BBC Urges NYT to Correct “Misleading” Coronavirus Article

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart; The BBC and British Medical Journal has accused the New York Times of getting their facts wrong on Coronavirus vaccines, but the NYT appears to have doubled down on their original mistake.

The original NYT article;

Britain Opens Door to Mix-and-Match Vaccinations, Worrying Experts

If a second dose of one vaccine isn’t available, another may be substituted, according to the guidelines.

By Katherine J. Wu
Jan. 1, 2021

Amid a sputtering vaccine rollout and fears of a new and potentially more transmissible variant of the coronavirus, Britain has quietly updated its vaccination playbook to allow for a mix-and-match vaccine regimen. If a second dose of the vaccine a patient originally received isn’t available, or if the manufacturer of the first shot isn’t known, another vaccine may be substituted, health officials said.

The new guidance contradicts guidelines in the United States, where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has noted that the authorized Covid-19 vaccines “are not interchangeable,” and that “the safety and efficacy of a mixed-product series have not been evaluated. Both doses of the series should be completed with the same product.”

Some scientists say Britain is gambling with its new guidance. “There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.”

Read more:

The response from the BBC;

Coronavirus: BMJ urges NYT to correct vaccine ‘mixing’ article

The editor of the British Medical Journal has asked the New York Times to correct an article that says UK guidelines allow two Covid-19 vaccines to be mixed.

The US publication reported that UK health officials would allow patients to be given a second dose that is a different vaccine to their first.

Fiona Godlee pointed out in her letter to the NYT that it was not a recommendation.

She said the NYT’s headline claiming UK guidelines say such substitutions “may happen” was “seriously misleading”.

The UK has approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab – but both require two doses which are now to be administered 12 weeks apart

Ms Godlee said the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) does not make any recommendation to mix and match – in other words, having a shot of one vaccine and then a different one 12 weeks later.

Read more:

Breitbart points out not only did the NYT ignore the BBC and BMJ’s demand for a correction, they doubled down with a second article repeating their original mistake.

Even the Guardian noticed that British medical figures were objecting to the NYT’s claims. But the NYT apparently ignored everyone and just bulled ahead with their original mistake.

Anyone can make a mistake. But in my opinion, to double down on a mistake and apparently ignore urgent advice from multiple parties to correct just seems plain incompetent.

4.8 19 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
January 6, 2021 2:08 am

The NYT has an agenda and truth and reality are side issues. Things are going to get worse if the early results in Georgia hold up. I need a drink (it’s afternoon somewhere?).

glen ferrier
Reply to  Ron Long
January 6, 2021 2:34 am

Ron: They have two years to act (they will likely lose the house in two years) and there very well could be some defections over important issues like Statehood and court packing. Not all Democrats want a one party Marxist government; nor do they all want to destroy the economy, although a lot actually do intend to do just that. When the US gets sick, Canada catches pneumonia. Hoping for the best.


John Tillman
Reply to  glen ferrier
January 6, 2021 7:17 am

Manchin (D, WV) has said he won’t vote for court packing or statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.

Reply to  glen ferrier
January 6, 2021 9:36 am

With two years to further corrupt the electoral system, we can only hope that they will lose seats in two years.

They have already stated that they want non-citizens, including those here illegally and felons, even those still in prison to vote.

With a few million more votes, they won’t even have to worry about having to manufacture votes in most districts.

Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 10:36 am

The Democrats have also been pushing to have the age of voting reduced to 16.
I’m expecting them to follow that up by a push to have voting rights extended all the way to even the unborn.
Of course young children aren’t competent to vote, so their voting rights will be assigned to court appointed advocates who will be paid by the government to vote on these children’s behalf.

Jon Salmi
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 1:20 pm

You are quite right, Mark. Here, in nearby San Francisco, there is a push on to get 16-year-olds the right to vote in local elections. At the same time, we have psychologists coalescing around the idea that the brain matures about the age of 25. Activities such as voting, drinking, driving and smoking should not be allowed until then.

Also, today’s education has left them woefully ignorant. I have had many young caregivers the last few years. Most of them could not tell me in which century the Civil or Revolutionary Wars occurred in.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 4:48 am

No, MarkW, the unborn is the one group Democrats refuse to extend rights to. They prefer to give the unborn the right to vote after they’ve been aborted, along with all the other dead who are their most loyal voters.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 9:00 am

I dropped out (simiretired) about 30 years ago. At least back then young people were not fully accepted/trusted in business until they were around 30 years old. Their brains might have fully matured at 25 but they really hadn’t developed sufficient applicable experience until age 30 or so.

