The inner workings of the BMJ
Below is further information from Distant Relative to Steve's first item here:
This part is the inner workings of the BMJ website:
"Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine? BMJ 2021; 372 doi (Published 29 March 2021)"
Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n810 All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. ....
It's from another doctor querying the censorship of Dr. K Polyacova by the BMJ: "Re: Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?"
I was very saddened to see the removal of the Rapid Response by Dr Polyakova . The letter was accepted for publication on 2nd April 2021. All responses are checked by BMJ editors before publication.
It is therefore perplexing to know why this letter was acceptable prior to being shared on public media, yet 10 days later it was 'being used to spread misinformation'. I did not see any misinformation in the letter. Only a heartfelt description of staff concerned and under pressure.
The original article  barely mentions that the vaccines available currently involve novel technologies under temporary licence, with phase 3 trials not due to be completed until 2023. This is very different from Hepatitis B vaccine which has a long track record of safety.
If any health professional comes to harm as a result of a vaccine then this will not only be a tragedy for the staff member concerned, but will risk greatly increasing vaccine hesitancy.
Has the BMJ changed its editorial policy on censorship?
Dr Geoffrey Maidment
Url on that:
Or: "Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine? "
Another reply to the same question. This time by Dr Teck Khong GP - Past President of BMA Leicestershire & Rutland Re: Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?
When I was offered Covid vaccination by my GP, I asked him which it was he was offering me.
He thought they were all the same until I explained that there are 7 technological approaches being employed in the making of the 214 vaccine candidates that were in the pipeline or had reached emergency authorisation in December 2020.
This impression of homogeneity has been allowed to be glibly glossed over in the mass immunisation programme.
Equally, it is disingenuous to give the public the impression that there are no potential long term sequelae, no more than is the dearth of information that makes the ethical requirement of informed consent a mockery given the relentless and coercive push of the mass immunisation programme.
We in the medical profession should remain not only vigilant to adverse events in the aftermath of vaccination but must also be advocates of our patients in timely intervention with the most appropriate medicines for any given clinical stage of illness presentation.
Additionally, we must continue to support one another in the understanding of the pathophysiology of causally related adverse events so we are enabled to define with greater accuracy the risk factors of the vulnerable.
Indeed, it would appear that many may not require vaccination while some are peculiarly susceptible not only to SARS-CoV-2 but to developing serious reactions to certain classes of the Covid vaccines.
214 contenders for this particular poke? Bloomin' 'eck.
@KassieTroy [Dutch, now living in Greece] is apparently being threatened by Twitter again. She wrote:
Not going to bother anymore with the fascists of @Twitter. If I lose this account, come find me [at] FrankSpeech.com on Monday.
Noted. We are exploring how far Kushner is behind this. Maybe not but we have good sleuths.
I do recall something about Kushner in with Mike Lindell. Being funded is no crime - it's whom one is funded by:
1. That notion again [Kushner] of out of the frying pan dot dot dot;
2. The way it fragments dissident voices who are then at each other's throats - Torba, Parler, Bongino, now Frank speech.