i doubt politicians get involved unless federal or state government is subsidising a particular medication, in which case they'll likely have to weigh budgeted expenditure against risk.
for example, i worked at the National Blood Authority in AU for many years and learnt that almost all treatments for blood disorders, such as haemophilia, (which are insanely expensive), are provided for free by the federal government. Politics in AU is just as grubby as it is anywhere else in the developed world, but the NBA is a federal government agency. Its decisions are based on subject-matter expertise and deep, scientific research and analysis, and not just Australian, but from all around the world including the US.
RSV is expensive, so when it becomes available here in is AU, it may well be subsidised and so there may be even stricter guidelines about its administration, in particular during late pregnancy. (Canada, as usual, is ahead of the field, having just approved the vaccine for maternal immunisation, albeit unsubsidised).
are you able to show how Canadian politicians have been involved in the decisions to approve RSV vaccination recommendations? Because otherwise, it just seems like you're discounting the work of health systems in favour of a conspiracy theory.
We're not talking about COVID-19 vaccination, which was a historically exceptional, deadly pandemic and had to involve governments in every country, some of which made political decisions in spite of the advice of their CMOs.
Here, we're talking about RSV and other viral infections for which a vaccine has been developed by pharmaceutical companies that they are seeking approval to sell, and for doctors to prescribe.
I've done a lot of googling as it goes, and I've found no evidence of politicians publicly influencing these recommendations or their approval. So again, over to you.
Wouldn't surprise me if someone had managed to follow the money for Hamas' guns and rockets all the way back to Netanyahu, who is clearly a Lex Luthor-level supervillain.
Of course, it also wouldn't surprise me if they were already sinking to the bottom of the Med.
Urfe: I have no program, Mr Conchis. I don't know... I just feel I'd enjoy it more if I knew what it all meant.
Conchis, grinning: My dear Nicholas, man has been saying what you have just said for the last ten thousand years.
(a rare and charming moment of levity in The Magus)
nice try buddy, but i doubt you're going to convince anyone here that you're not, in fact, advocating for the same apathetic, catastrophic collapse of conscience most of us left Twitter to avoid.
censorship - determined and unflinching moderation - is critical to arresting the influence of harmful extremism.
there is no place for 'political neutrality' when the term 'politics' is co-opted to excuse unconscionable, vicious online abuse on very specific ideological or religious points.
if you're genuinely just voicing your objection to The Smiler's inevitable involvement with Muck, then i apologise, but suggest you find some other way to express your concerns.
I’m trying to imitate an Aztec death whistle with my voice, but I sound more like an asthmatic frog who has been taking antidepressants for about a month and is trying desperately to get off but just… can’t… finish.
@hambledown_road
you understand that it was the racist derogation that wore him down, though.
for which the ABC failed to provide appropriate professional support.
for which the ABC MD quite properly apologised.
right?
regardless of your opinion of the man - which opinion I've no doubt many men of your ilk share - the outpouring of public support for Grant in light of this latest barrage of vitriolic bigotry, is a wonderful expression of the Australia I'm proud to represent.
here's another MLK Jr. quote
"A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true."