Winston Churchill is credited with saying <i>”if you’re under 30 and not a liberal, you don’t have a heart, but if you are over 30 and not conservative, you don’t have a brain.”</i>

We already have enough people voting with their hearts (i.e., what makes them feel good) rather than their minds without throwing in the totally inexperienced (i.e., the under 21). We’d actually do better raising the voting age to 30, where most people would have a modicum of experience in life and able to think rationally.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 11:59 am

Elections are conducted and supervised by the States. Last I heard there are a whole bunch of them. The internet tells me:

– Republicans will have full control of the legislative and executive branch in 24 states.
Democrats will have full control of the legislative and executive branch in 15 states.

– Republicans have full control of the legislative branch in 31 states.
Democrats have full control of the legislative branch in 18 states.

– Population of the 31 fully Rep. legislature states: 185,895,957
Population of the 18 fully Dem legislature states: 133,888,565

That being said: The Democrats will have 2 years to screw-up the Nation. This will be interesting, and likely very bad.  

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 8:49 pm

There could well be some sort of “emergency” declared – and no “mid-term” elections at all – not even ‘mail-in’.

Last edited 2 years ago by Tombstone Gabby
Jay Willis
Reply to  Ron Long
January 6, 2021 3:11 am

Don’t worry, the answer is at hand…

Reply to  Jay Willis
January 6, 2021 5:51 am

Not giving the Ivermectin protocol to people in the US (and anywhere) at the first sign of the virus, especially to those at risk is one of the worst decisions made in the history of US health care. Not only would it save thousands of lives, those who do survive have fewer lasting issues.

It is a shame US citizens are getting worse care than those in many second and third world countries. But then, the US is drifting down into second world status.

Reply to  Ron Long
January 6, 2021 3:21 am

I didn’t think it was possible for any of the legacy media to be worse than the Grauniad and the BBC, but I will have to update my memory bank.

John Endicott
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 7, 2021 4:51 am

Yeah, the Old Grey Lady isn’t what she use to be, that’s for sure.

Last edited 2 years ago by John Endicott
Reply to  Ron Long
January 6, 2021 3:33 am

Well past five here.NZ

Reply to  Ron Long
January 6, 2021 3:55 am

12:54, hmmmm

Reply to  Ron Long
January 6, 2021 1:41 pm

The NYT has no need to retract and/or apologize for their article. The Brits acknowledged that the “switch may be needed.” So, it may not be “recommended”, but the idea is still in play. Perhaps they didn’t mean that idea to be verbalized, but their spokesperson let it slip. Seems like the Brits are playing the common game of cya.

I haven’t read all the comments to this thread, but, from what I’ve read, there is a very important aspect to England’s changes. The Pfizer-BionNTech vaccine will now be used “off-label.” As I remember Pfizer early-on said the reason for the two-shot, three weeks apart system was because their testing showed the antibodies produced by the first started diminishing fairly rapidly after three weeks. If that’s the case, waiting 12 weeks isn’t going to do much to ease the Covid-19 problem.

Reply to  Ron Long
January 10, 2021 10:32 pm

NYT and other major journalist outlets regularly get basic facts wrong and they know they get it wrong. But they don’t care.

They really don’t care.

January 6, 2021 2:27 am

Hey the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for their Trump Russia Colluuuusion stories. Who am I to argue that they tell the truth? After all, they got that award which proves they are worthy 🤓

Reply to  Derg
January 6, 2021 5:59 am

The NYT is still holding onto a Duranty’s Pulitzer for a series of stories that denied the existence of a famine in Russia in the 1930’s, despite the fact that millions of people were starving to death.

Reply to  Derg
January 6, 2021 2:18 pm

Let’s see…Do I believe the NYT series on Russian collusion in the 2016 election OR Donald Trump??? No need to answer, it’s a rhetorical question. (That is, if you don’t owe the Russians 100’s of million of dollars!)

Reply to  Tom Wills
January 7, 2021 9:35 am

So the NYT had actual evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, and yet not a single sentence of that series was mentioned in his impeachment. Not even Schumer and Pelosi believe the NYT.

Reply to  Ted
January 7, 2021 2:43 pm

Thanks for the comment – you really gave me a good laugh! You are right…no bit of the NYT series on Russian collusion appeared in Trumps’ impeachment trial. That, however, is not a testament to the accuracy of the Times’ reporting. And having worked in the news media most of my life, I can assure you winning a Pulitzer is a highly coveted honor.

