7 Comments
User's avatar
BeverlyRose's avatar

Enjoy your writing, attitude, curation, and puns.

Expand full comment
Dave Pell's avatar

That’s my kind of comment!

Expand full comment
Virginia Weber's avatar

Wearing my ProDemocracy teeshirt from you in your honor. You’re the best Dave. Truly the Managing Editor of the internet.

Expand full comment
Kristin's avatar

Mitch McConnell doesn't get a pass and he's no moderate. He architected this dumpster fire, more than just about anyone else alive. Now he wants to suddenly look like he's the reasonable one? He could convince others to join him in voting against, if he truly is opposed, but he has not. It's just optics and he can piss off. No brownie points from me.

Expand full comment
Susan Johnson's avatar

Best source to follow for honest info!

Dr Michael Osterholm

CIDRAP

Center for infectious disease, research and policy

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/

*** Dr Michael Osterholm

CIDRAP

Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy

New podcast:

https://youtu.be/30XobOUArj0?si=o0r_YJOTAvhKlWH7

Expand full comment
Robert Best's avatar

Is this cognitive dissonance I see before me? RFK Jr. has had an interesting career, to say the least. Highlights include successfully pushing the ban on glyphosate (because it's way more poisonous than we were told for decades); successfully driving down the "safe" level of mercury in edible fish (because it's a poison); and writing "The Real Anthony Fauci" that has pages and pages of detailed references and has attracted precisely zero defamation suites (because, maybe, it's all true?).

He's no more anti-vax than he is anti-fish. What he is suggesting is a bit more rigorous testing on the SEVENTY-EIGHT scheduled jabs for every American child in their first 18 years. Are they safe individually? Are they safe in combination? Are all the supplementary chemicals in all the jabs safe in combination, and at those levels? We don't know because the manufacturers cannot, of course, run double-blinded controlled trials on babies, so instead, we kinda roll them out and hope for the best.

Which brings me nicely on to the still-experimental mRNA gene therapies for Covid. Still under Emergency Use Authorisation, four years on, just extended to 2029, coincidentally protecting the manufacturers from any adverse legal action against them. Huh. There are now over 3,400 peer-reviewed studies in the medical literature pointing to multiple harms from these products including, but not limited to, cancer, possibly caused by DNA fragments or the lipid nanoparticles.

https://www.oncotarget.com/article/28582/text/

https://osf.io/preprints/osf/mjc97

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5009375

https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6205

You then ask, "Why is cancer, historically a disease of old age, increasingly striking people in the primes of their lives?" Hmmmm....

Perhaps a good place to start such a scientific enquiry is to ask, "Has anything new and experimental been introduced into billions of bodies in recent years, that perhaps has no long-term safety data because it's so new, and that has led to a truly colossal spike in deaths and adverse events reported to the CDC-owned VAERS system (https://openvaers.com/covid-data)?"

You see the dissonance now, right?

Expand full comment
Joel MacDonald's avatar

Are you sure that that whale swallowed the kayaker?

Expand full comment