In the last few paragraphs of the New York Post provided a hot link to the NEJM article "Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2" published on Oct. 1. It may be worth your time to read the NEJM comments-- https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2020926#article_comments They are pretty good!

Tangentially related-- I remember when Dr. Fauci's was holding the trial study papers for Remdesivir in a Covid task force meeting and his upbeat exuberance for "proof of concept". Gilead's stock exuberated, but now comes this: "In a study it described as both conclusive and disappointing, the World Health Organization said the antiviral drug remdesivir has "little or no effect on mortality" for patients hospitalized with coronavirus and it doesn't seem to help patients recover any faster, either." While the HCQ cocktail was orchestrated out of beneficial use, the shenanigans that got Remdesivir to move front and center (with the FDA's help) did nothing. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/health/remdesivir-covid-who-trial-mortality/index.html

Its enough of an answer to make him and others who (don't) think like him dangerous. He is a vaccine fundamentalist.

The clinical trial does not identify the "placebo" https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04505722

Teresa, I have always felt that you could connect dots, ask the right questions that others, so many others failed to see with everything autism. Someday, someone will dig up one of you articles and point out how close you were in figuring out the puzzle(s), and you did it with out one dollar of grant money for your research or recognition. Thank you, (Of course I won't be a bit surprised if I see, Teresa Conrick & Meghan--The Sequel

I just heard FaceBook is banning paid ads that discourage vaccinations. Since I don't do FaceBook,I didn't know there were paid ads that discourage vaccinations. From this site https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/facebook-bans-anti-vaccination-ads-antivax-posts-73594039 ...........And unpaid posts by people or groups that discourage vaccinations will also still be allowed — the new policy only includes paid advertisements. Facebook is addressing the anti-vaxxers of 2014 and 2015 and not the anti-vaxxers of 2020, said David A. Broniatowski, an associate professor at George Washington University’s school of engineering and applied science who has published several studies on vaccine misinformation. Broniatowski published a study in 2019 that found that the majority of anti-vaccine misinformation being pushed in advertisements on Facebook were coming from two groups, including one led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a California-based organization called Stop Mandatory Vaccination. “Facebook by banning anti-vaccine ads is probably not banning more than half of the ads,” he said. “I understand where they are coming from that they want to promote civil engagement but at the same time, if their intention is to reduce the amount of anti-vaccine misinformation, they are not addressing the largest source of that misinformation.”

So............will Kamala become part of the "vociferous anti-vaccination movement"? She certainly has the vociferous down and she has moments where she is part of some anti-movement. No, she doesn't possess the character, knowledge nor courage to challenge "the experts". It's all up to us.

Laura re: the PA case. What sentence stood out to me was this: "But the defendants actions did not rationally relate to this end." The key word being 'rationally'. Its been difficult to have rational discussions towards more rational policies that are proving difficult, especially with masks and social distancing. When I point out that wearing a mask in the middle of park with no one around is irrational; what I hear is "yes, but it sets a good example." Or a news reporter on location and all there is the reporter and their camera. Why the mask?

I think its important to remember a couple of things regarding Ginsburg Bruesewitz v Wyeth. First, as Kent Heckenlivey points out: "To put it bluntly, the republican males of the court folded and the democratic women, Sotomayor and Ginsburg stood firm and identified the true issues in the case. Sotomayor's blistering dissent set the stage for future public debates." Second, from the dissenting opinion: "In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act's legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I dissent." In my opinion Scalia and the other judges tortured the English language in favor of Wyeth having drunk the anti anti-vaxx Kool Aid. Justice Bryer wrote a concurring opinion and I think he made clear through his references, he was concerned about vaccination levels and preserving the system. Sotomeyer and Ginsburg got it right, period. (Kagan recused herself since she defended HHS against Bruesewitz in the vaccine court)

Remember what Dr. Heidi Larson said from last years WHO Vaccine Safety Summit? Dr. Larson: doctors and nurses are "very wobbly" and "starting to question the safety of vaccines," and it's a "huge problem." Dr. Larson: doctors don't have confidence in vaccine safety to stand up to mothers asking questions. Doctors only got a "half day of vaccine instruction in medical school." Bottom line for their profession, best way for them to deal with "their" problem is to dismiss the messenger. Stick their heads in the sand. Voila--vaccines are safe and effective. The pediatric community practicing their medical profession as they..........have.........been.......indoctornated.