Point is, the Articles of Impeachment against Trump were based only on his dealings with Ukraine. Perhaps it would serve you well to read the NYT once in awhile?

P.S. The Mueller Report confirmed the findings of the NYT’s articles by pointing out over a dozen instances of Russian collusion, many involving the Trump campaign. But Papa Barr came to the rescue for DJT. Interesting to see how DJT repayed his savior – he fired him.

Reply to  Tom Wills
January 8, 2021 2:25 pm

The Articles of Impeachment were based only on the President’s dealings with Ukraine because the Mueller report offered no evidence of collusion with Russia. Pelosi and Schumer both repeatedly made it clear they would push for Impeachment again based on any action they could, and they are showing that again this week, calling for Impeachment because he made statements equal to what Biden and every single Democrat in Washington made during the rioting last summer.

Just because something is coveted by journalists doesn’t mean it is a mark of quality. It’s more akin to a Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps it would benefit you to take a course in deductive reasoning or geometric proofs.

January 6, 2021 2:40 am

The NYT article appears to be factually correct.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 6, 2021 1:19 pm

The NYT article says nothing about “ casual interchange”. It seems to say exactly what the British recommended.

Reply to  Roger
January 6, 2021 6:01 am

The actual quote and the NYT’s paraphrase of the quote are substantially different. Even someone who has english as a second or third language should be able to pick up on the distinction between them.

Last edited 2 years ago by MarkW
Sebastian Magee
Reply to  Roger
January 6, 2021 6:57 am

I’m against MSM propaganda as much as anyone here, but in this case, the NYT sais:

“If a second dose of the vaccine a patient originally received isn’t available, or if the manufacturer of the first shot isn’t known, another vaccine may be substituted, health officials said.”

Isn’t that exactly what the new guidelines say? Or I’m missing something. In reality I don’t know what the guidelines say because I haven’t read them. NYT doesn’t say that this is the recommended procedure.

January 6, 2021 2:50 am

[ Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.” ]

Entirely true over the whole debacle
Mop-head& his populist mob are are a complete disgrace

Patrick MJD
Reply to  saveenergy
January 6, 2021 3:18 am

Pretty much what has happened here in Australia too. The States of Victoria and NSW, you can’t find the Premieres now. I now have to wear face nappies on public transport and in supermarkets which I didn’t have to at the height of the “sc@mdemic”. I was “forced” to take PCR test at the demand of my employer. I was turned away from PCR a testing center and had to find somewhere else (A “drive-thru”).

Heads will roll for this.

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 6, 2021 11:13 am

Heads will roll? I’m nowhere near that confident. Isn’t Premier Andrews as popular as ever despite what he’s done for (to) the place?
Here in NZ, big govt has never been so popular.
They’re here to help, don’t you know?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
January 6, 2021 4:31 pm

Depends what media articles you read, he is popular in the media but if you talk to people on the ground he isn’t. Victorians are stuck between a rock and a hard place as in there isn’t a viable opposition party to put up a fight. Pretty much the same in NSW.

I hear Ardern is now viewed as a saviour (From COVID-19 doom) that is why she was re-elected and formed Govn’t on her own (Which is a good thing. Peter’s is, and always has been, a bully boy).

January 6, 2021 2:50 am

Editor named Wu – Two mistakes, – its deliberate..

Reply to  gowest
January 6, 2021 7:00 am

That reminds me of an old (possibly racist) joke:

The doctor was trying to explain why the wife in a Chinese couple gave birth to a blue-eyed, blonde baby boy…

“I’m sorry, but two Wongs don’t make a white…”

January 6, 2021 3:08 am

Well, who cares?
Astra Zeneca simply doesn’t work, no matter how many doses you get.
Pfizer and moderns are so dangerous, I would not get a single dose from them.
Ugur Sahin himself avoids vaccination with Pfizer.
So, the nyt articles does not matter.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 4:25 am

Alex, if. you believe that you’re a total and utter idiot.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 6, 2021 4:33 am

Well, ask ugur, why he forbids vaccination to the Biontech-Pfizer personell.
Who is here idiot?

Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 6:05 am

Who or what is “ugur” and why should we believe they have any kind of expertise in this matter?

Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 6:11 am

Ugur Sahin is the head of Biontech.
He is the inventor of mRNA vaccine

Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 6:27 am

He’s the ceo of biontech, however a search about him banning staff from the vaccine garners zero hits

Reply to  Sunderlandsteve
January 6, 2021 7:12 am

Yes. Google cares about such kind of searches.
You’ll never find it.
He gave an interview to German television, ARD (the first official channel). In German.
The TV guy was dare enough to ask him whether Ugur did jab himself already.
The answer was (free translation):
“There are legal issues, BionTech has to deliver billions of doses yet. We need every person and cannot allow anybody of our staff to fall out”.

Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 9:40 am

In other words, that’s your interpretation of his comments.
It’s well known that a small percentage of people who get immunizations have adverse reactions to them. This is not evidence that the vaccine is “dangereous”.

Mark L
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 2:28 pm

One of the Vaccines contain Polyethylene glycol, my wife get a serve anaphylactic reaction reaction from that substance. So no she will not be getting that vaccine ever!

Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 2:31 pm

Surely not, even if a few did die like 2 in Norway, one in Portugal, three in Israel…
Anaphylactic shock probablity after the first shot is now officially (!) 1/100,000.
Plus a few left paralyzed like that Mexican doctor.
Plus Bells Palsy…
What is the probablity for a young person to die from COVID-19?
Somewhere 1/10,000?
Or even less?
Why exactly do they want to postpone the second shot or even use a different vaccine for it?
Check your odds.

John Endicott
Reply to  Alex
January 7, 2021 4:58 am

Who said anything about using google?

Google isn’t the only search engine. It’s zero hits on all of the search engines I’ve tried. I’ll never find it because it doesn’t exist.

Reply to  Sunderlandsteve
January 6, 2021 2:40 pm

Here is the AFP “fact checker”
use a translator, if you do not understand German
He “wants” to vaccinate, but it requires “a legal background”.
Translated to human language:
it is vorbidden.

Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 6:04 am

You really will repeat anything that agrees with your biases.

Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 7:26 am

I am NOT an antivaxxer.
I will be the first to take a vaccine, when it is available.
However, I know that

  1. AstraZeneca vaccine does not really work. Single dose of it works better than two. They understood their mistake already and try to get a joint vaccine with Russians. That one may work, even if worse than the original russian one.
  2. Pfizer-Biontech / Moderna mRNA vaccine is not tested. Nobody knows which side effects will develop over longer time. But even now there have been several dozens (>30) severe anaphylactic shocks reported, a few persons even died. Google starts to sensor searches “pfizer biontech anaphylactic”, spewing offcial sites only.
Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 8:42 am

Use different search engines.

Reply to  Philo
January 6, 2021 8:43 am

It is a directive.
All search engines have to comply.

Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 9:41 am

They can treat paranoia these days.

Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 12:14 pm

Duck Duck Go shows stories about anaphylactic shock in people who have taken the Pfizer vaccine.

John Endicott
Reply to  Alex
January 7, 2021 5:00 am

Directive from whom? How enforced? Come on, give details on who is behind the conspiracy you claim exists

Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 9:41 am

Knowing something, and being right are not always the same thing.

1) Bullshit
2) Bullshit on steroids.

All you have demonstrated is that you eagerly believe anything that fits your personal agenda.

Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 11:54 am

No problem. Take the jab.
They do need quinea pigs.

Reply to  Alex
January 6, 2021 2:35 pm

Without getting into details, I am aware of the vaccine reactions that have occurred. No one has died. None. No one has had a serious anaphylactic shock reaction. There have been a few needing epinephrine (Epi pen) but that isn’t a serious anaphylactic shock. What has happen is no different than what happens with any vaccine only less so. The mRNA vaccines, by their very nature are incredibly safe.

Reply to  StevenF
January 6, 2021 11:47 pm

Then you know more than Pfizer themselves
Even they concede, the mRNA vaccine cause 10x more anaphylaxis than any other.
And, you know, Pfizer is not a virgin.
Look wiki, how much had Pfizer paid to set previous scandals.
But yes, continue trust the mainstream media.

Joel O’Bryan
January 6, 2021 3:15 am

The NYT is same tabloid that employs perenially wrong Paul Krugman for economic opinions.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 6, 2021 7:01 am

From the article: “But in my opinion, to double down on a mistake and apparently ignore urgent advice from multiple parties to correct just seems plain incompetent.”

SOP for the NYT.

