The UK Just Posted an Open Bid for the Supply of Anticoagulants 3.1b

www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk...

I wonder why they would be looking to secure £3.1b worth of anticoagulants .... maybe it's due to the clot shot?

www.rbractive.com...

This shows that between 1/2018 and 1/2019, ~£66 million was spent on DVT or pulmonary embolism and they suspect it will cost ~$200m a year now, yet here the govt. is asking for £3.1b for anticoagulants.

Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. This is what they're doing. This speaks louder than VAERS or a Yellow Card system ever could. Money does talk.

originally posted by: BatSars
www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk...

I wonder why they would be looking to secure £3.1b worth of anticoagulants .... maybe it's due to the clot shot?

With a contract closing date of Sept, which coincidently is when the UK will start the mandatory proof of vaccination to permit entry to indoor, and even outdoor events. My spider senses are tingling.

originally posted by: BatSars
www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk...

I wonder why they would be looking to secure £3.1b worth of anticoagulants .... maybe it's due to the clot shot?

www.rbractive.com...

This shows that between 1/2018 and 1/2019, ~£66 million was spent on DVT or pulmonary embolism and they suspect it will cost ~$200m a year now, yet here the govt. is asking for £3.1b for anticoagulants.

Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. This is what they're doing. This speaks louder than VAERS or a Yellow Card system ever could. Money does talk.

They might start using that after the doctors reach the kill quota,

a reply to: BatSars

so this for preventing blood clots I assume??

A bit late for some.

Gonna have to see what they normally order for perspective... for example, what did they order in 2020 and 2019

This will be a box-ticking exercise. Cover all B....Asses.

It's in the 2nd link. 2018-2019, they spent 66m, but recalculations came to 208m per year. That means for 3.1b, they're either increasing purchases by 14x or they're buying 14 years worth.
a reply to: putnam6

originally posted by: BatSars
It's in the 2nd link. 2018-2019, they spent 66m, but recalculations came to 208m per year. That means for 3.1b, they're either increasing purchases by 14x or they're buying 14 years worth.
a reply to: putnam6

Thanks that's the perspective needed

Sounds like that's a load of coagulants to order for one time.

Used to we had journalists that would ask the right person questions about this.

The contract says
Contract start date
1 November 2021

Contract end date
31 March 2024

Contract type
Supply contract

so it might be 2 plus years worth still, somebody needs to ask about this...

originally posted by: BatSars
It's in the 2nd link. 2018-2019, they spent 66m, but recalculations came to 208m per year. That means for 3.1b, they're either increasing purchases by 14x or they're buying 14 years worth.
a reply to: putnam6

It doesn't really.

The £66M figure is the cost of hospial attendances for only two conditions in less than a third of hospitals.

It's not a figure for the ammount spent on anti-coagulant drugs and prescriptions which is what the contract tender is for.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: BatSars
It's in the 2nd link. 2018-2019, they spent 66m, but recalculations came to 208m per year. That means for 3.1b, they're either increasing purchases by 14x or they're buying 14 years worth.
a reply to: putnam6

Thanks that's the perspective needed

Sounds like that's a load of coagulants to order for one time.

Used to we had journalists that would ask the right person questions about this.

Np. Keep in mind, though, that most anti-coagulants have a shelf life of 21-35 days and from what I can tell, the contract will be to fulfill the desired products within 4/31/2024, with the option of extending 12 months making the total contract timeline = potentially 41 months.

So the timeline doesn't account for a 14-year supply. It looks more like a 3-4 year supply over time.

But there isn't a whole lot of information posted pertaining specifically to the contract and method of (and timeframe) of actual distribution but it does say the numbers should be met by the close of the contract (2024).

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: BatSars
It's in the 2nd link. 2018-2019, they spent 66m, but recalculations came to 208m per year. That means for 3.1b, they're either increasing purchases by 14x or they're buying 14 years worth.
a reply to: putnam6

It doesn't really.

The £66M figure is the cost of hospial attendances for only two conditions in less than a third of hospitals.

It's not a figure for the ammount spent on anti-coagulant drugs and prescriptions which is what the contract tender is for.

But the other amount is. I gave two costs and the 2nd cost has been confirmed through extrapolations I've read elsewhere. If you have evidence to the contrary, please source that instead of just writing it.


www.leeds.ac.uk...

I did find this, however, which puts the number at 789m per year, which would put the above # at right on the money. Not sure where the discrepancy here exists, but will keep digging!


And this here also confirms a ~700m cost per year: www.valueinhealthjournal.com...(19)30229-3/fulltext

So the above purchase could very well be in line with the normal (+-100m).

a reply to: BatSars

Yep, but lets see if other countries are putting orders for it. Also I wonder if the US Veterans Administration is ordering a supply also?

I'll look up beta.sam and see if we see any large purchase contracts posted.

a reply to: musicismagic

I'm not seeing anything like that but beta.sam.gov is a mess.

a reply to: musicismagic

a reply to: BatSars

Wait what they posted a contract and put out a procurement tender

they didnt just offer it to one of their donor pals

doesnt make sense

+1 for making me chuckle.

a reply to: sapien82

originally posted by: BatSars

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: BatSars
It's in the 2nd link. 2018-2019, they spent 66m, but recalculations came to 208m per year. That means for 3.1b, they're either increasing purchases by 14x or they're buying 14 years worth.
a reply to: putnam6

It doesn't really.

The £66M figure is the cost of hospial attendances for only two conditions in less than a third of hospitals.

It's not a figure for the ammount spent on anti-coagulant drugs and prescriptions which is what the contract tender is for.

But the other amount is. I gave two costs and the 2nd cost has been confirmed through extrapolations I've read elsewhere. If you have evidence to the contrary, please source that instead of just writing it.

www.leeds.ac.uk...

I did find this, however, which puts the number at 789m per year, which would put the above # at right on the money. Not sure where the discrepancy here exists, but will keep digging!

And this here also confirms a ~700m cost per year: www.valueinhealthjournal.com...(19)30229-3/fulltext

So the above purchase could very well be in line with the normal (+-100m).

Well found - I was struggling to find original tender - just the second source in the OP FOIA request didn't cover prescription drugs, just the cost of attending hospitals hence the discrepancy in data. It's a great article and source of info, just the headline is misleading as the cost to NHS is far higher.

Blood Clots and Micro-clotting...coming soon to "vaccinated" everywhere.

a reply to: BatSars

Don't forget to factor in the Brexit and "bung a bit to Johnson's corrupt friends" factors.

What used to cost £100 through EU procurement now costs £150 through friends and donors of the Conservative Party. Like the £37 billion we spent on a test and trace system that doesn't work as well as Pokemon Go.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Blood Clots and Micro-clotting...coming soon to "vaccinated" everywhere.

They don't care how much we know. Actions speak louder than words. They have watched us for years talking on the internet, but never speaking. They watched us for years on the internet, hearing, but never listening.

We will not just go alone with their plans to imprison us. We will kill each in the quest to make that prison for them.

Their goal is to rebuild us. "The useless eaters of the world. A people barely alive. Gentlemen, we can remake them. We have the technology. We have the capability to build a total world of mindless controlled world's finest sycophants. They will be totally under our control, much better than before.

I know, I took a lot poetic license in the post, without giving credit to where it is due.

Forgive me.