Benedetta when I saw "Pledge" at the beginning of your comment, my second thought was of Pledge, the furniture polish which is great at removing finger prints. Unfortunately, Pledge or pledge cannot remove the stench of Pharma.

Dan,--NPR (National Pharma Radio) has once again lived up to their name. Ailsa Chang and Allison Aubrey discuss getting a flu shot as if they are at a Tupperware Party talking about storing all kinds of leftovers. They are absolutely giddy. Judge for your self. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592378/questions-on-getting-flu-shot-this-year-answered Allison was so convincing that Ailsa is buying the complete Tupperware Set. Questions On Getting Flu Shot This Year Answered AILSA CHANG, HOST: If you haven't done it yet, doctors and pediatricians are united in this plea - get a flu shot. A mix of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza could make for a particularly messy winter. And for now, of course, there is only a vaccine for flu. NPR's Allison Aubrey joins us to discuss. Hey, Allison. ALLISON AUBREY, BYLINE: Hey there, Ailsa. CHANG: Hey. So when is the best time to get a flu shot? AUBREY: Well, now, really. CHANG: (Laughter). AUBREY: Now through the end of October is a good time. You'll be inoculated before flu season sets in. And if you do it now, there won't be lines or hassles. Now, some people have heard that it's better to wait until later in the season so the immunity lasts a bit longer through spring. And experts tell me that there is some evidence that immunity can wane a bit, especially in older people, but it's marginal, Ailsa. And it's not true for every individual, so there's really no need to put it off. Go do it. CHANG: OK. AUBREY: I spoke to Michael Ison. He's an infectious disease physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. MICHAEL ISON: This year in particular it's going to be especially important for everyone to get their flu shot. If you get sick with what you think may be the flu, you can't differentiate that based on symptoms from COVID-19. And so that'll mean those people are going to be seeing their doctor, asking for tests in a system that's going to be burdened with the additional burden of COVID-19 this fall and winter. AUBREY: You definitely don't want the flu. The vaccine can really help prevent it, especially as the coronavirus continues to circulate widely. You definitely don't want to get both. CHANG: No way. So it is possible then to get both flu and COVID this winter. AUBREY: You know, there were cases of patients in the early months of the COVID pandemic that had both flu and coronavirus. And in general, Ison says people that have two viral infections at the same time tend to get sicker. CHANG: Sure. AUBREY: There were some instances of this documented in the U.S., in China, in Europe. And Ison says that, you know, these people appear to have more serious illness. He says the numbers are relatively low, particularly here in the U.S. because most of the coronavirus cases were documented after the flu season had started to wane. But yes, it is possible. CHANG: Great. OK. Well, for all the science geeks out there, can you just tell us what is the makeup of the flu shot this year? Like, what strains are targeted? AUBREY: Sure. That's right. The flu shot tends to change every year. It's based on the surveillance that scientists at the World Health Organization and elsewhere do to see which viruses are circulating. And based on this surveillance, they can make some predictions on what strains might be coming in the upcoming flu season, and they can match these expected strains. So I spoke to L.J. Tan. He's a scientist with the Immunization Action Coalition about this. LJ TAN: So this upcoming season, the flu vaccine for this current flu season, the vaccines have actually changed a lot of the strains. There are three new strains in the quadrivalent vaccine. Both the type-A strains have been changed, and one of the type-B strains have been changed. AUBREY: And he too emphasizes the importance of just getting a flu shot this year not only to protect yourself, Ailsa, but to protect everybody in your community. CHANG: Absolutely. I will totally do this. So do we have any sense of how bad the flu season is going to be? AUBREY: You know, it's hard to predict what will happen here in the U.S., but we can look to the Southern Hemisphere where the winter is ending. Some countries including Chile, Brazil, Australia appear to have had a very, very light flu season. Some of the data is preliminary, but L.J. Tan points to Australia, where there was this huge, huge drop-off in flu, more than 90%. Now, it could just be because people aren't travelling, and they're practicing social distancing. It could also be because there were a lot of people who got vaccinated. So, you know, two messages here - get the flu shot, and continue to remain vigilant with social distancing and masking. CHANG: That as NPR's Allison Aubrey. Thanks so much, Allison. AUBREY: Thank you, Ailsa.

