GroveHillWanderer

So you only believe things when they're confirmed by Russia? That seems a somewhat foolish approach to take, given that they've lied over and over again about this conflict. Remember for instance when they kept saying that they weren't going to invade Ukraine, right up until they actually did? Anyway, the Ukrainians provided proof of North Korean involvement (pictures of captured soldiers and their ID documents) months ago. Ukraine shares first pictures of North Korean soldiers captured fighting for Russia https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/ukraine-shares-first-pictures-of-north-korean-soldiers-captured-fighting-for-russia/undal6o3l

I said, "up to" those figures, depending on serotype. Which is accurate. The figures for DENV4 in seronegative individuals could not be determined but based on the figures for their seropositive counterparts, would almost certainly be less than 88% for VCD and less than 100% for VCD requiring hospitalisation.

Vaccination means the introduction into the human body of "a substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen." (OED definition). The rabies vaccine fully meets that definition, so it's a vaccine whether you like it or not. Especially since it isn't given only as post-exposure prophylaxis, it can also be given in advance of exposure. And 17 doses by the age of 6 months? In which country? Not in the UK and I doubt if that's the case in any other country either. As per the NHS vaccination schedule given below, a child would receive a total of 8 vaccine doses covering 9 diseases, by that age. United Kingdom's NHS Vaccination Schedule for children under 1 year https://www.nurofen.co.uk/children/articles/what-is-the-baby-vaccination-schedule-in-the-uk/

What's obvious is that from the very beginning and up until the present day, the D notice system has only ever been allowed to be used for matters regarding National Defence and Security. The other thing to bear in mind is that D notices are purely voluntary and have no legal authority. So if the government had tried to use a D notice for something it is clearly not entitled to, the editor or publisher would simply ignore it, knowing there's nothing that could happen to them. Again, from the DSMA website:

Sorry, but I'm having difficulty with that story. D notices (known nowadays as DSMA-Notices) are described on the government's official DSMA website as follows: The DSMA Notice System https://www.dsma.uk/about/ Based on the information I can find on that website, they are not now, nor have they ever have been, used for stories about medical matters.

The efficacy rates given in the WHO position paper I linked to earlier listed the figures for both seropositive and seronegative individuals, and for both infection and hospitalisation, for all four serotypes. Those figures are as follows (VCD stands for virologically-confirmed Dengue): So depending on which serotype you're taking about, the vaccine is up to 88% effective against infection and up to 100% effective against hospitalisation, in seronegative individuals.

I am a Catholic and I don't think it's a major insult to me or others of my faith. Sky's coverage of the Pope's funeral will go on for literally hours. As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly understandable (and acceptable) that it would be interrupted from time to time for breaking news bulletins.

Apparently, it is still true.

True, but there's no a priori reason for supposing that the vaccine will not work, or will have any significantly different safety profile in people over 60, as far as I'm aware.

How does it do that? As they have stated (and as is indisputably true) that have no power to do so. And if they did put pressure on sovereign nations, why did so many implement lockdowns when the WHO said, "we'd rather not do it."?

The article did not accuse Trump of any of those things. If it did, you might have a point - but it doesn't. It doesn't even compare Trump to Hitler directly, it just says (as clearly stated in the OP) that he is using an American version of Hitler's 'stabbed-in-the-back' lie.

The article quite clearly states what he was supposed to have done wrong. As it says, he was, "accused of involvement in a fatal shooting."

And that's why the WHO does not make such decisions, as is pointed out very clearly in the article, where the WHO is quoted as follows: As for "requiring nations to comply with WHO-recommended lockdowns and other emergency measures," that is also nonsense. Once again, as they have unequivocally stated, they do not have that power and if you want to take COVID as the example, they didn't do that anyway. In fact, if anything, the WHO advised against lockdowns (though again, with no power of compunction). Here is the WHO spokesman on the topic of lockdowns in October, 2020. WHO Warning About Covid-19 Coronavirus Lockdowns Is Taken Out Of Context https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/

On the other hand, the paper also states that the data on risks for seronegative individuals for DENV3 and 4 is limited, precisely because infections with those serotypes is less common. That seems to be true for Thailand also. "In Thailand, DENV-2 and DENV-1 are the most common dengue serotypes, although DENV-3 and DENV-4 also circulate. Studies in Southern Thailand and other regions have shown DENV-2 as a dominant serotype in some years, followed by DENV-1, DENV-3, and DENV-4." Epidemiology and costs of Dengue in Thailand https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9810168/ So it seems as though the risk of getting DENV3 or 4 is lower that for the other two serotypes.

The WHO position paper that your linked article references in regard to Qdenga for seronegative individuals, states the following: So unless you're at high risk of Dengue infection, maybe Qdenga is not really indicated at this time (until more data is available). However the efficacy figures the WHO paper gives are much higher. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-wer-9918-203-224?form=MG0AV3

So you actually believe that front line soldiers (some of whom are released convicts) are all going to get jobs as ministers and deputies when the war is over - if, as you mention, they actually manage to survive? If you do believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might like to buy.

20% drop from Europe, 75% from Canada and 23% from Mexico. So much winning. US, Canada flight bookings fall 75%, domestic tourism slows — how to plan trips as Trump hits travel demand https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-canada-flight-bookings-fall-104400058.html

Maybe she was reacting to the article below (just for the avoidance of doubt this is satire). Pope loses will to live after meeting J D Vance https://newsthump.com/2025/04/21/pope-loses-will-to-live-after-meeting-jd-vance/

Here's another article reflecting how the same Trump-specific concerns that led to these travel advisories is also causing a serious drop in tourist numbers. Airlines, Hotels, Cruise Stocks Face This Big Threat as Tourists Boycott the U.S. https://www.barrons.com/articles/airline-stocks-hotels-us-tourist-boycott-9bc8fb69

The various articles about this make it clear that this not just the same as in the past and that for instance, many of the countries issuing advisories to their citizens about travelling to the US are doing so in direct response to Trump administration policies. Here's just one such article. Countries Are Now Issuing Advisories for Travelers Visiting the U.S.—What to Know https://www.travelandleisure.com/countries-are-now-issuing-advisories-for-travelers-visiting-the-usa-11706306

Your memory is correct. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22996-shingles-vaccine

That's the older vaccine, Zostavax. For the newer Shingrix vaccine, the following is the info:

Where on earth are you getting this from? Thom Hartmann is a "radio personality, author, businessman and progressive political commentator." He hasn't been involved with international relief work since the 1970’s and doesn't have an NGO. He used to work with Salem International which is a German charitable organisation and has nothing to do with the US government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann

Totally agree that the repercussions of this ruling are highly significant. However, what this ruling doesn't do, is provide a definition of what a woman is, in a wider sense - as the court specifically pointed out.

I think this ruling has been somewhat misreported and misinterpreted. The decision does not provide a definition of a woman. It simply holds that for the purposes of the Equalities Act 2010, any reference to "woman" in the Act is a reference to a biological woman. It doesn't apply anywhere else. It is based, not on any understanding of what a woman is or isn't, but simply on the way in which, on a matter of legal interpretation, the term is to be understood when used in the Act. The court was at some pains to emphasise this in its ruling, stating as follows: