The CDC says it found Corona Virus in RED Cross blood donations in early December 2019
EXCERPT
What the numbers mean:
In the pfizer document describing their study, half were given vaccine and half placebo. In the general population for worldwide and USA (pfizer is in Belgium) you would expect to see between 181 to 935 cases across a placebo group of 22,000 people.
i hope this is real and the vaccine is effective, and not just some sort of bs marketing gimmick with the data.
Universities usually are bastions of free speech, free exchange of ideas, etc (even if the ideas are not entirely correct, the policy has been to allow people to have their say and let people make up their own minds). It’s interesting that Johns Hopkins engaged in censorship of the student newspaper. Apparently the university now wants to make up students’ minds for them.
Have you never read an article that was followed by a disclaimer like:
This [explain activity] was prepared or accomplished by [insert author’s name] in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the United States government.
Maybe Johns Hopkins wanted more assurance to avoid the (mis)conception that this was an official message from Johns Hopkins.
As a matter of fact, it isn’t true that private universities like Johns Hopkins have had a policy to allow people to say whatever they want to say in publications with the universities’ names on them. All universities, public and private, have a responsibility not only to allow students the freedom to say what they want, but also to protect the students from information promoted under the banner of the universities’ names that can harm the students. Freedom of speech, like all other freedoms, has never been absolute and unlimited at universities, public and private.
It isn’t clear to me who at the university caused the student newspaper to withdraw the article at issue, but it is a reasonable decision in light of the fact that the article addressed issues relating to the probability of death for those contracting a very deadly and contagious virus, the article was posted on a website with the University name on it, the article contained the purported results of research that had not been peer reviewed in the usual manner for such research, the article came to conclusions that did not appear to be supported by the information provided in the article, and the article’s conclusions differed significantly from the conclusions reached by other reliable scientific research on the same topic published by others.
All universities, public and private, also have a responsibility to students, alumni, and others with a stake in the universities’ futures to protect the universities’ reputations for scholarly and scientific integrity. It seems reasonable to conclude, given the facts above, that leaving this particular article on the website could harm the University’s reputation significantly.
To put it more succinctly… The right to free speech does not mean what most Americans think it means.
The constitution is only a limit on government. It’s an agreement between you and your government, nobody else. Your fellow citizens (or businesses) are totally free to delete your posts for any reason. No explanation required.
Exactly. The right of free speech is much misunderstood by many.
It appears UK is first in approving a vaccine.
Fingers crossed.
I'm pretty sure Russia (prematurely) approved a vaccine months ago.
It was all over the news, and widely considered a bad move.
(No offense to Russia or any Russians out there.
That's just how the story was reported.)
Russian marketing gag. That was the beginning of a stage 3 test or something similar. Nothing bad happened.
I found an article from October:
If you don't like Reuters, there are plenty of other articles available (on this subject) online.
EDIT:
And here's an article from August on the first vaccine:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/russia-approves-worlds-first-coronavirus-vaccine-67810
(I don't know how reliable The Scientist is.)
Yes, as I said. It really was a test, else the russian citizens would have been vaccinated by now. Few days ago they started with their soldiers.
EXCERPT
In Russia soldiers are what peasants are in China: abundant, interchangeable and expendable.
IMHO it’s the final test-phase of the vaccin. You might call them human gunea pigs.
Politics is priority #1. Everything else is secundary or collateral damage. Look at the Olympics.
Pfizer given protection from legal action over coronavirus vaccine by UK government.
The UK government has granted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from being sued, enabling its coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out across the country as early as next week.
The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed the company has been given an indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine.
Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications.
NHS staff providing the vaccine, as well as manufacturers of the drug, are also protected.
The vaccine will be made available to anyone over the age of 16 but will not be available to pregnant women because of the lack of data about how it could affect them and the baby. An ongoing trial is looking at this.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on Tuesday under regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 which allows an unlicensed medication to be used in an emergency such as a pandemic.
It also has the effect of granting civil immunity to Pfizer after the government changed the regulations following a short three-week consultation in September.
In a press conference with journalists on Wednesday, Ben Osborn, Pfizer’s UK managing director, refused to explain why the company needed an indemnity.
He said: “We’re not actually disclosing any of the details around any of the aspects of that agreement and specifically around the liability clauses.”
The Department of Health and Social Care confirmed an indemnity was in place for Pfizer and added that the government would be adding the coronavirus vaccine to the list of vaccinations covered by the Vaccine Damages Payments Act.
This pays out a one-off £120,000 payment to people who are permanently disabled or harmed as a result of a listed vaccination.
Not looking for comments on this, but yeah….no.
Not gonna lie, there is definitely a non-zero risk to taking a vaccine that was developed in a rush for a virus we know little about. I’m going to be watching the early results of the rollout carefully before rushing in for mine.
Never thought I would like a politician 
