Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 20, 2020

NYT First Reinforces, Then Silently Debunks Its False Claims About Russia's Covid-19 Vaccine

Western reporters do not like to correct their own false reporting. They rather reinforce it as much as possible. Only when overwhelmed by the facts will they silently admit that they were wrong in the first place. Here is a prime example of how that's done.

In mid-August we exposed how 'western' media lied about the approval for phase-3 testing of the Russian Sputnik vaccine against Covid-19. They said that Russia claimed the vaccine was ready to go population wide. That never was the case.

'Western' Media Falsely Claim That Russia's Covid-19 Vaccine Is Ready To Go

Russia has not approved a vaccine against Covid-19 and it is not skipping large-scale clinical trials. The Russia regulator gave a preliminary approval for a vaccine candidate to start the large-scale clinical trial. [...]

Science Magazine is one of the few media who got it right: ...

One of the false reports we pointed out was by the New York Times Moscow correspondent Andrew E. Kramer:

Russia Approves Coronavirus Vaccine Before Completing Tests

Russia has become the first country in the world to approve a vaccine for the coronavirus, President Vladimir V. Putin announced on Tuesday, though global health authorities say the vaccine has yet to complete critical, late-stage clinical trials to determine its safety and effectiveness.
By skipping large-scale clinical trials, the Russian dash for a vaccine has raised widespread concern that it is circumventing vital steps — and potentially endangering people — in order to score global propaganda points.

Russia had, as we and Science Magazine reported, never the intent to skip large-scale clinical trials. Kramer made that up.

In a new report today Kramer reinforces his previous false and disproven claims to lament about an alleged slow distribution of the Sputnik vaccine in Russia:

Russia Is Slow to Administer Virus Vaccine Despite Kremlin’s Approval

More than a month after becoming the first country to approve a coronavirus vaccine, Russia has yet to administer it to a large population outside a clinical trial, health officials and outside experts say.

The approval, which came with much fanfare, occurred before Russia had tested the vaccine in late-stage trials for possible side effects and for its disease-fighting ability. It was seen as a political gesture by President Vladimir V. Putin to assert victory in the global race for a vaccine.

It is not clear whether the slow start to the vaccination campaign is a result of limited production capacity or second thoughts about inoculating the population with an unproven product.

The Times author reinforces his own lie that Russia had declared its vaccine ready for population wide application. It had never done that. The official registration of the vaccine by the relevant authorities was only a necessary precondition to start the large scale phase-3 testing of the vaccine. There never was a Russian intent to distribute the vaccine to a large population without phase-3 testing.

In the bottom third of his long piece Kramer comes near to admitting that. There he describes that the Sputnik phase-3 testing is now ongoing. That contradicts all of his previous reporting on the issues though he himself never says that. But even now he is getting the details wrong:

The trial in Russia began on Sept. 9, and Russian officials have said they expect early results before the end of the year, though the Gamaleya Institute, the scientific body that developed the vaccine, has scheduled the trial to continue until May.

That timeline is similar to the testing schedules announced by the three pharmaceutical companies testing potential vaccines in the United States, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer.
The Russian late-stage, or Phase 3, clinical trial is being carried out entirely in Moscow, where 30,000 people will receive the vaccine and 10,000 will get a placebo.

Yevgenia Zubova, a spokeswoman for the Moscow city health department, said in an interview that the vaccine was available only to trial participants.

Those last two paragraphs, which completely debunk Kramer's original reporting, should have been at the very top of the piece. They are buried down in paragraph 23 and 24 of a 29 paragraphs story that starts out with an epic repeat of the previously made false claims.

Kramer is wrong to say that the testing is limited to Moscow. As explained on the Sputnik Vaccine website:

Post-registration clinical trials involving more than 40,000 people in Russia will be launched in a week starting from August, 24. A number of countries, such as UAE, Saudi Arabia, Philippines and possibly India or Brazil will join the clinical trials of Sputnik V locally. [...] Mass production of the vaccine is expected to start in September 2020.

That testing of Sputnik V will also happen outside of Moscow has been confirmed by recent reports:

Russia’s sovereign wealth fund will supply 100 million doses of its potential coronavirus vaccine to Indian drug company Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, the fund said on Wednesday, as Moscow speeds up plans to distribute its shot abroad.
Dr Reddy’s, one of India’s top pharmaceutical companies, will carry out Phase III clinical trials of Sputnik-V in India, RDIF said.