January 6, 2021 3:15 am

There is something bizarre about observing a scientific spat between the NYT, the BBC and the Guardian, when all three have worldwide reputations for gross scientific incompetence.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Mike
January 6, 2021 3:37 am

Yes, it’s like 3 slugs discussing the finer points of high jump technique

John McCabe
January 6, 2021 3:15 am

It’s selective reporting. The statement is true; it’s from a Public Health England document published in December (, but the bits they’ve missed out make a difference.

Previous incomplete vaccination

If the course is interrupted or delayed, it should be resumed using the same vaccine but the first dose should not be repeated. There is no evidence on the interchangeability of the COVID-19 vaccines although studies are underway. Therefore, every effort should be made to determine which vaccine the individual received and to complete with the same vaccine.

For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule. This option is preferred if the individual is likely to be at immediate high risk or is considered unlikely to attend again. In these circumstances, as both the vaccines are based on the spike protein, it is likely the second dose will help to boost the response to the first dose. For this reason, until additional information becomes available, further doses would not then be required.

Reply to  John McCabe
January 6, 2021 6:09 am

The NYT removes the caveat about this recommendation only being for those who find themselves unable to get the second shot from the same source as the first.

Ian Magness
January 6, 2021 3:20 am

The BBC complaining about the public being misled on scientific matters? Absolutely PRICELESS!
If anyone had any doubt about that, just view the recent three BBC XMas children’s
“scientific lectures” at the London Royal Institution. Paul Homewood at notalotofpeopleknowthat has covered it. Relentless CO2-is-death propaganda from start to finish aimed at brainwashing children under the pretence of “education”.

Peta of Newark
January 6, 2021 3:26 am

On the cusp of doing something## so monu-mental-ly dumb that we extinguish ourselves

Que sera sera

(##) many things in fact…
…Climate Change
…Diesel vs Electric cars
…Saturated Fat vs Carbohydrate
…Smart Meters
…Media – both ‘social’ and ‘hysterical’
…Lawyers, or legions of same
…Medical profit-oriented quackery
…Endless buck passing and blame apportionment
…Thermal cladding insulation on tower-blocks
…Money Printing

January 6, 2021 3:29 am

Fact Checks

We welcome suggestions and tips from readers on what to fact-check on email and Twitter.”

This is very funny stuff….

“Dr Tara Shine, who presented the final Royal Institute Christmas Lecture, describes herself as an “Environmental Scientist

she is not a “scientist” at all, which should surely be the first requirement of anybody presenting the Christmas Lecture, the purpose of which is to present scientific topics.
She is nothing more than a policy advisor/environmental activist/TV presenter. Her main motivation is clearly political, as her website headline about “fairness” makes abundantly clear.
It is utterly disgraceful that the BBC should invite her onto a programme, with the sole intention of brainwashing young children.”

They all seem to have alternative facts

January 6, 2021 3:32 am

Sadly not a surprise these days.

January 6, 2021 3:49 am

FWIW, I read books, technical papers, have candid conversations with people in their respective fields and know in the back of my mind that much of even these aren’t trustworthy but are just more data points. I don’t have time for paid liars and propagandists such as MSM, politicians or NGOs out rationalizing their grift.

I do come here for the comments because y’all are somewhat respectfully ruthless against things that don’t add up. I absolutely need the dissention and the critical thinking that occurs here. It adds perspective and opens up dimensions I would not have considered.

Case in point, the discussion of the “code review” of Imperial College’s algorithm that allegedly started this whole lock-down theater. I can’t say that anyone here was defending Imperial’s work (or at least Microsoft’s attempt to de-corrupt it), but the side debates on the accidental indetermination from poorly written code was priceless in terms of those who were arguing that the failure to be repeatable was actually a good thing when modeling natural processes.

My primary take-away is that in all matters, things are rarely settled and there are complexities within complexities that are discoverable only when the blind men inspecting the elephant sit down and compare notes- and even then there are unknown caveats.

The NYT / BBC are just carnival side-shows along with the Bearded Lady and Bat Boy.

January 6, 2021 3:54 am

I quit reading the NYT when they published the porn about Trumps taxes. Rather nonsensical. Call it the NY Trash nowadays.

John Endicott
Reply to  Josie
January 7, 2021 5:04 am

I’ve been going with calling it “The New York Slimes” for years now. (not sure who first came up with it, but it’s certainly a very fitting moniker).

January 6, 2021 4:55 am

Wow, who to believe – the lying, misleading, biased New York Times or the lying, misleading, biased BBC or the lying, misleading, biased Guardian, or the lying, misleading, biased British Medical Journal…..

