one can be overly partisan whether a party is in power or not. I do not I think I could imagine anyone defining overly-partisan as depending on the electoral results.



“Morpeth you refuse to say what the point is of supporting the opposition when it is not possible that it could win an election. You have no knowledge of politics and refuse to say what your reasoning is.”

See above.


“Your total disregard for evidence regarding this and much else and your habit of then accusing and never explaining why.”

Our frequent communication indicates I have taken the time to explain things, often several times *as shown by recent posts). If evidence besides hearsay provided, I have always considered.

“Perhaps as I suggested you could get back to the thread topic.”

I am just responding to your posts.

1) You have changed your view from "partisan" to "So partisan"! You haven't even realised your 'favourite' Shashi Tharoor is 'angling' for opposition leadership in spite of still being on bail.

2) What you call "evidence" is what you want to believe and then search for any statistics to support it. With respect Morpeth your explanations are without any evidence of reality. (As explained above.)

3) I respond to your posts.

Return to the thread title---- that's the third time of asking!!

I think a good idea , return to the topic of thread , I have for quite a few posts just been responding.

I simply pointed out what I think anyone reading your posts would consider that your partisan reviews affects your objectivity, and I gave reasons and examples in various past posts. Just my opinion, don't know why unless you could describe your objectivity i your general answers any additional discuss of that productive,

What nonsense narrative about evidence- I have often provided studies and reports by a variety of Indian and foreign sources, the response has been what your anecdotal observations and hearsay is more reliable that what experts and specialist demonstrate by actual serious studies and statistics.It is curious that in those discussions and in response to reports and evidence, the only response was hearsay and your personal observations (which of course have some merit). Surely of the anecdotal observations were more reliable there would have been one serious study supporting such observations.

As far as I know you are not the moderator, and there is no requirement that discussions can only be had when people agree on a certain point of view, or a requirement only hearsay observations are to be considered.

Regardless of your view that supporting a particular political party is described as being "partisan", this in my view was a very good speech.

Note the millions getting free food (grains) and cooking gas.
Certainly better than the speeches we are getting from Johnson and Trump. Presume the latter listens to this! As it is the leadership Summit of the US-India strategic-and Partnership -Forum----

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other...um/ar-BB18G9cu

Trump will adopt whatever attitude to India Vladimir Putin tells him to.
There is no USA in BRICS.

I don't think you understood the ethos of the speech!. It is about India's part in global affairs. The words 'local and global'!

What has BRICS got to do with it? A quite different trade association!

The speech is the same rhetoric we hear from politicians all over the world. India's BRICS trade agreement with Russia, and by extension the relevance of Putin's influence on the Trump administration should be obvious.

The speech is much about the situation in India at the moment and is very different from speeches in UK and USA for example. Did you listen to it ---it was in English.

The BRICS is purely a trade association and five countries. I believe Brazil holds the presidency at the moment.
(India's ship and plane purchases from Russia were mostly some time ago, although the aircraft carriers etc. are still serviced by Russia.)
What is your point?

As stated in my previous post, Trump will do what Putin tells him.
Edit: In my two previous posts.

I was discussing a speech--about India -not what Trump ""will do". He doesn't have to 'do' anything!!
As regards trade USA/India have just completed a mini deal and a bigger deal at the 11th hour of completion. (Before the USA election).

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/...169329620.html

Why on earth would Putin be involved??

I read the speech twice (in English) and it's a boiler-plate feel good speech; onward and upward, etc. India's fleet of MIG fighters needs replacing, but while there are other nations being considered for that, in the interim they're buying new ones from Russia. The factories in India making Russian fighters aren't producing the quality or numbers they need. A billion here, a billion there, but the major purchase of S-400 ground to air missiles is the deal most likely to draw sanctions from the US, despite paying in Euros to try to circumvent that. They kicked NATO member Turkey out of the F-35 deal for making the same purchase, and only spending half as much. Those missiles will give India the power to strike at Pakistani aircraft crossing the border from a distance of 250 miles, and along with Russia's assurance that they will come to India's aid should war break out with Pakistan, it's a hard deal to pass up. The mini-deal with the US (should it go through), could insure that American dairy products are on the menu next year when Putin and Modi celebrate the opening of the new Kalashnikov factory in Korwa. Last year's arms order of of 14.5Bn from Russia exceeded their normal annual trade with Russia of 11.5Bn, but they hope to raise that to 30Bn by 2025. Putin's diplomatic stake in this is to calm the tensions between China and India, enabling a united front against the west.
If you can't understand how Putin and Trump are pivotal to these trade agreements, I'm sorry, but explaining over and over isn't going to help.