It will be a bit funny if the vaccines make out to the public and things go south on adverse effects, then the recriminations will be--"Well I was anti-vaccine before you were" and reply will be "Yes, but I was more anti-vaccine."

Thanks Kim, I didn't know how badly I needed that refreshing! Played it twice.

Dan wrote this in 2009: What's the Matter With NPR? In short, Bill Gates.

John if you found yourself momentarily accepting of Boris, its only because of wind direction and you were up wind from the stench. Don't see the wind changing direction for a while. In addition to the mask, you night need a clothes pin or air freshener. Morag, Someday I will understand it all but I know we are on the same page.

Shelley--How about "treacherously naive"?

Dan Olmsted wrote this March 9, 2009: "I've always thought of NPR as an unbiased, hard-hitting model of journalistic integrity. It was a window on the world of which I wanted to learn more. Now, if I turn to NPR in the mornings, I always first think, "what crock will I hear about today." National Pharma Radio has been regularly putting out a lot of crock; with PBS they seem to be in a race for the crock pot. https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/08/lost-article-by-dan-olmsted-whats-the-matter-with-npr.html

“People are fed by the food industry, which pays no attention to health, and are treated by the health industry, which pays no attention to food.” Wendell Berry

Interesting that on NBC nightly news GAVI's Seth Berkley said that if just 20% of world's population was vaccinated with whatever, that would "brake the back" of the virus. One might interpret that braking the back of the virus is achieving "herd immunity threshold" which is what the recent JB Handley article has also posited. 20% and Farr's Law applies. https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news-netcast/video/nightly-news-full-broadcast-july-31st-89377349826 at the last part of the broadcast around 15 to 17 minutes https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2020/7/27/lockdownlunacythree?fbclid=IwAR2ta-s3pSwYv9dU5Sh7_PFF0emS3Xm6V7xWTVD--gXwkGBI8q3KWs9066M

Its too bad these physicians didn't prepare a joint press release that could have been distributed. Their main talking points could have been summarized. Not sure if the text would have been as powerful as the video; both could have been done in anticipation of being censored. In my opinion, everything that could have made this country healthier, safer--better, has gone south since the vaccine safety commission with RFK Jr. was dropped. The censorship, the tyranny of allopathic medicine will just pile on until there a systemic reaction is all that is left to cure the body.

John, I can't help but think you are making the House of Gryffindor (and us) proud! We'll leave Fred with his friends from Slytherin. I think the BBC is broadcast out of Slytherin, if I'm not mistaken.

"The survival rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Canada is 99.97%." Where did this percent come from?

I remember reading more than a decade ago about the sad state of peer review and it means very little. I found this which says a lot: "In 1986, appalled by the sad state of the scientific literature, I wrote that whether in spite of, or because of, the peer review system: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print” (Rennie 1986)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875766/

This reads as 27 count indictment! These are facts that the powers that be, the media will not allow to be read, heard or to the wide spread dispersal of this information. Its an indictment of everything that makes Alice in Wonderlands head spin. Just when I think I can't be further disillusioned...........................................................I was wrong.