It is not Russia that is fudging the testing of its vaccine. It is the Trump administration that is planning to do so out of political reasons:

Eric Topol @EricTopol - 18:10 UTC · Sep 19, 2020

We have the protocols. Now we know how there will very likely be an Emergency Use Approval (EUA) for a vaccine prior to November 3. The company and political motivations are fully aligned.

The criteria for an EUA is that it "may be effective" ...
16. If there was any doubt about @HHSgov @SecAzar's plan to make sure there is an EUA for a vaccine before Nov 3 (see 10. above), then you can read this by @BySheilaKaplan  In ‘Power Grab,’ Health Secretary Azar Asserts Authority Over F.D.A.

In contrast to the U.S. the Russian testing of its Sputnik vaccine will be -as usual- of high integrity and will strictly follow the protocols such trials are supposed to follow. In paragraph 29, the very last one in today's NYT story, the author at last admits as much:

[W]hen medicines are tested, Russia has an exceptionally good track record on managing clinical trials, according to a database of U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspections of clinical trials around the world. The F.D.A. found a lower percentage of trials with problems in Russia than in any other European country or the United States.

If I get the chance to chose a vaccine for myself I will rather take the one which was developed by a highly qualified state financed research institution and approved in Russia than one developed by some profit oriented pharmaceutic conglomerate that is in cahoots with a politicized regulator under the Trump administration.

Posted by b on September 20, 2020 at 12:12 UTC | Permalink


Very interestng clarification of well-muddied waters! Thank you for that b.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 20 2020 12:21 utc | 1

If I get the chance to chose a vaccine for myself I will rather take the one which was developed by a highly qualified state financed research institution and approved in Russia than one developed by some profit oriented pharmaceutic conglomerate that is in cahoots with a politicized regulator under the Trump administration.

To top it off, Gamaleya's vaccine simply has the better science behind it. It uses two human adenoviruses, in opposition to the single chimpanzee adenovirus used by the AstraZeneca one (the Chinese one also uses only one adenovirus, but I don't remember if it is human or chimpanzee).

No other laboratory in the world is using Gamaleya's technology - which it already dominates. Two American laboratories (Moderna and one more that I forgot the name) are testing the untried and dangerous mRNA technology. It is very unlikely those two mRNA vaccines will ever come out to the public; those two labs probably just cashed in their USD 2 billion checks they received from the USG.

This gives force to my original hypothesis: the Anglo-Saxon laboratories are exploiting exotic technologies for their vaccines because they want something the can patent, thus charging astronomical prices to the national governments and thus emerge from this pandemic even richer.


Speaking of AstraZeneca (Oxford), it released its blueprints yesterday after "public pressure":

A Phase III Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Multicenter Study in Adults to Determine the Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of AZD1222, a Non-replicating ChAdOx1 Vector Vaccine, for the Prevention of COVID-19

The USG is, behind the scenes (I already posted the link here in the open thread), extremely worried about this vaccine.

AstraZeneca will try to get what it can get, but the fact is it's game over for them. The thing here is that the Gamaleya alternative is better and if the USA (where the vaccine makers will really make money) wants to get political, it will simply opt for one of the many American vaccines that will come out - ready or not, satisfactory or not - next year. As a British vaccine, AstraZeneca-Oxford will, at best, have to do with the British market, which is very tiny for a big pharmaceutical company.

It is better if they just cancel the trials and abandon production.

Posted by: vk | Sep 20 2020 12:53 utc | 2

If I had money I'd fly to Russia for their vaccine. They made theirs for the people and in Amerika we make it for profits and protect the makes from lawsuits.

Thanks b and vk

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 20 2020 13:07 utc | 3

To be frank, at this point, ironically, it's Big Pharma's own self-interest that might help us to counter Trump's lunacy. There are enough anti-vaxxers around for them not to want a screwed up vaccine and a big scandal that would only comfort the vaxxers and sow mistrust among the population. They need people to assume vaccines are well done and mostly harmless if they want to keep making profit with them. Trump is only interested in a victory in the next few weeks, Pharma business is interested in making profits for the next decades.
That's quite a damning indictment of our Western system, but then 2020 is a milestone, the threshold beyond which it won't be possible to consider the Western liberal capitalistic system as the superior one, if not the best one possible - quite the opposite.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Sep 20 2020 13:19 utc | 4

The Kramer reporting is highly unusual. Normally the important information should be in the third paragraph from the end and now it's in the sixth and seventh last.

Anyway, while I agree that this vaccine should be treated as an entirely legitimate effort I want to add:
- phase 1/2 testing did appear a too lightweight and the article on it in the Lancet has been criticized by russian scientists (
- one family of vaccines can be more controversial and experimental than another and the judgement of the testers can take this in account when considering shortcuts.
- One should distinguish what the makers of the vaccine claim with the political (exaggerated) statements from Putin about it .
- The statements on testing on the Sputnikvaccine have changed over time. In the beginning it said 2000 people in Russia and it listed 4 more countries(UAE, KSA, Brazil,Mexico). That was insufficient. Several of these countries have been omitted since, and others have been added. One can say that the intent to do decent testing was always there but the confirmed planning was not.
- rollout to large population was impossible anyway at an early stage because the production capacity was limited.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 20 2020 13:22 utc | 5

Kramer is not wrong, he simply lies. In the Relotius media this is standard practice when covering politically sensitive topics, combined with omissions.
Of course, many well-researched and truthful articles are published in the nyt, faz, nzz etc. That is exactly what makes these media so refined and what they base their claim to be quality media on. One lies and distort as little and as targeted as possible.

Posted by: pnyx | Sep 20 2020 14:02 utc | 6

The Europena and Australian vassals of the USA would not be given a choice to choose the more authetic option of the vaccine. But Israel would probably opt for the Russian version without consequence. It's over for the West!

Posted by: Steve | Sep 20 2020 14:05 utc | 7

Get your covid 19 news here folks!

Posted by: morongobill | Sep 20 2020 14:10 utc | 8

Kramer appears to have the right kind of nose. It is all that matters

Posted by: Kramer vs Kramer | Sep 20 2020 14:15 utc | 9

@ Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 20 2020 13:22 utc | 5

Nobody is saying the Gamaleya vaccine will be the second coming of the polio vaccine. Whichever COVID-19 vaccine comes out will inevitably be imperfect (in relation to the already tested and tried vaccines everybody takes nowadays).

Your worries are all legitimate. Indeed, Gamaleya publicly admitted phases 1 and 2 of its trials has small samples of subjects.

However, you also have to take into account that the science is solid (two human adenoviruses, a tested and tried technology) and that Gamaleya is the center of excellence in adenovirus vaccine technology. That's why - and not because it is Russian - we can trust Gamaleya's vaccine is, given the circumstances (pandemic), reliable. The fact Gamaleya already dominated the adenovirus technology also explains why it was the first laboratory to come out with a solution - it simply used a tested and tried method it already dominated, while the other pharmaceuticals are basically having to relearn how to develop a vaccine and/or are adventuring in uncharted territory because they want something they can patent.

So yes, we can search and find defects in Gamaleya's trials - but the strongest argument in its favor is not the trials, it's the solid science and technology behind it.

Posted by: vk | Sep 20 2020 14:22 utc | 10

What will the astro-turfed libertarian mob say about vaccines?

My guess: they will support them vociferously.

Because freedumb. And Big Pharma $$$ in their pockets.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 20 2020 14:34 utc | 11

Vk and the wabbit - right on. And Thanks to you, B, for this clear and straightforwardly informative piece (as usual).

Is it any surprise that the NYT uses the usual propaganda format of truth (when it accords with the ruling elites perspective) and lies (when "reporting on" what is happening in those "bad hat" countries)? And might I add that NPR and the BBC World Service do exactly the same thing, boosting the US-UK-NATO worldview (which equals the western corporate-captitalist-imperialist, oh so exceptional, ruling elites world position) while denigrating Russia, China, Iran (and now Lukashenko - indeed the Beeb refuses to pronounce his name properly, always reducing it to the feminine form, and believe me, as born and raised Brit, that's deliberate) via lies, lies and more lies. And via those weasely words: "likely," "Highly likely" and so on and on ....

All that this latest vaccine competition (western) will produce is more anti-vaxxers. And this time round, sensibly so.

Posted by: Anne | Sep 20 2020 14:54 utc | 12

Tuyzefot (5): it is common for the NYT to lead with propaganda and bury the facts at the end of the article.

I noticed it decades ago in articles covering Palestine. I learned to skip whatever was printed on the front page and immediately jump to the final five paragraphs found deep within the paper. I guess they print the facts at all there only as a bizarre way of covering their asses in a feeble attempt at integrity.

Posted by: JohnH | Sep 20 2020 14:57 utc | 13

Just saw this, should've posted here earlier. Highly recommend reading in full:

Kirill Dmitriev: Questions on Sputnik V Vaccine Answered, Critics need to Look for Plank in Own Eyes


The vaccine uses a unique two-vector human adenovirus technology which no-one else in the world currently has for COVID-19.


On the surface the Sputnik V trial with 76 participants seems smaller in size compared to 1,077 people that, for example, AstraZeneca had in its Phase 1-2 studies. However, the design of the Sputnik V trial was much more efficient and based on better assumptions.


The post-registration studies involving more than 40,000 people started in Russia on August 26, before AstraZeneca has started its Phase 3 trial in the U.S. with 30,000 participants. Clinical trials in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Philippines, India and Brazil will begin this month. The preliminary results of the Phase 3 trial will be published in October-November 2020.


Q.: Why has the Sputnik V vaccine already become eligible for emergency use registration?

Because of the very positive results of the Phase 1-2 trials and because the human adenoviral vector-based delivery platform has been proven the safest vaccine delivery platform over decades including through 75 international scientific publications and in more than 250 clinical trials.


Some other companies are using human adenoviral vector-based platforms for their COVID-19 vaccines. For example, Johnson & Johnson uses only Ad26 vector and China’s CanSino only Ad5 while Sputnik V uses both of these vectors. The work of Johnson & Johnson and CanSino not only validates the Russian approach but also shows Sputnik V’s advantage as studies have demonstrated that two different vectors produce better results than one.


The monkey adenovirus and mRNA vaccines have never been used and approved before and their research is lagging the proven human adenoviral vector-based platform by at least 20 years. However, their developers have already secured supply contracts worth billions of dollars from Western governments and may potentially apply for fast-track registration—while receiving full indemnity at the same time.

At the end of the Q&A, Dmitriev counters his Western colleagues:

Question 1: Are there any long-term studies of mRNA and monkey adenovirus vector-based technologies for carcinogenic effects and impact on fertility? (Hint: there are none)

Question 2: Could their absence be the reason why some of the leading pharmaceutical firms making COVID-19 vaccines based on these technologies pushed the countries buying their vaccines for full indemnification from lawsuits if something goes wrong?

Question 3: Why is Western media not reporting a lack of long term studies for mRNA and monkey adenoviral vector-based vaccines?

Those are good questions. Very good questions.

Posted by: vk | Sep 20 2020 15:22 utc | 14

The constant Russia bashing is a disconnect from the truth and the real world.

It is annoying to wade through.

Far more important, it is crippling for a nation if its leadership actually does disconnect from reality and believe its own fantasy.

Disconnect from reality, belief in convenient fantasy, is exactly how the Democrats went from losing with Hillary to running again with Hillary II, the same donors and advisers and influence peddlers pushing the same right wing triangulation by the Democratic Party.

Maybe they can squeak out a win this time. It should not be close.

Far more important, there are things that need doing, things that would win like health care for all, that they simply won't offer or run on. We are not going to get from them what we need, we know that, and that is why they again have a squeaker election even against a joke like Trump.

Posted by: Mark Thomason | Sep 20 2020 15:42 utc | 15

Perfect example of the free and unfettered press at work. What do you mean we're just a propaganda rag? See, right down at the bottom, the bit you didn't bother to read down to, right next to the denture ad, we told the truth. So there! Balanced and accurate reporting!

Posted by: Patrick Armstrong | Sep 20 2020 15:54 utc | 16

Here in US we are getting 737maxed again this time with FDA

Posted by: Kooshy | Sep 20 2020 16:21 utc | 17

Trump’s “national security” state has managed to kill 200000 by him the autocrat in chief to come out and tell the truth as he admitted so to Woodward. This fucking American national security phobia is costing American lives more than all past 70 years of national security wars.

Posted by: Kooshy | Sep 20 2020 16:28 utc | 18

The sick transatlantic mindset is exposed here:

Nice to read the comment on Global Times:

Posted by: aquadraht | Sep 20 2020 18:14 utc | 19

@JohnH 13 , it was hm, a joke. There is indeed rule of thumb that you have to look fore the third to last paragraph. I upgraded it into something of a law, which is then violated in this case.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 20 2020 19:34 utc | 20

@vk 10, I wouldn't call it my worries, just that I think B. posted a version which was too simple and rosy. In the meantime I saw your post 14 which I roughly expected but hadn't read about yet.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 20 2020 20:10 utc | 21

Andrew Kramer's reporting on the Sputnik V vaccine is deliberately written to discredit the Russians and anything and everything they do, which includes the way they conduct scientific and medical research (because it's govt-funded, not funded by global pharmaceutical corporations) and the way they run their healthcare system (not privatised).

First, Kramer says the Kremlin approved the vaccine: this is to set up Moscow and Putin in particular as rash, so that the supposed "roll-out" of the vaccine can be (secondly) portrayed as inefficient.

Kramer knows he is lying which is why his piece is long (he knows most NYT readers are time-poor and want the celebrity news and baseball results) and the most important information is squeezed into the last two paragraphs of his article.

Posted by: Jen | Sep 20 2020 20:17 utc | 22

Tuyzentfloot @ 5:

I tried linking to that Moscow Times article at your link and either I hit a dead end or the newspaper removed the article, which does not surprise me since that newspaper is as credible as The New York Times. It used to be given away f o r free in Moscow but I believe it now exists only as an online paper.

Posted by: Jen | Sep 20 2020 20:24 utc | 23

@Jen, you have to remove the last two characters ').' because I omitted a space. The article in the moscow times is ok and not too alarming. It is also not discrediting the lancet article. Just raising concerns.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 20 2020 20:32 utc | 24

I have read articles claiming vaccine producers in the US and UK have been granted liability immunity. I wonder how many are prepared to accept a vaccine from a producer under such conditions? Not me! Fortunately, I live in Western Australia where we have had only 662 cases with only 9 deaths in an area 30% size of the US, luckily with a population of only 3 million. With this advantage, I will wait and see how any vaccine performs before accepting it, even though the Morrison government is trying to make a vaccine mandatory.

Posted by: Dick | Sep 20 2020 22:56 utc | 25

I know that Modi's fabled vaccine, which was supposed to be brought out before Independence Day (15 August) was quietly dropped from the news and that some media outlets admitted that the Russian vaccine will be tested in India. However, the Canadian propagandamonger Gwynne Dyer, for one, is still plugging away at the line that the Russian and Chinese vaccine programmes are unsafe. This is the same Dyer who also claims that Putin tried to kill Navalny with Nonovichok and that China's locking up millions of Mongolians as well as millions of Uighurs, so make of that what you will.

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Sep 21 2020 0:45 utc | 26

Just in case no-one mentioned price before, the Russian Sputnik vaccine has been quoted at US$3 retail + cost of administering. Pssssst, do not mention this to anyone in the West who will be forced to take a potentially dangerous $300 vaccine every 90 days, at the expense of the national health system (higher taxes). Practically similar to suppressing a 10 cent HCQ pill for the benefit of a $20 Remdesivir pill. Where is the end of the Western crookery? Russia has got capitalism so why is it not as corrupt?

Posted by: Kiza | Sep 21 2020 6:23 utc | 27

@Jen 22
This is a very old Western propaganda technique, not Kramer’s invention. The truth countering pure propaganda from the title and the beginning is usually mentioned in the final 10% of an article, usually as a quote of the opposite side, only for the claim of balanced reporting (auditur et altera parsem) and knowing all to well than less than 1% of readers ever get there. I have observed this technique about 35 years ago and it could be even older.

Posted by: Kiza | Sep 21 2020 6:33 utc | 28

In other news, the New York Times has belatedly admitted that it made a slight journalistic oversight concerning its coverage of (non-existent) Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and the reporting of its journalist/Pentagon stenographer, Judith "Yellow Cake Uranium" Miller.

The Times issued a brief statement concerning its role in promoting an America-driven war of aggression that has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis directly and left hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more Iraqis maimed, injured, impoverished, or turned into refugees: "Oops. Our bad."

Ladies and Gentlemen, America's Newspaper of Record!

God Bless the Free Press!

Posted by: ak74 | Sep 21 2020 6:53 utc | 29

@ ak74 | Sep 21 2020 6:53 utc | 29

Excellent point. We most never forget what was done in the name of defense of democracy.
They hate us for our free-dumb.

I think that the fault for this evil is it's own punishment. America (and it's sniveling followers and lurking foreign influencers) has lost all credibility - if not is vast array of weapons and world currency.

Tyler choses to highlight the childish sniping over the vacine and well that he does but it is a side show, as always. One can be sure that whatever the media is talking about on is a distraction from the important events of the day. The only reason for monitoring the media is either to know one's talking points for the day or to monitor the opposition.

The key points regarding the issue of the virus (which we might hope to resolve):
- Was it the result of military research and paid for by whom
- Was it's an odd event of nature or was it's release planned or accidental
- Some would say that the impact has been significant but mild as compared to some of the more serious such events, but the data seems nebulous, unreliable or non-existent. Of course with all media, science and medicine now having been weaponized, what could one expect. Is the response to the virus out of proportion to it's likely effect. Is the virus being used for political gain - as in is that what this is primarily about.
- Can a vaccine be safe and effective and is a somewhat rushed vaccine more dangerous than the disease. Is the vaccine more about making money than helping people.
OK. I am loosing my train of thought. But you get my point maybe. There are a structure of key issues regarding the virus which would be important to pursue as perhaps this is only the start of a alternate method of warfare. Or maybe its just me as a would-be conspiracy theorist.

Posted by: jared | Sep 21 2020 13:15 utc | 30

Splitting hairs over safetiness vs effectiveness the Russians are being very cautious and are only guaranteeing that they will know the effectiveness of the vaccine on 5/1/2021
At first I was put off by this conservative but a poster to the American Conservative explained why it takes much longer to discover the effectiveness vs the safety of a vaccine. If you live in a country with a population of 140M and about 5,000 cases a day monitoring a group of 40,000 volunteers means that you expect about 42 of them to be infected per month. If you break them into a control group and a vaccine group then it will take months before you can determine a statistically meaningful difference vs monitoring the general health of 30,000 vaccinated people to determine the safety of the vaccine.

It is worthwhile distributing vaccines to the general population once you determine it is safe and probably effective even before the end last trial period. We do this today with the annual flu vaccine. But I bet that people on CNN will make it sound immoral for both the Russian and U.S. vaccines because they hat Trump as much as Russia.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Sep 21 2020 13:58 utc | 31

Christian J Chuba @ 31:

Thanks for that information. I bought a copy of New Scientist (with a Coronavirus Special report) yesterday and the medical news reporter's comment on page 23 airly brushes off the halt in the current AstraZeneca vaccine trials due to a British woman developing transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord); and repeats the lie about Russia "approving" the Gamaleya Research Institute's vaccine with an "apparent plan" to start mass immunisations.

Nothing in the New Scientist about a SECOND woman reported to have developed transverse myelitis in the same trials.

This AstraZeneca vaccine is one that the Australian government claims to have struck a deal with the company to the tune of A$1.7 billion for, to have it manufactured here in Australia and dispensed to the population free of charge.

Posted by: Jen | Sep 21 2020 23:57 utc | 32

I won't be rushing to the front of the queue for a vaccine approved by utterly corrupt and untrustworthy Oz PM, Scum Mo, aka Mr Glib and his Liberal fraudsters. Just today we learned that Scum Mo's henchmen paid $24 million for a $3 Million tract of farm land required for a future extension of an airport in Sydney. The vendor was ... a Liberal Party Donor surprise! surprise!

In any case I've never been impressed with flu vaccines, and am certainly not willing to be a guinea pig for a Brand New one endorsed by Scum Mo's Liberal Party bandits. There's promising research being conducted into TREATMENTS for people who have contracted COVID-19. One line of research is looking at compounds which will kill/weaken the virus. Another is looking at enzymes(?) which will tone down an excessively harsh immune response.
The vast majority of people who contract COVID-19 don't die. I'm confident that I've got the principles of social distancing mastered and am happy to avoid poorly-ventilated & crowded environments.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 22 2020 15:16 utc | 33

The comments to this entry are closed.