January 6, 2021 5:25 am
Last edited 2 years ago by Jamie
Reply to  Jamie
January 6, 2021 7:27 am

how the BBC and other TV media are acting”

It didn’t happen….

Last edited 2 years ago by strativarius
Reply to  fretslider
January 6, 2021 9:41 am

Can not people raise their voices? Should not people try to publicize that as much as possible?

Should not independent media like BBC and other public-funded media be penalised for suppressing that very important fact?

January 6, 2021 5:30 am

The New York Times Infotainment. Little info, no retainment.

January 6, 2021 5:31 am

Hmm, perhaps sowing the seeds for the US post-covid visa policy to read:
“You have to be vaccinated with both doses of a US made covid-vaccine to travel to the US”
(based on the erroneous assumption that some UK residents will not be vaccinated with both doses of a vaccine of comparable efficacy from the UK or somewhere else using UK vaccines)
Not surprising that the US wants to have as many people as possible buy and use vaccines from US companies.
Here is the “bulk price” list that the EU has agreed to pay:

  • Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78 (£1.61).
  • Johnson & Johnson: $8.50 (£6.30).
  • Sanofi/GSK: €7.56.
  • Pfizer/BioNTech: €12.
  • CureVac: €10.
  • Moderna: $18.

Price-wise YMMV, i.e. it will be more.

Smells vaguely like an indirect form of protectionism.

January 6, 2021 5:43 am

Doctors over the globe have stepped up now

Reply to  James
January 6, 2021 4:06 pm

I cannot see a list of those doctors; where is it?

Reply to  Annie
January 6, 2021 4:48 pm

Check the video.

January 6, 2021 6:27 am

BBC: The UK has approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab – but both require two doses which are now to be administered 12 weeks apart

mRNA-BNT162 Pfizer, Inc./BioNTech 2 doses (0, 21d)
mRNA-1273 ModernaTX, Inc. 2 doses (0, 28d)

Seems everybody is wrong in this story. It’s not 12 weeks .. it’s 3 or 4 weeks

Last edited 2 years ago by Neo
Mark L
Reply to  Neo
January 6, 2021 2:34 pm

The way the UK health system works 12 weeks may be the norm.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mark L
January 7, 2021 5:07 am

Given how national health care works in most countries that have it. 12 weeks may actually be overly optimistic.

January 6, 2021 6:52 am

Obviously, today is a historic day. That NYT reaction is yet another sign. What is left is to trust Christ and not anything else; that is actually what was always so. That done, accepting the grace we do not deserve, pray that our words and actions be directed by the will of God.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  EOM
January 6, 2021 10:39 am

Unicorns might help!

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 6, 2021 7:14 am

I am reminded of what my father thought of boxing, which he loathed: “when those two are fighting we win.”

Jim Carson
January 6, 2021 7:36 am

NYT: It’s allowed.
BBC: It’s not recommended.

Can’t both be true?

January 6, 2021 8:42 am

Incompetent doesn’t even begin to describe this. Sticking with the narrative even after being asked to correct it like this at least borders on malicious.

January 6, 2021 8:50 am

Curiously the NY Slimes used to be exerpted in the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung, south German times, not so anymore, as far as I know. No idea if that was a sign of occupation by Wall Street… EU Blue glued at the hip to US Blue, hoping for Biden business as usual? Let’s see if the excerpts recommence…
The NY Slimes, all the lies fit to print, anywhere, anytime…

Danley Wolfe
January 6, 2021 9:34 am

Everything the New York Times is politically motivated. Except the crossword puzzle. You will ask why do you subscribe to this lying rag. Answer is I want to see the lies they are spreading (although there are a few sections that are worth seeing, plus the crossword puzzle).

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
January 6, 2021 10:41 am

Same with the New Zealand Herald. I see a free copy, but only for the crossword!

January 6, 2021 12:07 pm

Back to the future with movie home viewers of “CCP-virus Directors Cut” =

January 7, 2021 4:39 am

The New York Times lies? Is this a day ending in -day?

January 9, 2021 5:45 pm

Recall that CBS News arrogantly kept insisting that a letter supposedly about George W Bush’s military history was genuine, saying “We are CBS, not some blogger in pyjamas.”

But a blogger did what might CBS could hot/would not do – check the font in the letter, finding it did not exist when the letter was supposedly written.

Today traditional media are advertising they are more accurate than newer sources of news. I’m ROFL.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights