Freedom of information (FOI) releases from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
This is a disclosure log of UK Research and Innovation's responses to freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) requests that might be of wider public interest.
If you can't find the information you're looking for, you can make a new FOI request.
1,058 disclosures
-
Request Received: 13 January 2022
I was wondering if Innovate UK could provide us with the information below. (as Innovate UK did to IGL)
Project name: Innovation vouchers for all smaller businesses program
Information needed:
• Program Information (Summary, Eligibility, Scope, Dates, How to apply, etc.)
• Application form (form file or item list included in the form)
• A list of companies (applied the program)
• A list of companies (received the fund)
• Follow up survey, if any (form file)
IGL Working Paper 2020IGL Working Paper 20.4.pdf (innovationgrowthlab.org)
IGL Quote: 4. Data Methodology In order to evaluate the voucher's effectiveness, we collected data from several sources. First, Innovate UK provided us with information on the firms that applied for the innovation voucher program, covering all details from the application form. They also informed us on the allocation of firms into the treatment and the control group in the respective rounds, including information on whether firms passed the eligibility checks.
Published: 15 March 2022
-
Request Received: 23 March 2021 , further clarification received 16 April 2021.
Please could the MRC provide details for the last Financial Year of:
• The sources of its funds identifying the source and the amount for each
• How the MRC applied funds in the last year by area of research
I would also like advice on a specific area of research. The area of research in which I am interested relates to autoimmune diseases, hereditary factors and the role of antibiotic and other factors that can cause DNA Oxidative Stress.
I would be grateful if the MRC could advise on:
• How to identify and access research on these subjects funded by the MRC?
• How the public can engage with the MRC to put in place appropriate research in this area?
Clarification on the point'How the MRC applied funds in the last year by area of research':
By "area of research" I was referring to categories of expenditure in various areas. I assume the MRC must categorise the research funding in some way to ensure spending in the intended areas.
Please could you let me know how MRC currently categorises its research into funding areas to help me answer the question? (e.g. What categories does the MRC Recognise? e.g. Research Into Adverse Drugs Reactions - and perhaps with that category research into DNA Oxidative Stress - and perhaps within that category DNA Oxidative Stress Induced by Antibiotics, DNA Oxidative Stress induced by Chemotherapy etc).
The intention was to find out how much of the total expenditure has been spent researching:
• Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)
• How much of ADR expenditure has been spent non adverse drug reactions involving antibiotics
• Then how much of the antibiotic expenditure has been spent on DNA Oxidative Stress Issues, Human Biome Issues tec.
Published: 15 March 2022
-
Request Received: 19 January 2022
For each of the Innovate UK Smart Competitions since 12/08/21, and where the relevant statistics are available, could you provide.
• Total number of applications
• Total number of winning applications
• Threshold for funding
• Total complaints about proposal assessment by companies
• Total complaints about proposal assessment by companies that were upheld
Published: 14 March 2022
-
Request Received: 18 February 2021
I would like to confirm that the follow award has been granted to TundraSystems Global Ltd - InnovateUK ISCF Grant of £453K to develop "A Compiler Balancing Quantum Instructions over Classical Controllers"
Would you be able to provide me the information please?
Published: 11 March 2022
-
Request Received: 29 January 2021
Could you please send me the following regarding your organisation's contracts for the following five areas:
1. Unified Communications
2. Connectivity
3. Mobility
4. Cloud
5. Cyber Security
(A table was provided and can be found in the response document)
Published: 11 March 2022
-
Request Received: 22 January 2021
I hereby request to know which studies have been reviewed or conducted on ivermectin, when and by who. Also, how you prioritize studies and why ivermectin has been neglected so much considering:
In its "neutral" recommendation, the NIH posted on January 14, 2021: The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel's Statement on the Use of Ivermectin for the Treatment of COVID-19
"reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory markers,16,17 shorter time to viral clearance,11,16 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.11,16,18
11. Ahmed S, Karim MM, Ross AG, et al. A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;103:214-216. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33278625.
15. Hashim HA, Maulood MF, Rasheed AW, Fatak DF, Kabah KK, Abdulamir AS. Controlled randomized clinical trial on using ivermectin with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 patients in Baghdad, Iraq. medRxiv. 2020;Preprint. Available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345v1/.
16. Elgazzar A, Hany B, Youssef SA, Hafez M, Moussa H, eltaweel A. Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 pandemic. Research Square. 2020;Preprint. Available at: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v2.
17. Niaee MS, Gheibi N, Namdar P, et al. Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: a randomized multi-center clinical trial. Research Square. 2020;Preprint. Available at: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-109670/v1.
18 Khan MSI, Khan MSI, Debnath CR, et al. Ivermectin treatment may improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. Arch Bronconeumol. 2020;56(12):828-830. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33293006.
Source: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-ivermectin/
Still, the statement shouldn't have been "neutral" but "positive":
1. They left out more than 40 studies, all of which are positive (some of which were presented to NIH agencies like the FDA even as early as June, not even considered in the Aug 27th negative report): http://c19ivermectin.com
2. They left out all meta-studies, all of which are positive (more than 4, including 2 previously presented to NIH by:
2.1 WHO expert consultant, Dr. Andrew Hill: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1
2.2 The FLCCC Alliance: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.643369/abstract
3. They didn't start their own meta-analysis. This a very serious omission, considering there are more patients involved in double-blind studies with ivermectin than with the 2104 patients who took dexamethasone in the UK study which established it as standard of care.
4. NIH presents a bad excuse for not recommending ivermectin: lack of large scale blinded-placebo studies.
4.1. NIH refused grants to early studies when ivermectin was still unproven. Actually, it refused and still refuses grants to cheap repurposed drugs. Hypocrisy? Vested interests? Corruption?
4.2. Considering the overwhelming evidence for ivermectin effectiveness involving over 10,000 patients (http://ivmmeta.com), it would be highly unethical to give patients a placebo. In fact, it would mala praxis. The only ethical choice is statistical analysis comparing doses and frequency with disease stages and outcomes (apart from comparing patients which were left without ivermectin, through uninformed-consent, irrational patient refusal, suicidal patient, mistakes, mala praxis, patient abandonment, etc).
It wouldn't be the first time the NIH violates basic bioethics principles... they wouldn't be able to recommend vaccination considering its serious side effects, recognized by the NIH, from permanent disabilities to death (no matter how low the percentages), when there is a safe drug alternative like ivermectin (and others). Also, a huge violation of informed consent rights.
5. The FLCCC Alliance presents many other science-based counter-arguments: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-Response-to-the-NIH-GuidelineCommittee-Recommendation-on-Ivermectin-use-in-COVID19-2021-01-18.pdf
Conclusion:
Medical societies, which really care for people's lives, should be quoting our initial NIH quote in public statements: nobody could sue them for quoting NIH and they would be saving thousands of lives. Why isn't Recovery doing the same?
Also, Azithromycin reduces the ACE2 binding of the virus and potentiates ivermectin's same effect (apart from CD147 red cell binding). Your report on Azithromycin fails to take into account this synergy. Why?
Published: 11 March 2022
-
Request Received: 15 January 2021
I am writing to you to request some information about your Telecoms and IT infrastructure. I politely request information on your current provider for the following:
1) Current mobile and fixed lines provider
2) Contract end dates for both
3) No. of mobile connections
4) Key decision maker
5) Wi-Fi/broadband Contract end date
Published: 11 March 2022
-
Request Received: 8 February 2021
I would like to make a freedom of information request for the minutes of ALL Board meetings that have taken place since 13th November, 2019.
Published: 11 March 2022
-
Request Received: 26 January 2021
I would like the grant agreements/contracts/similar, and the text/document of any alterations of these agreements for the following projects.
•Apollo mobile COVID -19 Passport ID platform, project ref 70092
•Novel Immunity Passports for Covid-19, project ref 54135
•Covid-19 test status digital passport, with privacy protection for adults and children, project ref 64901
•Standardised COVID-19 Immunity Test Certificates, project ref 54473
•Digital-Mobile Proof of Immunity Certificates (Verifiable Credentials & Verifiable Presentations), project ref 62644
•Development of E-munity - an application for digital immunity certificates for Covid-19 infection, project ref 69067
•Fraud-Resistant Covid-19 Immunity and Back-to-Work Certificates on DLT, project ref 62881
•Integrated mobile indemnity passport platform, project ref 64691
Published: 11 March 2022
-
Request Received: 8 February 2021
Afternoon, could I have this list updated please (research council reference + name of the scheme) of FOI2020/00078
Published: 11 March 2022